In re J.W.
2019 Ohio 2730
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- HCJFS became involved in 2015 after reports of physical abuse; children J.W. and H.W. were adjudicated dependent and placed in HCJFS temporary custody in July 2016.
- After extensions of temporary custody, HCJFS moved for permanent custody in May 2018; the custody hearing ultimately occurred on October 29, 2018.
- Mother was incarcerated at the time of the hearing (serving 90 days for smuggling drugs into a detention facility); counsel had warned of likely incarceration and requested a continuance earlier, which was denied with instruction to secure alternative participation methods.
- Ross County jail would not transport Mother or provide telephone/video participation; counsel did not take a deposition or present alternative testimony for Mother at the hearing, but Mother was represented by counsel who cross-examined witnesses.
- The magistrate found permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s best interests and terminated Mother’s parental rights; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mother appealed, raising (1) a due-process challenge to denial of a continuance/absence and (2) weight/sufficiency of the evidence supporting permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (HCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying continuance and proceeding without incarcerated Mother violated due process | Denial prevented meaningful participation and testimony; physical absence violated right to be heard | Mother had counsel; full record existed; alternative methods (deposition/affidavit) were available but not used | No plain error; participation via counsel and available alternatives satisfied due process under circumstances |
| Whether evidence supported permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 (including 12-of-22-months and best-interest factors) | Mother argued weight and sufficiency insufficient to terminate parental rights | HCJFS pointed to children’s prolonged temporary custody (12-of-22), Mother’s relapse, sobriety/mental-health concerns, problematic visits, and children’s progress in foster care | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and best-interest findings; not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 75 Ohio St.3d 418, 662 N.E.2d 366 (1996) (due-process requires notice and opportunity to be heard in parental-termination proceedings)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (2008) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (plain-error standard: affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence producing firm belief or conviction)
- In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist. 1998) (discusses application of plain-error review in juvenile matters)