In re K.C.
2017 Ohio 8383
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody of three children to Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS); mother's parental rights were terminated.
- A maternal aunt had filed a petition for legal custody; the trial court denied the aunt's petition.
- Mother and the children appealed the juvenile court's decision only insofar as it denied the aunt's custody petition and awarded permanent custody to HCJFS; neither mother nor the children challenged the termination of parental rights.
- The aunt did not appeal the denial of her custody petition.
- The children's guardian ad litem moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of standing. The appellate court granted the GAL's motion and dismissed both appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother has standing to appeal the award of permanent custody to HCJFS when she does not challenge termination of her parental rights | Mother: She retains residual parental interests and can challenge denial of custody to a relative because that decision affects her residual rights and children's contact with her family | GAL/HCJFS: Mother does not challenge termination of parental rights and cannot assert rights of a nonappealing relative; relief (award to aunt) is not redressable because aunt did not appeal | Mother lacks standing; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the children have standing to appeal the denial of the aunt’s custody petition when neither they nor mother challenge termination of parental rights | Children: They have a personal legal interest in with whom they live and thus may appeal placement decisions | GAL/HCJFS: Children do not contest termination of parental rights; reversing for aunt would not redress injury because aunt did not appeal and may not wish custody | Children lack standing; appeal dismissed |
| Proper redressability when requested relief would award custody to a nonappealing relative | Mother/Children: Awarding custody to aunt would preserve family contact and is the remedy they seek | GAL/HCJFS: Appellate court cannot grant custody to a relative who did not appeal; relief would be speculative | Relief is not redressable here; standing fails |
| Whether precedent (Z.H., A.W., T.W.) supports child/parent standing to contest placement when parental rights not contested | Mother/Children: Analogize to Z.H. to assert children’s independent interest in placement | GAL/HCJFS: Distinguish Z.H. (there both child and parent challenged termination) and rely on A.W./T.W. limiting standing | Court distinguishes Z.H. and follows A.W./T.W.; standing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Middletown, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (articulates standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three-part constitutional standing test)
- Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div., 81 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2016) (distinguishes permanent custody from legal custody and explains residual parental rights)
- Util. Serv. Partners, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 921 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio 2009) (litigants generally must assert their own rights, not third parties')
- In re C.R., 843 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio 2006) (legal custody is subject to parental residual rights)
- In re Williams, 805 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 2004) (child in permanent-custody proceedings is a party and may be entitled to counsel)