In re K.K.
2017 Ohio 9098
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children K.K., M.K., and S.M. were removed from their home and placed in WCCS temporary custody after reports of violent behavior by S.M., allegations of long‑term sexual abuse of M.K. by maternal grandfather Randall, and concerns about caretakers’ mental health and substance use.
- Randall and Jacqueline (maternal caregivers) previously had legal custody; Jacqueline and Randall lived in Warren County. Biological parents Staniela (mother) and Glen (father of two children) lived out of state and had histories of drug use and housing instability.
- Agency case plans required mental‑health, substance‑abuse, and parenting services; Jacqueline complied with services but maintained disbelief of M.K.’s abuse allegations and allowed Randall back in the home; Randall moved out of state, later was indicted on sexual‑offense charges and avoided cooperating.
- Children were placed in foster care (S.M. in residential care); foster parents were willing to adopt; M.K. and K.K. were strongly bonded to each other and the foster family.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody after children were in agency custody for more than 12 of a consecutive 22 months. The juvenile court granted permanent custody to WCCS; appellants appealed raising challenges to sufficiency/manifest weight, reasonable‑efforts, and denial of continuances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to WCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence/best‑interest analysis | Jacqueline: she completed case plan; returning children to her was in children’s best interest. Glen: children wanted to live with him; he visited and did not test positive for drugs; only missed some services for cost. | WCCS: children needed a legally secure placement; appellants failed to remedy removal conditions; safety risk from Randall; foster placement provided stability; children bonded to foster family. | Court affirmed: sufficient credible evidence supported best‑interest findings and statutory grounds (12+ months in agency custody) for permanent custody. |
| Whether WCCS failed to make or prove "reasonable efforts" to reunify (R.C. 2151.419) | Staniela: agency workers testified they did not refer services or offer help; thus reasonable efforts were lacking. | WCCS: reasonable‑efforts findings were made earlier in proceedings; agency reasonably attempted to work with Staniela but could not verify her participation; Staniela failed to engage. | Court affirmed: agency made reasonable efforts given appellant’s lack of participation; no reversible error. |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by denying continuance for Staniela who failed to appear | Staniela: denial deprived her of fair opportunity; court failed to consider continuance factors. | WCCS: Staniela did not communicate with counsel or appear; a continuance was not imperative given her prior nonparticipation. | Court affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion under Unger; no unfair prejudice shown. |
| Whether denial of continuance for Randall (pending criminal trial) violated due process/Fifth Amendment | Randall: needed continuance to avoid self‑incrimination at permanent custody hearing because of pending indictments. | WCCS: hearing was within statutory deadlines (120/200 days); postponing until after criminal trial would defeat statutory permanency timelines and was not shown to be imperative. | Court affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion; continuance would have conflicted with statutory permanency limits and no prejudice shown as Randall did not appear. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (constitutional protection of parental rights)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights as fundamental liberty)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (limits on parental rights and state authority to remove children)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (reasonable‑efforts findings and permanent custody hearings)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (state authority to remove children when welfare requires)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (standards for review of continuance denials)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for trial management)