In re K.M.
2012 Ohio 6010
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- CCDCFS obtained an ex parte custody order shortly after K.M.'s birth and then filed neglect/dependency.
- Temporary custody initially went to appellant’s aunt, later to CCDCFS after an emergency hearing.
- K.M. was adjudicated neglected and dependent in September 2010.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in July 2011; trial court held evidentiary hearing in May 2012 and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS with termination of parental rights.
- Trial court applied RC 2151.414 two-prong test and found abandonment under RC 2151.414(B)(1) and that K.M. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; evidence supported abandonment despite limited March 2012 contact by appellant.
- Appellant’s assignments of error were overruled and the judgment granting permanent custody to CCDCFS was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.M. was abandoned under RC 2151.414(B)(1). | K.M. abandoned due to no contact for >90 days. | Appellant argued March 2012 visit negated abandonment. | Abandonment supported by 120 days without visitation; abandonment finding affirmed. |
| Whether K.M. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. | Based on abandonment, two-prong test satisfied. | Argues ongoing parental remedy could have occurred. | Moot because abandonment satisfied the second prong. |
| Whether permanent custody to CCDCFS was in K.M.'s best interests. | Permanent custody serves K.M.'s best interests given abandonment and lack of contact. | Argues parental remediation possible and rights should not be terminated. | Court held permanent custody to CCDCFS is in K.M.'s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1994) (abuse of discretion standard in custody matters; defer to trial court)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (abuse of discretion and weight of evidence standards)
- In re Brodbeck, 97 Ohio App.3d 652 (Ohio App.3d 1994) (presumption in favor of trial court's findings of fact)
- In re T.S., 8th Dist. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496 (Ohio 8th Dist. 2009) (clear and convincing standard in permanency determinations)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (establishes standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)