In re K.M.
2017 Ohio 8286
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- K.M., born 2006, was placed with friend Tammie Hobart after mother Catherine Houston’s criminal convictions and incarceration; Hobart relinquished custody to Trumbull County Children Services (TCCSB) in Nov. 2015 because she could no longer control K.M.
- The juvenile court found K.M. dependent and he was placed in secured care for disruptive mood dysregulation, receiving long-term counseling; treatment showed improvement and foster placement visits.
- TCCSB developed a three-part reunification plan for Houston: complete drug treatment, take parenting classes, and maintain regular contact with K.M.; Houston made some progress but escaped a halfway house in July 2016, resumed drug use, and was re-arrested.
- While Houston was a fugitive, TCCSB moved for permanent custody; the hearing was continued once but Houston failed to call in for a rescheduled telephonic hearing and did not participate.
- The magistrate found (under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) Houston had not remedied the conditions leading to placement and that termination of parental rights was in K.M.’s best interest; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted permanent custody to TCCSB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Houston) | Defendant's Argument (TCCSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance / right to participate | Magistrate abused discretion by denying second continuance when Houston failed to call in; court should have contacted facility to allow participation | Counsel requested continuance but offered no reason for failure to call; delay requested was lengthy and counsel did not proffer prejudice | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown; continuance properly denied |
| Statutory timeliness of permanent custody motion (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) | Motion was premature because TCCSB had custody less than required 12 of 22 months | Court relied on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (child cannot/should not be placed with parent), which has no time requirement | Court did not err; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applicable and no time-in-custody prerequisite required |
| Manifest weight / failure to comply with case plan (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Houston had been making progress on treatment, parenting classes, and communication; improvement undermines finding she failed to remedy conditions | Escape, relapse to drug use, new criminal charges, and cessation of contact with K.M. show she regressed and did not substantially remedy conditions | Finding that Houston failed to remedy conditions and that permanent custody was in child’s best interest was supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors for evaluating trial-court denial of continuance)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no mechanical test for continuance; review the circumstances)
- In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review of whether evidence satisfied clear-and-convincing standard)