2019 Ohio 1833
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- K.M., born 2013, was removed from mother's care in 2017 after BCCS received reports of neglect and unstable placements; BCCS obtained emergency temporary custody.
- Father (appellant) is the biological father, with a prior rape conviction and registered-sex-offender status; he had very limited contact with K.M. and several years in prison before these proceedings.
- Father was served by publication, later appeared in the case, was added to the case plan, but delayed meaningful participation and never completed required services (including a sex-offender assessment) or visitation requirements.
- Aunt and Uncle sought legal custody, completed a home study with some issues, received supervised visitation that was later suspended for missed visits and they did not actively seek reinstatement.
- K.M. has lived for a significant period in a foster home with her younger sister, is bonded with the foster parents (calls them “Mommy” and “Daddy”), is thriving, and the foster parents expressed interest in adopting both children.
- Juvenile court granted BCCS permanent custody; father appealed asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, that relatives should have received custody, and that the permanent-custody decision lacked clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | BCCS’s/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Service by publication was insufficient; court lacked jurisdiction to terminate parental rights | Father knew of proceedings, appeared and participated without objecting; waived challenge | Court: Jurisdiction proper; father waived objection by appearing and participating |
| Legal custody to relatives (Aunt/Uncle) | Aunt/Uncle were willing, had approved home study, attended visits; granting them custody served family unity | BCCS made reasonable efforts; K.M. was bonded to foster family; changing placement would risk trauma | Court: Denied legal custody to relatives; permanent custody to BCCS served child’s best interest |
| Permanent custody sufficiency / manifest weight | Father: Decision not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; against manifest weight | Evidence showed 12-of-22 months in agency custody, child thriving in foster home, parents not viable, relatives not clearly superior | Court: Sufficient and convincing evidence supported permanent custody; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (personal-jurisdiction principles and waiver by appearance)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard for civil cases and reviewing credibility of factfinder)