2020 Ohio 350
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Tuscarawas County JFS filed (July 11, 2018) neglect/dependency complaints concerning K.M. and six siblings due to unstable housing, appellant Krista N.'s drug use (marijuana, methamphetamine, MDMA) and mental-health issues.
- On August 10, 2018 the seven children were adjudicated neglected/dependent and placed in temporary custody with various caregivers; TCJFS prepared a reunification case plan.
- On May 8, 2019 TCJFS moved to modify dispositions: seeking permanent custody for some siblings and legal custody to kin for others; an evidentiary hearing was held July 11, 2019.
- The trial court (Aug. 2, 2019) granted permanent custody of K.M. to TCJFS, finding the mother continued to test positive for drugs, failed to complete case-plan tasks, and presented problematic testimony.
- Appellant appealed; appellate counsel filed a conditional Anders brief and motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising one potential error (that the trial court’s decision was contrary to law).
- The Fifth District conducted an Anders review, found no arguable merit to the appeal, affirmed the juvenile court’s permanent-custody order, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and announced it will no longer accept Anders briefs in permanent-custody/legal-custody cases going forward.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of K.M. to TCJFS | Krista argued the trial court’s decision was contrary to law (challenged modification/ disposition) | TCJFS introduced evidence of ongoing neglect risk: mother’s continued drug positives, failure to complete case-plan, unstable parenting/home | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody; no meritorious appellate claim |
| Whether Anders procedure was appropriate and complied with here | Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders after reviewing the record, asserting appeal frivolous | Court noted Anders has been applied to parental-rights cases historically but recognized other districts restrict Anders in such cases | Court accepted Anders procedures for this appeal (found counsel followed Anders), completed independent review, but announced it will no longer accept Anders briefs in permanent-custody or legal-custody appeals going forward |
| Whether appellant received adequate notice/opportunity to file a pro se brief | Appellant did not file a pro se brief; counsel asserted appellant was notified of right to respond | Record showed some uncertainty about service of the court’s notice, but counsel provided notice to appellant’s address | Court concluded adequate notice existed to proceed with Anders review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (established procedures and criteria for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Morris v. Lucas County Children's Services Board, 49 Ohio App.3d 86 (6th Dist. 1988) (applied Anders procedures to appeals involving termination of parental rights)