In re K.P.
2016 Ohio 8242
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (C.L.) had two children, K.P. (b. 2012) and M.P. (b. 2013); FCCPS filed abuse/dependency complaints and obtained temporary custody in Dec. 2014.
- FCCPS moved for permanent custody; a magistrate held a two-day trial (Apr. 12–13, 2016) and granted permanent custody to FCCPS on May 10, 2016, terminating Mother's parental rights.
- Mother filed timely objections to the magistrate’s decision alleging (1) the decision was against the manifest weight and based on insufficient evidence, and (2) FCCPS failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act; she indicated a transcript would follow.
- The trial court ordered the transcript at public expense; the transcript was later filed (June 30, 2016).
- On July 5, 2016 the trial court overruled Mother’s objections on the ground they were not stated with particularity under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(ii) and declined to review the merits; Mother appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by refusing to conduct the independent merits review required by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) in a permanent-termination case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to review objections on the merits because objections lacked particularity under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(ii) | Mother argued her objections (manifest-weight, sufficiency, ICWA noncompliance) were sufficiently specific and supported by a later-filed transcript | FCCPS argued objections were not stated with particularity and the court could affirm without merits review; also argued transcript filing deadline was missed | Reversed: appellate court held objections were sufficiently particular for a termination case and trial court must perform independent review under Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) |
| Whether Juvenile Rule 40(D)(3)(b)(ii) was applied in a way violating due process | Mother argued the rule’s application foreclosed her substantive appellate challenges and violated due process | FCCPS argued the specificity requirement justified affirmance without merits review | Moot (appellate court did not address on merits because reversal on first issue rendered it unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (describing parental rights as essential civil rights)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (recognizing parent’s fundamental interest in care and custody of children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (requiring heightened procedural protections in termination proceedings)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (1991) (describing the severity of parental-rights termination and need for protections)