In re K.T.
2017 Ohio 2638
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Three children (M.G., A.G., K.T.) were adjudicated dependent after domestic violence and parental substance abuse; placed in temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB).
- Parents failed reunification: Mother continued drug use and was convicted for giving methadone to K.T.; Father T. and Father G. had periods of incarceration/absence. Grandmother lived with the family and had documented mental-health concerns and history of failing to protect the children.
- CSB moved for permanent custody; parents and grandmother initially supported grandmother’s legal custody alternative; trial court granted CSB permanent custody but based its first-prong finding on the “12 of 22 months” ground.
- This Court reversed the original permanent-custody judgment because the “12 of 22” ground was improperly before the trial court and remanded for further proceedings limited to correcting that error.
- On remand the trial court made additional findings (abandonment, stipulations that children could not be placed with parents, prior criminal conduct) and again granted CSB permanent custody; motion to dismiss and motions for legal custody were denied.
- Appeals were consolidated; this Court affirmed the remand judgment and limited review to issues properly before it after remand.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of appeal after remand | Appellants sought to relitigate original hearing issues | Only matters arising from or preserved for remand are reviewable | Court limited review to trial-court actions on remand and prior-appellate issues not previously addressed |
| Dismissal/termination for exceeding statutory 2-year temporary custody limit | Mother/Grandmother: trial court must dismiss or terminate because temporary custody exceeded two years under R.C. 2151.353(G)/2151.415(D)(4) | CSB: trial court did not extend temporary custody; it entered a new permanent-custody judgment on remand | Court: no statutory violation because remand resulted in a new permanent-custody order rather than an extension of temporary custody |
| Need for new evidentiary hearing on remand | Parents: remand required a new hearing (due process) | CSB: remand only required correction of the defective factual finding; trial court could rely on existing record | Court: no new hearing required; trial court could make proper findings from the original record and parents did not request a new hearing |
| Withdrawal of purported voluntary relinquishment / stipulation | Mother/Father T.: they withdrew prior relinquishment and should have been allowed to withdraw stipulations on remand | CSB: parents’ stipulations were treated as concessions to the first-prong and were properly considered on remand | Court: parents did not actually effect a full relinquishment; stipulations operated as concessions and could be considered on remand; withdrawal was not required |
| Award of permanent custody vs. legal custody to grandmother | Grandmother: court should have awarded her legal custody instead of terminating parental rights | CSB: permanent custody is in children's best interest given safety/need for permanence and lack of suitable relatives | Court: affirmed permanent custody; best-interest factors favored CSB (safety concerns, grandmother’s failure to protect, foster placement stability) |
| Weight/admission of guardian ad litem (GAL) testimony | Grandmother: GAL failed to investigate fully and was biased due to prior CSB employment; admission was error | CSB: GAL testimony and report admissible; issues go to weight not admissibility | Court: no plain error—Grandmother did not object at trial; even without GAL opinion, other evidence supported the result |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. National Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bureau Emp. Servs., 88 Ohio St.3d 577 (2000) (scope of issues after remand is limited)
- State v. Gillard, 78 Ohio St.3d 548 (1997) (remand-scope principles)
- State v. D'Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141 (1995) (issues that could have been raised earlier are barred on remand)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody standard requires clear-and-convincing proof of both statutory prongs)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain-error standard for appellate review)
- State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (2015) (criminal plain-error standard explained)