2019 Ohio 2383
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother is parent of four children (D.T., L.H.1, L.H.2, and S.H.) and had custody of a minor brother (Brother); prior proceedings alleged domestic violence and physical abuse by Father.
- In April 2017 D.T., L.H.1, and L.H.2 were adjudicated dependent; Mother appealed and this court later reversed those adjudications for lack of admissible hearsay.
- In September 2017 a caseworker was initially denied entry to Mother's home, later smelled a strong odor of marijuana inside, and discovered S.H. and Brother lived there; Mother tested negative for drugs.
- S.H. and Brother were adjudicated dependent in late 2017/early 2018; ex parte emergency temporary custody removed the children to agency custody.
- In March–June 2018 new complaints and adjudications were pursued for D.T., L.H.1, and L.H.2 based in large part on videos posted to Father’s Facebook showing Father smoking marijuana and making threats/bragging about choking in the children’s presence; Mother did not testify at hearings.
- The juvenile court ultimately adjudicated D.T., L.H.1, L.H.2, and S.H. dependent; Mother appealed challenging adjudications under R.C. 2151.04(C) and (D) and sought Civ.R. 60(B) relief for S.H.’s December 2017 adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.H.’s December 2017 adjudication under R.C. 2151.04(C) should be vacated via Civ.R. 60(B) | The magistrate relied on evidence (videos, hearings) that postdated S.H.’s December 2017 adjudication; collateral use of evidence from other children’s proceedings denied Mother due process | The magistrate/juvenile court was or should have been aware of the video evidence at the time of the ex parte hearing and Mother had later opportunities to contest that evidence | Reversed as to denial of Civ.R. 60(B) for S.H.; magistrate improperly relied on evidence not presented in S.H.’s case—remanded for hearing on 60(B) limited to S.H.’s proceedings |
| Whether D.T., L.H.1, L.H.2 are dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C) (condition/environment) | Mother argued videos were dated and not probative of current conditions; home and children’s basic needs were met; Mother consistently tested negative | Agency relied on videos showing Father smoking marijuana and threatening/admiring violence in children’s presence plus odor detected during home visit and Mother’s lack of protective concern | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of dependency under 2151.04(C) based on drug exposure in children’s presence, domestic-violence indicators, and Mother’s lack of protective capacity |
| Whether D.T., L.H.1, L.H.2 are dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D) (prior sibling adjudication) | Mother argued S.H.’s adjudication was invalid and thus could not support D.(D)(1) | State relied on existing adjudication of S.H. to satisfy the statutory prerequisite | Affirmed: dependency under 2151.04(D) upheld because S.H.’s adjudication remains effective pending remand; element (1) satisfied |
| Whether magistrate/juvenile court violated due process by relying on evidence not presented in a specific child’s adjudicatory hearing | Mother argued use of evidence from other children’s hearings deprived her of notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest for S.H. | State argued Mother had opportunities later to litigate same evidence in related hearings | Court agreed with Mother as to S.H.: using evidence not presented in S.H.’s proceeding violated due process for purposes of the Civ.R. 60(B) ruling; remedial remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- In re Burrell, 58 Ohio St.2d 37 (1979) (parental conduct considered as part of child’s environment for dependency)
- Williams v. Dollison, 62 Ohio St.2d 297 (1980) (due-process principle: right to be present and contest material facts)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and manner)