2022 Ohio 3263
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- LCCS filed a dependency/neglect complaint June 4, 2020; mother consented to dependency July 20, 2020 and the children were placed with relatives, then later moved to Arizona and ultimately separated into foster care after kinship placements disrupted.
- Mother has a long history of substance-abuse treatment referrals (multiple providers from 2019–2022) and multiple discharges for noncompliance and continued drug use; last discharged January 7, 2022.
- LCCS moved for permanent custody June 24, 2021; the permanent-custody hearing was set for January 26, 2022; mother did not appear and her counsel said he had notified her and spoken to her that morning.
- Caseworker testimony: children had been in agency custody about 15 months; younger child (N.H.) is thriving in placement; older child (L.H.) has significant behavioral and trauma-related diagnoses and has had multiple placement disruptions.
- Guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to LCCS; the juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1),(2),(4),(14) applied and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests, and entered judgment March 1, 2022.
- Mother appealed on two grounds: (1) award was against the manifest weight of the evidence (not in the children’s best interests), and (2) due-process violation for lack of notice. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | LCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was against the manifest weight / not in children’s best interests | Mother argued the court should have considered kin/family-friend placement (e.g., "Kim") and that permanency was premature | LCCS argued mother repeatedly failed to remedy conditions (substance abuse noncompliance), children had been in custody 15 months, and kin was not approved or shown to be a suitable, timely alternative | Affirmed: sufficient competent, credible evidence supports R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and that permanent custody was in children’s best interests |
| Whether mother’s due-process rights were violated by lack of notice of the permanent custody hearing | Mother claimed she never received notice of the Jan. 26, 2022 hearing and was deprived of opportunity to be heard | LCCS showed certified-mail service to mother and service/notice to mother’s counsel; counsel said he had told mother of the date, so mother had constructive/actual notice via counsel | Affirmed: notice was adequate under R.C. 2151.29 and Juv.R. practice; no due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978) (appellate review defers to trial court where some competent, credible evidence supports the judgment)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409, 875 N.E.2d 582 (2007) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard but does not always require actual notice)
- In re D.H., 177 Ohio App.3d 246, 894 N.E.2d 364 (2008) (notice to counsel and counsel’s communication to parent can satisfy notice requirements)