2022 Ohio 4779
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Children Lu.M-R. and Lo.M-R. were removed from parents' home on March 28, 2019 after allegations of domestic violence; Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) was given temporary custody at initial hearing.
- The dependency complaint was dismissed and refiled multiple times; FCCS received temporary custody orders with each refiling, so custody remained continuous from removal through adjudication.
- Adjudication/disposition occurred March–April 2021; the juvenile court found the children dependent, adopted a case plan, and retroactively granted first and second extensions of temporary custody to FCCS.
- R.R. objected only to the court’s retroactive extensions (not to temporary custody itself); the court overruled her objections and she appealed.
- FCCS has filed (and amended) a motion for permanent custody; the permanent-custody hearing has not yet occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may retroactively grant extensions of temporary custody and thereby affect timing for statutory limits | Retroactive extensions unlawfully truncate R.R.'s statutory reunification period (12-of-22 months / two-year limits) | Ref filings and earlier temporary custody orders kept custody continuous from removal; retroactive extensions were necessary to preserve custody and did not extend the statutory maximum | Court upheld retroactive extensions; continuous custody from removal controls and no authority exists to extend beyond statutory maximum |
| Whether retroactive temporary-custody orders violated R.R.'s parental rights / due process | Retroactive orders deprived R.R. of parental rights and statutory protections under state law and the Fourteenth Amendment | Temporary custody is an interim statutory status; granting retroactive extensions here did not terminate parental rights and parents retain opportunities for reunification and challenge | Court held no constitutional or statutory violation; temporary custody is less drastic than permanent custody and parents’ rights were not divested |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (2007) (temporary custody is a statutory interim status)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (explaining the statutory purpose and operation of the "12 of 22" rule)
- In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (2011) (trial court has broad discretion in child-custody proceedings)
- Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (juvenile court retains jurisdiction to take up refiled complaints)
- In re Omosun Children, 106 Ohio App.3d 813 (1995) (agency temporary custody is limited by statutory maximum periods)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (1991) (distinguishing temporary custody from termination/permanent custody)