In re M.A.
2018 Ohio 209
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Three children (ages 5, 6, 8) were removed by Monroe County Department of Job and Family Services (MCDJFS) on May 12, 2015; adjudicated abused/neglected and placed in agency temporary custody.
- Mother was arrested after adjudication, incarcerated for much of the case, released in Sept. 2016, and had ongoing substance abuse, unstable housing/employment, and risky relationships.
- Maternal grandmother sought involvement; initially excluded from the case plan but later included; she never filed a motion for custody, did not testify at trial, and told the court she did not want custody.
- MCDJFS moved for permanent custody on Aug. 22, 2016, asserting the children had been in agency custody for more than 12 of 22 months and could not be placed with Mother or Grandmother within a reasonable time.
- After evidentiary hearings and in-camera interviews of the children, the juvenile court found the children had been in agency custody for over 12 consecutive months and that permanent custody to the agency was in the children’s best interests; parental rights of Mother (and Father) were terminated.
- Mother and Grandmother timely appealed; grandmother raised standing and other procedural/evidentiary claims, Mother argued the permanent custody finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grandmother's standing to appeal | Grandmother contends agency and court erred in custody process and evidentiary rulings affecting her grandchildren | Grandmother never filed a custody motion, did not testify, informed court she did not want custody; thus lacks standing | No standing: appeal meritless because grandmother did not take required procedural steps to obtain custody and therefore cannot complain about others' rights |
| Statutory ground for permanent custody (12-of-22 months) | Mother argued agency’s listing of alternative statutory grounds required proof under a different subsection (placement within reasonable time) | Agency needed to prove only one statutory ground; 12-of-22-months ground was met | Held: Agency satisfied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); meeting one ground suffices so court properly relied on the 12-months ground |
| Best-interest determination | Mother argued permanent custody was not supported by clear and convincing evidence of children's best interests | Agency and court cited children's improved wellbeing in foster care, children's expressed desire to remain with foster parents, Mother's instability, incarceration, substance abuse, and household safety concerns | Held: Court’s best-interest finding upheld as supported by clear and convincing evidence (trial court considered statutory factors sufficiently) |
| Evidentiary and procedural objections (hearsay, GAL report, ineffective assistance) | Grandmother alleged hearsay admission, improper handling of the GAL opinion/report, and ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced her | Court found grandmother lacked standing; moreover, the record supported the agency and trial court findings regarding custody and best interests | Held: These claims were subsumed under lack of standing as to grandmother; Mother's challenges did not show reversible error; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (explains grandparents do not have inherent legal rights simply from relationship)
- In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213 (grandparent rights are not automatic; legal avenues required)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (grandparent may acquire rights by filing custody motions to gain standing)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)