In re M.A.P.
2013 Ohio 655
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Abuse, neglect, and dependency action filed by CSD in 2009 seeking removal of M.P.; shelter order granted giving temporary custody to CSD and no-contact between child and parents.
- M.P. sustained multiple injuries at five months old, including four broken ribs, spinal fracture, multiple leg fractures, and abdomen bruise; injuries required lengthy healing and therapy.
- Parents, both Mexican, faced language barriers; interpreters were used at adjudication and custody hearings, with initial concerns about one attorney representing both parents.
- Adjudication: parents stipulated to abuse; neither identified a perpetrator of the injuries; parents cooperated with case plan and had supervised visits.
- Permanent custody motion filed February 10, 2011; foster family had cared for M.P. since Dec. 2009 and bonded with her; agency sought permanent custody citing unresolved cause of injuries and risk of future harm.
- Juvenile court found M.P. had been in agency custody for over 12 months of a 22-month period and that permanent custody to the agency was in M.P.'s best interest due to lack of a reliable, legally secure placement with either parent and unresolved abuse sources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to the agency was in M.P.'s best interest | M.P. has bonded with foster family; unresolved injuries justify stable placement | Return to parents possible with support; reunification efforts ongoing | Yes, permanent custody to the agency was in M.P.'s best interest |
| Whether reasonable efforts were made to reunify with family | Agency provided evaluative services, counseling, and home study; reasonable efforts. | Agency could have done more, including Mexico-placement consideration | Agency made reasonable efforts; no reversal on this ground |
| Whether due process was violated by interpreters/assistance | Interpreters provided; no objection; proper procedures followed | Oath/voir dire issues raised | No reversible error; plain-error review upheld |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel due to joint representation | Joint representation at shelter care did not prejudice outcome | Separate counsel should have been appointed | No ineffective assistance; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination of parental rights)
- In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612 (Ohio 7th Dist. 2002) (review of permanent custody under clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (Ohio 12th Dist. 2000) (appellate review of custody determinations)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable efforts to reunify before permanent custody)
- In re K.L., 2013-Ohio-12 (Ohio 12th Dist. 2013) (reasonableness of reunification efforts; placement considerations)
- State v. Rosa, 47 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio 8th Dist. 1988) (waiver of interpreter issues absent objection)