2015 Ohio 4224
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Child M.F. was adjudicated abused and dependent in 2006 and placed in the Henry County Agency's custody; in 2009 the court placed M.F. in a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (PPLA).
- The Agency filed a motion for permanent custody on August 13, 2014; a permanent-custody hearing occurred on Nov. 25–26 and Dec. 10, 2014.
- On March 10, 2015 the juvenile court granted the Agency's motion and awarded the Agency permanent custody with the goal of adoption; Flores (father) appealed.
- Flores raised three assignments of error about appellate jurisdiction/finality, adequacy of notice and procedural compliance, and the merits/best-interest findings for permanent custody.
- The appellate court found Flores waived service/notice objections because he and counsel participated without timely objection, and rejected other procedural challenges raised for the first time on appeal.
- The court reversed, however, because the juvenile court failed to make the statutorily required explicit finding that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in the child’s best interest, requiring remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 10, 2015 order is a final appealable order | Flores: order is not final because it did not explicitly state it terminated parental rights or use specific termination language | Agency: awarding permanent custody to agency is a final order that effectively divests parental rights | Held: Order is final and appealable; court rejected Flores's argument about need for specific termination language |
| Whether Flores was deprived of jurisdictional due process by inadequate service/notice under R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) | Flores: he was not properly served with the motion and summons; notice defects void jurisdiction | Agency: Flores and counsel received motion, participated in initial appearance and full hearing, and waived any service/notice objection by failing to timely object | Held: Flores waived notice/service objection by participating with counsel and not raising the issue below |
| Whether procedural/regulatory prerequisites (meeting to review filing, amending case plan, specifying statutory basis) were unmet and jurisdictional | Flores: Agency failed to meet case-planning/regulatory duties and failed to specify statutory subsection basis for its motion | Agency: any alleged noncompliance was not raised below and is not jurisdictional; trial court discretion; not preserved for appeal | Held: Appellate court will not consider these arguments raised for first time on appeal; not jurisdictional here |
| Whether the juvenile court made required statutory best-interest findings under R.C. 2151.414(B) | Flores: trial court failed to make required best-interest determination and relied on inconsistent findings | Agency: argued findings supported permanent custody based on custodial history and professionals' opinions | Held: Reversed — trial court failed to expressly determine that permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best interest; that omission is reversible error and remand is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23 (2013) (an appellate court may review only final orders)
- In re Masters, 165 Ohio St. 503 (1956) (order committing children to permanent custody for adoption is final and appealable)
- In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337 (3d Dist. 1994) (trial court must make R.C. 2151.414(B) determinations; failure is reversible error)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (standard for terminating parental rights implicates substantive due process)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (recognition of parental liberty interest in child rearing)