2018 Ohio 3817
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- V.H. is the mother of nine children; the trial court on October 17, 2016 terminated her parental rights as to five children (born 2006–2014) and awarded permanent custody to Lucas County Children’s Services (LCCS).
- V.H. appealed; this court affirmed the October 17, 2016 judgment on June 23, 2017.
- On November 30, 2017 V.H. (pro se) filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking to vacate the October 17, 2016 judgment, alleging the case was “built on fraud” and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion was not served on LCCS.
- The juvenile court denied the motion on December 22, 2017, concluding V.H. lacked standing because parents cease to be parties once permanent custody is granted to the agency.
- V.H. appealed the denial, arguing her motion was timely and asserted meritorious claims; LCCS argued mootness, res judicata, lack of standing, and failure to satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file Civ.R. 60(B) after permanent custody | V.H.: she may move to vacate; no final order regarding some custody matters when she filed | LCCS: parents cease to be parties after permanent custody; nonparties lack standing to bring Civ.R. 60(B) motions | Court: V.H. lacked standing; R.C. 2151.414(F) removes parents as parties once permanent custody is ordered |
| Timeliness of the 60(B) motion | V.H.: motion filed 25 days after judgment (thus timely) | LCCS: motion filed more than one year after October 17, 2016 judgment; untimely | Court: motion was filed Nov. 30, 2017 (over 13 months after judgment), so not within one-year window for certain 60(B) grounds |
| Adequacy of pleaded grounds (fraud / ineffective counsel) | V.H.: alleged fraud and ineffective assistance of counsel; meritorious defense exists | LCCS: allegations were conclusory; ineffective assistance is not an appropriate Civ.R. 60(B) basis in this posture; no meritorious defense shown | Court: V.H. did not meet Civ.R. 60(B) requirements and, in any event, lacked standing to pursue relief |
| Court authority to vacate after appellate affirmance | V.H.: trial court could vacate judgment | LCCS: trial court lacks authority to vacate a judgment already affirmed on appeal | Court: trial court lacked authority to vacate the October 17, 2016 judgment after it was affirmed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (establishes three-part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (explains that failure to satisfy any GTE element requires denial of a 60(B) motion)
- Eubank v. Anderson, 119 Ohio St.3d 349 (2008) (discusses appellate standard and principles related to Civ.R. 60(B) review)