In re M.T.
2017 Ohio 1334
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- WCCS removed M.T. (born Jan. 2012) from parents on Oct. 3, 2014; child remained in foster care and WCCS filed for permanent custody Aug. 8, 2016.
- Parents agreed M.T. was a dependent child; case plan goal was reunification—required housing, employment, sobriety, parenting classes, and communication with WCCS/GAL.
- Mother abandoned the child and made no meaningful contact after Dec. 2014. Father completed some services (drug/alcohol assessment, parenting and bonding classes) and attended most supervised weekly visits but remained homeless, failed to provide an address, and was often unreachable by WCCS and the GAL.
- WCCS alleged the child had been in agency custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest; the GAL recommended permanent custody to WCCS.
- Juvenile court granted WCCS permanent custody, finding clear and convincing evidence for statutory grounds and that permanent custody was in M.T.’s best interest. Father appealed, raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.T. could be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent | WCCS: child could not be placed with parents within reasonable time because of abandonment and father’s ongoing homelessness and failure to remediate | Father: disputed court’s finding; points to partial compliance and alleged WCCS failures to facilitate reunification | Moot—trial court also found child in custody >12 months of 22-month period, which alone satisfies statutory second-prong requirement |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | WCCS/GAL: foster placement stable; child bonded with foster family; father failed to secure housing or maintain meaningful contact; mother abandoned child | Father: argues agency failed to facilitate reunification and caseworker turnover impeded his efforts | Affirmed—court found clear and convincing evidence permanent custody to WCCS served child’s best interest |
| Whether untimely GAL report (filed 4 days before hearing) violated father’s due process rights | Father: Sup.R. 48 requires GAL final report ≥7 days prior; late report prejudiced his ability to defend | State/WCCS: report was provided to counsel, GAL testified and was cross-examined; no prejudice shown | Denied—rule noncompliance didn’t deny due process; counsel received report and cross-examined GAL |
| Whether appellate standard of review supports reversal | Father: factual conflicts and alleged procedural error require reversal | WCCS: juvenile court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence; appellant failed to show prejudice or manifest-weight error | Affirmed—appellate review finds evidence sufficient; no clear/convincing conflict warranting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires clear-and-convincing proof before terminating parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental right to care, custody, and management of children is a fundamental liberty interest)