In re M.W. Children, 2019 Ohio 948

Mother (started case at age 16; now 19) had three children placed in HCJFS temporary custody after drug exposure at birth and uncertain living arrangements; children adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
HCJFS provided reunification services; mother participated inconsistently but later completed parenting classes and therapy near the end of the case.
HCJFS moved for permanent custody; multiple continuances occurred largely due to the father’s changing counsel; trial ultimately held June 5 and June 22, 2018.
Mother missed both custody hearing dates, citing transportation problems; counsel offered to call mother as a witness but the magistrate and later the juvenile court denied mother’s request to testify.
Magistrate granted HCJFS permanent custody; juvenile court overruled mother’s objections without taking additional evidence and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Appellate court reversed, holding the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying mother the opportunity to testify at the objections hearing and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying mother the opportunity to testify violated her due-process/right-to-be-present protections in a permanent-custody proceeding	Mother argued she was denied a reasonable opportunity to be present and to testify to rebut HCJFS on reunification progress and best-interest factors	HCJFS argued docket management, past delays, and mother’s earlier failures to complete services justified denying testimony	Court held denial was an abuse of discretion; mother should have been permitted to testify (reversed and remanded)
Whether weight of the evidence supported permanent custody	Mother argued the evidence did not adequately establish that children could not be returned or that termination was in their best interests	HCJFS argued clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody after prolonged services and partial compliance	Court found this issue moot in light of reversal on testimony issue; not decided on merits

In re R.K., 95 N.E.3d 394 (Ohio 2018) (parent-child bond and procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
In re Cunningham, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (Ohio 1979) (children's best interests are the controlling inquiry)
In re Murray, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 1990) (parental interest in care, custody, and control is constitutionally protected)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental right to make decisions concerning care and custody is protected)
In re Hayes, 679 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1997) (state must afford procedural and substantive protections when seeking to terminate parental rights)