In re N.M.P.
126 N.E.3d 200
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child N.M.P. (b. 4/11/2007) removed from mother Nicole Hofeldt on May 24, 2017; adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody of Portage County Department of Job and Family Services (PCDJFS).
- PCDJFS filed for permanent custody on June 5, 2018, alleging the child had been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and had been abandoned by his parents.
- Evidence at the July 16, 2018 hearing included testimony from the PCDJFS caseworker and the guardian ad litem (GAL); neither parent appeared at the hearing; certified records from a prior case (2015 JCC 183) were later filed.
- The GAL and caseworker testified that the child wished to remain with his foster family, had bonded with them, and did not want contact with the parents; the GAL’s testimony strongly recommended permanent custody to the agency.
- The trial court found abandonment, that the child could not or should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time, and that the child had been in temporary agency custody for at least 12 of a consecutive 22 months (including the 2015 case); it granted permanent custody to PCDJFS.
- Mother appealed, asserting six assignments of error raising evidentiary and statutory-construction/due-process challenges and a manifest-weight challenge to the finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hofeldt) | Defendant's Argument (PCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the caseworker’s testimony about the child’s wishes and best interest was inadmissible hearsay / improper opinion | Caseworker cannot substitute for GAL; caseworker’s statements about the child’s wishes were hearsay and inadmissible. | Caseworker may give opinion on best interest; child’s wishes can be presented by GAL or child; caseworker’s best-interest opinion is permissible. | Court: Caseworker’s testimony about child’s wishes was hearsay and admission was error but harmless because GAL testified fully about child’s wishes and trial court relied on GAL evidence. Caseworker may offer best-interest opinion. |
| 2. Whether the trial court improperly took judicial notice of a separate prior juvenile proceeding (2015 JCC 183) | Taking judicial notice of a separate case is improper and prevents appellate review. | PCDJFS cited the prior case in its motion and later filed certified copies into the record; documents were thus properly before the court as evidence. | Court: No error—certified copies of the prior case were filed and are part of the record; trial court could consider them. |
| 3. Whether PCDJFS’s late submission of prior-case documents deprived mother of due process | Late supplementation was a "trial by ambush"; mother was not given adequate opportunity to review or object. | Mother was notified the same day; she could have cross-examined the caseworker about the prior case; certified records’ credibility is ascertainable. | Court: No violation of due process—mother had notice and opportunity to confront; certified records were authentic and did not create prejudice. |
| 4. Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires 22 consecutive months of agency involvement (i.e., agency present the entire 22 months) | Statute requires agency involvement for the entire 22-month period before filing for permanent custody (citing a Sixth District interpretation). | The plain statutory language requires the child to have been in agency temporary custody for 12 or more months within a consecutive 22-month period; does not mandate continuous agency involvement for 22 months. | Court: Rejects the 22-month agency-involvement requirement; holds that satisfying 12 months within a consecutive 22-month period (inclusive of prior custody periods) meets the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody of their children; due process required in termination proceedings)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and factfinder credibility assessments)
- State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 1987) (hearsay rule and limits on trial court admitting hearsay)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) allows child’s wishes to be presented directly or through the guardian ad litem)