2019 Ohio 1053
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Veronica Pease (mother) filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from a 2015 juvenile-court order that terminated her parental rights and granted Lake County JFS permanent custody of her daughter N.P.
- N.P. was placed in foster care, moved to paternal grandparents in Georgia (intended adoption) in July 2016, then that placement disrupted in July 2017 and N.P. returned to foster care in Ohio.
- Pease moved (May 2018) to vacate the permanent-custody judgment, asserting changed circumstances: the proposed grandparent adoption failed and she is now able to parent N.P.; she relied on Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5).
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing (Aug. 2, 2018), heard testimony and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, and summarily denied the 60(B) motion.
- On appeal, Pease did not provide a hearing transcript; the appellate court reviewed whether the record showed operative facts supporting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) or (5) and whether the trial court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pease) | Defendant's Argument (JFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pease is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) because the permanent-custody order’s prospective effect is undermined by the disrupted grandparent placement | The permanent-custody order relied in part on an intended grandparent adoption; the disruption nullifies that basis so prospective application is inequitable | No evidence the permanent-custody order depended on that placement; N.P. wasn’t placed with grandparents until after rights were terminated; the original decision remains legally sound | Denied — record lacked operative facts showing (B)(4) relief; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Pease is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) based on changed parental circumstances (now able to parent; caring for siblings) | She has materially improved her circumstances and can now care for N.P.; equity favors vacatur so she may reassert parental interest | No evidentiary support in the record for claimed changed circumstances; changes in circumstances do not by themselves impeach the original legal judgment | Denied — insufficient evidence of extraordinary grounds under (B)(5); trial court’s exercise of discretion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (procedural test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (standard: Civ.R. 60(B) rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (discusses parental opportunity interest cited in secondary authority)
- In re McBride, 110 Ohio St.3d 19 (2006) (Ohio statutory scheme does not permit terminated parents to unilaterally seek custody reinstatement)