In re P.L.H.
2018 Ohio 3853
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child P.L.H. born in Ohio Nov. 3, 2015; mother lived in/has ties to Florida; putative father (Father) lives in Michigan. Mother placed the child with prospective adoptive parents and filed for adoption in Butler County Probate Court the day after birth; placement approved and adoption petition filed.
- Father filed a parentage complaint and custody motion in Butler County Juvenile Court in Dec. 2015; juvenile court dismissed those filings because adoption proceedings were pending in probate court. Father did not appeal that dismissal.
- Probate court granted the adoption in Aug. 2016; Father appealed. This court affirmed, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed in July 2017, directing the probate court to vacate the adoption and dismiss the petition.
- After the Supreme Court decision, Father filed a new parentage complaint and custody motion in July 2017 and asked the juvenile court (in a jurisdictional memorandum) for relief under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the 2016 dismissal so his 2017 filings would relate back. The clerk assigned a new 2017 case number.
- Probate and a Florida court subsequently dismissed/withdrew the adoption proceedings; a Florida court accepted jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The juvenile court (via a magistrate) found it lacked jurisdiction and refused to reach the merits of Father’s Civ.R. 60(B) claim; Father did not file objections.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District reviewed for plain error and affirmed: Father’s jurisdictional challenge and Civ.R. 60(B) request failed because Civ.R. 60(B)(4) did not apply (dismissal was not based on a now-vacated adoption judgment) and Civ.R. 60(B)(5) was not justified; the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the 2017 filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s jurisdictional memorandum qualified as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Father: memorandum was in substance a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and identified grounds, facts, and meritorious claim | Mother: it was not a proper Civ.R. 60(B) motion (not a formal motion, lacked specificity, untimely) | Court: treated memorandum as a Civ.R. 60(B) filing for purposes of review (assumed arguendo) |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(4) relief is warranted because a prior judgment was vacated | Father: dismissal of 2015 juvenile filings was based on adoption proceedings that were later vacated by the Ohio Supreme Court | Mother: dismissal was based on pending adoption proceedings (not a final adoption judgment) and thus not a vacated basis | Held: Civ.R. 60(B)(4) does not apply because the juvenile dismissal preceded the probate court’s adoption judgment; Father failed to show reliance on a now-vacated prior judgment |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) (catch‑all) justifies relief to vindicate Father’s parental rights | Father: extraordinary circumstances — need to vindicate fundamental parental rights and fairness demands relief | Mother: Father failed to preserve his rights (did not appeal 2016 dismissal); 60(B)(5) cannot excuse failure to protect one’s own interests | Held: Civ.R. 60(B)(5) not satisfied; Father offered no substantial grounds to relieve him from the dismissal |
| Whether the juvenile court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over the 2017 filings | Father: 2017 filings relate back if 2015 dismissal is vacated; juvenile court previously had jurisdiction | Mother: jurisdiction lacking because child, mother, and adoptive placement are outside Ohio; Florida court accepted UCCJEA jurisdiction | Held: Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over 2017 filings; Florida accepted jurisdiction and Father may pursue remedies there |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain‑error standard requiring rare, obvious error that affects fairness and integrity of judicial process)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (2017) (explains civil plain‑error framework cited from Goldfuss)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (1986) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used as substitute for appeal, but exceptions exist for issues that could not have been raised on appeal)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three‑part test for Civ.R. 60(B): meritorious claim, grounds under (1)–(5), and timeliness)
- Caruso‑Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a narrow catch‑all; grounds must be substantial)
- In re Adoption of P.L.H., 151 Ohio St.3d 554 (2017) (Ohio Supreme Court reversed probate adoption order and directed vacatur and dismissal of adoption petition)