2019 Ohio 3469
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother is biological parent of four children (D.B., M.B., E.B., R.B.); two different fathers; HCJFS involved after allegations of unsafe, unsanitary home and inadequate supervision beginning in 2014.
- Children were removed, adjudicated dependent/neglected, returned in 2017 under protective supervision, and then removed again in 2017 after allegations that D.B. sexually assaulted E.B.; HCJFS filed for permanent custody as part of its original complaint.
- Multiple hearings occurred in 2018; magistrate awarded permanent custody to HCJFS in February 2019; juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision in April 2019; mother and D.B. appealed.
- Key factual findings: children have significant trauma-related mental-health/behavioral diagnoses; mother had ongoing physical and mental-health issues, poor engagement with services, and inconsistent responses to abuse allegations; fathers were largely absent or unsupportive.
- Juvenile court found children could not or should not be returned under R.C. 2151.414(E) and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred by applying the "12 of 22" custody calculation | Mother: court miscalculated 12-of-22 and relied on it, requiring reversal | HCJFS: "12 of 22" irrelevant to original permanent-custody complaint; alternate R.C. 2151.414(E) findings suffice | Court: error harmless; independent findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) supported permanent custody |
| Whether sufficient evidence supported finding parents could not/should not have children placed with them (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Mother: she completed prior case plan and challenges court’s E-factors findings | HCJFS: mother failed to remedy conditions, had health/mental/substance issues, and did not engage; fathers abandoned children | Court: clear-and-convincing evidence supports R.C. 2151.414(E) findings (mother’s failure to remedy; fathers’ abandonment) |
| Whether permanent custody was in children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Mother/D.B.: challenge best-interest findings as against weight/sufficiency | HCJFS: children need legally secure placement; current placements meet children’s needs; guardians and GALs support custody to HCJFS | Court: best-interest factors satisfied; permanent custody appropriate |
| Whether sequestering mother (medical exclusion) violated due process | Mother: exclusion from courtroom portion violated Fourteenth Amendment and Ohio Constitution | HCJFS: sequestration for medical/public-safety reasons; mother participated via videoconference and was represented by counsel | Court: Mathews balancing favors court; video participation and counsel protection meant no due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (2008) (defines clear-and-convincing standard in juvenile custody context)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (formulation of clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for procedural due-process balancing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state interests in child welfare and procedural protections in parental-rights cases)
- State ex rel. Vanderlaan v. Pollex, 96 Ohio App.3d 235, 644 N.E.2d 1073 (1994) (attendance at hearings not absolute right where counsel can protect interests)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990) (parental liberty interest in child rearing is fundamental)