In re R.M.
997 N.E.2d 169
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- ACCS filed complaints in November 2010 seeking custody of R.M., M.M., and D.M. due to alleged neglect and abuse.
- The trial court adjudicated the three children neglected in December 2010 and granted ACCS temporary custody in January 2011.
- In June 2011, B.M. was born; ACCS obtained temporary emergency custody and later adjudicated B.M. dependent.
- From 2011 to 2012, ACCS implemented case plans including housing, counseling, visits, and GED goals for C.M., with varying compliance.
- The four children have resided in the same foster home since removal; the older children have been in ACCS custody for about 18 months at the permanent-custody filing.
- In November 2012, the trial court awarded ACCS permanent custody of all four children; C.M. appeals raising two assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence | C.M. argues there was not clear and convincing evidence of best interests. | ACCS asserts the record shows stable placement and bond, supporting permanent custody. | Affirmed; permanent custody to ACCS supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Jurisdiction over B.M. | C.M. contends no Ohio jurisdiction for B.M. due to Kentucky birthplace. | ACCS contends home-state or significant-connection jurisdiction under UCCJEA validly extends to B.M. | Overruled; court had home-state or significant-connection jurisdiction; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents' rights subordinate to child's welfare)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest weight standard for appellate review)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (clear-and-convincing standard in custody decisions)