In re S.M.
2016 Ohio 7816
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother (Natasha M.) is the biological parent of six children; concerns included domestic violence, parental drug use, poor home conditions, and children’s injuries/behavioral problems.
- CSB opened a voluntary case in Jan 2014; Mother later tested positive for marijuana and cocaine and failed to comply with substance-abuse and domestic-violence case-plan requirements.
- Children were adjudicated dependent; temporary protective supervision was ordered, then five children were removed in April 2015 after Mother violated a no-contact order and exposed children to a sex offender; newborn W.K. tested positive for marijuana and cocaine at birth and was removed.
- Mother ceased regular contact and visits with the children, failed to participate in services, and was later indicted and incarcerated on felony drug charges after CSB moved for permanent custody.
- The juvenile court granted CSB’s motions and awarded permanent custody of all six children to CSB; Mother appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- The appellate court found the appeal timely (trial court had not properly noted service) and conducted an independent review, concluded no meritorious issues existed, affirmed the trial court, and permitted appellate counsel to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was in children’s best interests | Permanent custody not appropriate; Mother could progress if given time | Mother abandoned children, made no progress, children need permanency | Affirmed: permanent custody was in children’s best interests |
| Whether relatives were available as less-restrictive placements | Relatives could provide placement; court should prefer relatives | CSB investigated relatives; none were suitable or willing | Affirmed: CSB adequately considered relatives; none appropriate |
| Whether Mother received ineffective assistance for not being present/transported | Counsel should have sought continuance or secured Mother’s attendance | Mother missed first day, agreed to proceed, no prejudice shown | Affirmed: no ineffective assistance; Mother consented to proceed |
| Whether court erred awarding permanent custody of newborn (W.K.) without extending temporary custody | W.K. had been in custody <5 months; Mother could complete services during extension | Extension requires Mother show significant progress; she had made none | Affirmed: extension not warranted; no significant progress shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (appointed counsel may move to withdraw if appeal is frivolous and must file brief explaining why)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (permanent custody requires clear and convincing proof of statutory prongs)
- In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 2001) (appellate time limits for filing appeal do not begin until proper service of judgment under Civ.R. 58(B))
- Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator Milford, L.L.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 542 (Ohio 2015) (reiterating requirement of proper docket/service notation under Civ.R. 58(B))