In re S.R.
2014 Ohio 2749
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- S.R., born 2004, was removed from her mother's home in Summit County; Rodney R. (Father) lives in Vallejo, California and is the only man alleged to be S.R.’s father (named on birth certificate and found to be father for child support by a 2008 California order).
- CSB filed a dependency/neglect complaint; Father was served in California and communicated by phone with CSB caseworkers but did not appear in court proceedings.
- CSB prepared a case plan that included reunification goals for the mother but omitted Father entirely and did not offer reunification services to him or his extended family; no explanation was recorded.
- CSB moved for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) ("12 of 22" months); the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CSB after the mother relinquished rights and Father did not participate.
- Father appealed; this court reversed and remanded, concluding that CSB’s failure to include Father in the case plan and to provide reunification efforts constituted plain error that undermined the "12 of 22" permanent custody finding.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defects in the complaint deprived court of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction | Father argued complaint lacked child’s name, was signed by non-attorney, and defective affidavit; thus dismissal required | CSB (and court) argued complaint alleged dependency/neglect and court had subject-matter jurisdiction; procedural defects were waivable | Court: Overruled — jurisdiction existed; defects were procedural and had to be timely raised, which Father did not do |
| Whether permanent custody motion/summons was improperly served | Father argued motion/summons were not properly served because CSB obtained leave to use certified mail only after mailing | CSB argued certified mail was used to Father’s California address and service was effective; leave not required for out-of-state service when address is known | Court: Overruled — service via certified mail was permitted for out-of-state persons when address known; record shows Father received papers |
| Whether termination was plain error because Father was excluded from case plan and given no reunification efforts | Father argued omission denied statutory and constitutional protections, so "12 of 22" finding is invalid without reasonable reunification efforts | CSB conceded omission but did not present reunification efforts; argued paternity issue required testing | Court: Sustained — extraordinary plain error; CSB knew Father’s identity/location, he sought reunification, paternity was established elsewhere, and exclusion deprived Father of required reunification opportunity, invalidating the "12 of 22" basis for permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (distinguishes jurisdictional defects from waivable procedural errors)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain error standard for extraordinary cases)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest requiring procedural protections)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (permanent termination of parental rights requires full procedural and substantive protections)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (agencies must afford parents the full 12 months to attempt reunification before moving for permanent custody on the "12 of 22" ground)