In re T.K.M.
2019 Ohio 5076
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Child T.K.M. born June 2014; mother tested positive for methadone and had substance-abuse history; child later adjudicated abused and dependent.
- Child initially placed with paternal grandmother (father lived in Seattle and had limited contact); grandmother cared for child from Sept. 2015–Feb. 2017.
- HCJFS discovered a substantiated sexual‑abuse history in grandmother’s household (grandmother’s husband admitted past abuse), prompting removal concerns.
- Guardian ad litem and HCJFS sought placement/custody with J.C. (mother’s stepsister/child’s step‑aunt); child adjusted well in J.C.’s home and bonded with family.
- Father filed for custody after placement with J.C.; Washington (receiving state) refused to approve placement under the ICPC due to father’s minimal relationship with child and recommended parenting assessment/therapy.
- Juvenile court awarded legal custody to J.C.; father appealed arguing parental right required a prior finding of unsuitability and that placement with him should be allowed despite the ICPC denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a separate finding of parental unsuitability is required before awarding custody to a nonparent after a child is adjudicated abused/neglected/dependent | Father: as a parent he has a paramount right and court must first find him unfit | State/HCJFS/J.C.: in adjudicated abuse/neglect/dependency cases no separate unsuitability finding is required; focus is child’s status and best interest | Court: No separate finding required; prior adjudication suffices and parents’ residual rights remain intact |
| Whether awarding custody to J.C. was contrary to child’s best interest | Father: should get custody as natural parent | State/HCJFS/J.C.: child thrived with J.C.; father had minimal contact and no strong bond | Court: Evidence supported custody to J.C.; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the ICPC denial from Washington precludes placement with father | Father: Washington’s denial was based on HCJFS caseworker statements and should not control; attempts an ICPC exception for noncustodial parents | State/HCJFS/J.C.: ICPC forbids placement when receiving state disapproves; father did not meet exception conditions | Court: ICPC precluded placement; father did not exhaust or seek review in Washington and did not meet the noncustodial‑parent exception |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (Ohio 2002) (parents’ fundamental interest recognized in private custody disputes)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (same principle regarding parental rights in private custody litigation)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 2006) (when child is adjudicated abused/neglected/dependent, no separate unsuitability finding is required before awarding legal custody to a nonparent)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (adjudication plus dispositional order awarding temporary custody to agency is final and appealable)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)