In re Y.D.
2017 Ohio 9254
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- HCJFS became involved in 2013 after allegations that members of the children’s extended family were physically and sexually abusive; children were adjudicated dependent and initially placed in HCJFS temporary custody.
- The children were later returned to Mother with protective orders barring contact with certain relatives; Mother allegedly allowed those relatives continued access and misrepresented another abuser’s presence.
- On April 22, 2015, HCJFS filed a new complaint alleging abuse and dependency and sought temporary custody, legal custody to a relative, or protective supervision; the complaint did not request permanent custody.
- A magistrate adjudicated one child neglected/dependent and two dependent; one child was placed in HCJFS temporary custody and two returned to Mother with protective orders; the trial court remanded for further dispositional evidence, noting permanent custody might be appropriate if requested.
- At the remanded dispositional hearing the GAL filed a motion (that day) to modify temporary custody to permanent custody; parties were not properly served with that permanent-custody motion and knew the hearing was limited to the remand scope.
- The magistrate returned all children to Mother after hearing testimony and dismissed the GAL’s permanent-custody motion; on objection the trial court took no further evidence and awarded HCJFS permanent custody—terminating Mother’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | HCJFS/GAL Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could award permanent custody without notice and a request for permanent custody in the operative complaint | Trial court violated Mother’s due-process rights by terminating parental rights without notice or a properly filed permanent-custody request | Trial court proceeded based on the record and GAL objection; permanent custody was appropriate given risk and Mother’s inability to protect children | Reversed: trial court lacked authority to award permanent custody where the operative complaint did not request it and Mother lacked notice/opportunity to be heard |
| Whether the GAL could properly move for permanent custody (authority to file) | Mother questioned GAL’s authority and notice was deficient | GAL filed motion but parties were not served; HCJFS’s authority to seek permanent custody was implicated | Court noted GAL’s authority to file was questionable and emphasized statutory requirement that a complaint must request permanent custody; issue supports reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (recognizing parental rights as fundamental)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (discussing the gravity of terminating parental rights)
- In re Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (due-process notice and opportunity to be heard required before termination)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (constitutional protections for parental interests)
- In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230 (juvenile court cannot order a disposition not requested in the complaint)