Smith v. Camp
2017 Ohio 8794
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- C.S. (then 12) was adjudicated delinquent in 2013 and placed in legal custody of her aunt (who lives in Tennessee). Mother lived in Ohio.
- In October 2016 Aunt returned physical custody to Mother; Mother filed a motion for legal custody on November 17, 2016; a hearing was held January 10, 2017.
- On January 12, 2017 the juvenile court ordered temporary custody of 15-year-old C.S. to the Fayette County Department of Job & Family Services (the Agency); a February 16, 2017 review was set.
- By entry of February 22, 2017 the juvenile court continued the Agency’s temporary custody and ordered the Agency to file a neglect/dependency complaint and a case plan; the Agency disputed whether it actually filed that separate complaint.
- The Agency appealed, raising four assignments of error (due-process notice to parents/aunt; due-process notice to Agency; failure to find temporary custody was in child’s best interest; failure to make reasonable-efforts findings). The appellate court vacated its prior mootness dismissal, addressed the assignments, and affirmed the juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Juvenile Court/Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did granting temporary custody to the Agency violate due process rights of Mother and Aunt because they lacked notice they might lose custody? | Mother and Aunt were not given notice that the court might grant custody to the Agency and had no opportunity to be heard. | Mother and Aunt did not appeal; the Agency cannot assert their personal due-process rights on their behalf. | Overruled — Agency cannot invoke parents’/custodian’s personal due-process rights on appeal. |
| 2. Did granting temporary custody to the Agency without notifying the Agency violate the Agency’s due-process rights? | Agency had no notice it would be granted custody and no opportunity to be heard. | Agency is a political subdivision/arm of the state and cannot assert Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against the state; juvenile court acted within its statutory authority to order temporary custody. | Overruled — political-subdivision doctrine bars Agency’s due-process claim; court acted within Juv.R.13 and statutory duties. |
| 3. Did the juvenile court err by failing to expressly find temporary custody was in the child’s best interest? | Agency contends court needed clear findings that custody to Agency was in C.S.’s best interest. | Best-interest findings cited by R.C.2151.414 apply to permanent custody; Juv.R.13 permits temporary orders based on child’s interest and welfare and the record shows the court considered those factors. | Overruled — temporary-custody standard satisfied by court’s consideration of child’s welfare; R.C.2151.414 not applicable. |
| 4. Did the court err by failing to make findings regarding reasonable efforts under R.C.2151.419 before removing the child? | Agency argues the court must determine and state whether the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal or whether such efforts were excused. | R.C.2151.419 applies to hearings in abuse/neglect/dependency cases; here there were no such allegations at the time. Even if error, the record (Feb. 22 entry) shows subsequent reasonable-efforts findings and remand would be pointless. | Overruled — R.C.2151.419 does not apply to this non-abuse/neglect temporary-custody action; any omission was harmless and not remediable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avon Lake City School Dist. v. Limbach, 35 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1988) (political subdivisions may not assert Fourteenth Amendment due-process protections against the state)
- State ex rel. Gaylor v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407 (Ohio 2010) (mootness doctrine: case is moot when issues are no longer live)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C.2151.419 reasonable-efforts requirement applies to abuse/neglect/dependency proceedings prior to permanent custody)
- Delaney v. Testa, 128 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2011) (state and its arms lack certain due-process protections)