State ex rel. K.S. v. Ashland Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2021 Ohio 3065
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Appellants K.S. and C.S., licensed Ashland County foster parents, were asked to foster three brothers in 2018; after a July 2018 pool incident officers investigated allegations that C.S. grabbed one boy by the throat and pushed him under water.
- Two days after the incident the children were removed; Ashland County DJFS reviewed the police investigation and issued a Sept. 26, 2018 Alleged Perpetrator Disposition finding "substantiated" for abuse and recommended denying recertification of appellants' foster license.
- Appellants grieved the substantiation through the agency, received a director’s telephone hearing and a written director decision, then voluntarily surrendered their certification in December 2018; a subsequent out-of-county foster application was denied because of the substantiation and a state administrative hearing ruled against appellants.
- Appellants filed a mandamus complaint (Dec. 19, 2019) asking the trial court to vacate the substantiation, compel an R.C. Chapter 119 hearing, and recover costs; DJFS moved for summary judgment and the magistrate granted it; the trial court adopted that decision on Jan. 29, 2021.
- The trial court and magistrate found DJFS relied on an independent police investigation, afforded procedural review (grievance + director hearing), and had some evidentiary support for substantiation; they concluded mandamus was unavailable because appellants had no clear right to the relief sought.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting summary judgment despite disputed facts | Appellants: genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment improper | DJFS: record contains sufficient evidence and no genuine issue remains | Court: summary judgment proper — no genuine dispute; DJFS entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether agency review violated Ohio Adm. Code 5101:2-36-08 (independence) | Appellants: county-level review was not sufficiently independent | DJFS: relied on an independent police investigation and conducted required review | Court: review was sufficiently independent; relying on police investigation was permissible |
| Whether director's substantiation was unsupported / an abuse of discretion | Appellants: director erred; evidence insufficient and they should get another hearing | DJFS: director had supportive evidence (police report, child and lifeguard statements) and followed procedures | Court: some evidence supports the substantiation; no abuse of discretion; mandamus improper |
| Whether appellants were entitled to an R.C. Chapter 119 hearing on substantiation/recertification | Appellants: sought R.C. 119 hearing to relitigate substantiation and recertification denial | DJFS: county lacks authority to hold an R.C. 119 hearing on the county substantiation decision; appellants had or could use other remedies for recertification | Court: R.C. 119 hearing not available/required for the county substantiation decision; appellants had an adequate remedy for recertification and already used it |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (summarizes Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's initial burden in a summary-judgment motion)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (reciprocal burden on nonmoving party under Civ.R. 56)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines "abuse of discretion")
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (elements and limits of mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165 (Ohio 1977) (mandamus is extraordinary and disfavored)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate review standard for summary judgment)