In re A.M.
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Jaia B, (“Mother“) has appealed from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated parental rights to her four children, A.M., T.M., J.W., J.B., and placed them in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB“). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother has four children: A.M., born June 14, 2002; T.M., born August 23, 2003; J.W., born November 30, 2005; аnd J.B., born July 24, 2007. Mother named Travonne M. as the alleged father of A.M. and T.M., and Jason W., as the alleged father of J.W. and J.B. Neither man appeared at the permanent custody hearing, nor is either man a party to this appeal.
{¶3} This case has a lengthy and unusual history, with the children being moved in and out of Mother‘s care several times. CSB initially became involved with Mother and her children
{¶4} The plan did not last long. Four months later, CSB sought and obtained the emergency custody of the two children that were in Mother‘s care on the grounds that Mother‘s boyfriend, David Anderson, posed a risk tо the family‘s safety and stability. On April 21, 2009, the agency moved for permanent custody.
{¶5} In June 2009, and before the motion was heard, the agency agreed to a new arrangement whereby Mother would move in with the foster mother, Lynnise Wells. Through this arrangement, Mother would have a place to live, the guidance of the foster mother in caring for the children, and a job at the daycare center opеrated by Ms. Wells. CSB anticipated withdrawing its motion of permanent custody if Mother demonstrated stability and earnest case plan compliance.
{¶7} On November 12, 2009, CSB reportedly received a telephone call from Travonne M., in which he claimed he was never notified the children were at risk of being placed in permanent custody. The agency conceded that certified mail had not been sent to the last known addresses of the two alleged fathers before the notice was published, as required by
{¶8} In that interim period, the caseworker observed that Mother had “made major changes in her life” and “really stepped up to the plate.” CSB determined that it would be in the best interest of the children to give Mother another opportunity to reunify with her children and requested a six-month extension of temporary custody. The trial court granted the motion and the original case planning goals were revived. The reunification objectives included suitable
{¶9} Four months later, though, CSB was forced once again to seek emergency custody of the children, based on allegations of abuse of one of the children by another of Mother‘s boyfriends, Antoine Williams. Following its investigation, CSB reported that all four children claimed to have been abused by Mr. Williams, and also thаt Mother was aware of the abuse. The caseworker said she was very concerned because “it was kind of history repeating itself again.” She expressed her belief that Mother loves the children, but has shown that she cannot protect them.
{¶10} Following hearings, the children were returned to the temporary custody of the agency. On January 31, 2011, CSB moved for permanent custody for the third time, and а hearing was set for June 15, 2011. Before the hearing could take place, the guardian ad litem requested a delay until a possible relative placement could be investigated. The placement did not prove successful. As a result of the delay, however, the permanent custody hearing was continued to August 17, 2011. During the few months leading up to the hearing, the caseworker had received tеlephone calls from both Travonne M. and Jason W., but neither man made any effort to become involved, establish paternity, or meet with the children.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMIT COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICE BOARD[‘S] MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY OF A.M., T.M., J.W., AND J.B. WHERE THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT SERVICE HAD BEEN PROPERLY COMPLETED ON THE ALLEGED FATHERS AND THE “JOHN DOE” FATHERS.
{¶12} In her sole assignment of error, Mother contends that the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of the children to CSB because service of notice of the permanent custody hearing was not properly obtained on either of the two named alleged fathers or John
{¶13} When a motion for permanent custody is filed,
{¶15} On appeal, Mother does not specifically assert error in these mailings. Rather, she claims error in that Travonne M. was not served by the same process in regard to the continuance of the permanent custody hearing to August 17, 2011. Mother has not supported her position with any legal authority. Ohio courts have held that ”
{¶17} The appearance docket has four entries regarding attempted service of the permanent custody motion and hearing on Jason W., and those entries are conflicting as to whether those mailings were claimed or undelivered. Included in the muddle is the fact that following briefing, CSB filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with documents that would seem to support the fact that certified mail did not reach Jason W. because the prison agents were “unable to identify” him.
{¶18} At the end of the day, assuming unperfected service and also assuming no waiver of the issue, Mother must nevertheless demonstrate that she herself has been prejudiced by the alleged error. This Court has previously held that a mеre assertion that a purported father was not properly served is an insufficient basis on which to award standing to the appellant-mother to raise such error. In re L.A., 9th Dist. No. 21531, 2003-Ohio-4790, ¶ 56; In re Rackley, 1998 WL 162845, *2; In re Matis, 1995 WL 314683, *4. Accord In re Sours, 3d Dist. No. 5-86-38, 1988 WL 81057, *2 (Sept. 27, 1988); In re Kincaid, 4th Dist. No. 00CA3, 2000 WL 1683456, *3 (Oct. 27, 2000). It is necessary, instead, for the appealing party to demonstrate that she was “actually prejudiced” by the alleged error before she may assert it on her own behalf; otherwise she lacks standing to raise the issue. In re Jordan, 9th Dist. Nos. 20773, 20786, 2002 WL 121211, *7 (Jan. 30, 2002). Therefore, in order to establish standing, Mother was required to demonstrate that the alleged failure to perfect timely service upon Jason W. resulted in actual prejudice to her. We conclude that she has not done so.
{¶19} Mother has offered no evidence of any reasonable likelihood that the trial court would have awarded custody to Jason W. – or to Travonne M. or John Doe, for that matter – if any of them had appeared to defend against the motion for permanent custody. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, the children were nine, eight, six, and four years of age, and there is no evidence that any of these men have had any contact or involvement with any of the children. Nor is there any evidence that either of the alleged fathers participated in the proceeding, acted in loco parentis to the children, established paternity, or asserted any interest in obtaining custody of any of the children. A finding of no prejudice and a lack of standing has been found in cases with similar facts. See, e.g., In re E.S.B., 8th Dist. Nos. 87669, 87673, 2006-Ohio-5002, ¶ 7 (purported father was never married to mother, never established paternity, showed no interest in obtaining custody, and appeared earlier in proceeding to agree to permanent custody); In re D.H., 8th Dist. No. 82533, 2003-Ohio-6478, ¶ 9 (purported father never came forward, never submitted to a paternity test, and never asserted an interest in obtaining custody); In re Ciara B., 6th Dist. No. L-97-1264, 1998 WL 355869, *2 (July 2, 1998)
{¶20} Contrary results may be distinguished on their facts. For example, in In re Jones, 8th Dist. No. 76533, 2000 WL 1739228 (Nov. 22, 2000), a majority of the court held that the mother had standing to assert defective service upon an alleged father where the notice “contained absolutely no accurate information sufficient to apprise [the father] of the pendency of an action relative to his child.” Id. at *2, *4. The published notice included the incorrect case number and nаmed a different child. Id. at *2. Also, in In re Call, 8th Dist. No. 78376, 2001 WL 370526 (Apr. 12, 2001), the court found that a father had standing to assert defective service on a mother to whom he had been married and where the published notice was deficient. Id. at *4. There was no affidavit showing reasonable diligence and the published notice included no last known address. Id.
{¶21} Mother claims that she has been prejudiced, and, therefore, has standing to assert improper service in regard to a non-appealing alleged father “[t]o the extent [she] will retain residual parental rights in the event an unserved father appears with respect to her children.” This argument is entirely speculative and does not demonstrate actual prejudice to Mother. The Third District has similarly concluded that a claim of prejudice based on the possibility that a mother might retаin residual parental rights if the biological father had been properly served and obtained custody was “based upon speculation only” where there was no evidence that the father had any significant involvement in child‘s life. In re Cook, 3d Dist. No. 5-98-16, 1998 WL 719524, at *6 (Oct. 8, 1998).
{¶22} Furthermore, if a bare claim of a potential of loss of residual parental rights were sufficient to demonstrate prejudice and award standing to the appealing party, virtually any
{¶23} Finally, this Court considers Mother‘s claim of defective service regarding John Doe. Mother contends that permitting publiсation service on John Doe to proceed while the permanent custody hearing was ongoing was in violation of
{¶24} This Court cannot conclude that Mother has demonstrated that actual prejudice has accrued to her in regard to the alleged defective service upon John Doe. There is no evidence that John Doe is likely to have gained custody of any of the children or would have been able to contribute to Mother‘s case. Mother‘s argument in regard to John Doe is withоut merit. Mother‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶25} Subsequent to briefing in this case, CSB filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with documents purportedly related to service. The motion is hereby denied.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Commоn Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.