Summary
The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court judgment terminating the mother's parental rights and granting permanent custody of E.H. to Montgomery County Children Services. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding without the incarcerated mother, denying another continuance, or denying motions seeking placement with the child's great-grandmother or alleged biological father. The court concluded that the procedures provided meaningful participation and did not violate due process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court violated Mother's due process rights or abused its discretion by conducting the permanent-custody hearing without her attendance while she was incarcerated.
- Whether the trial court violated due process or abused its discretion by denying Mother's motion to continue the permanent-custody hearing.
- Whether the trial court violated due process or abused its discretion by denying Mother's motions to place E.H. in the legal custody of his great-grandmother or J.D., the alleged biological father.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother's due process rights by conducting the permanent-custody hearing without conveying her from prison. Mother was represented by counsel, counsel participated by cross-examining the caseworker, a full hearing record was made, counsel was given an opportunity to present evidence, and the court also attempted to facilitate Mother's remote appearance.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying Mother's request for a fourth continuance.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying or dismissing Mother's motions to place E.H. with the great-grandmother or J.D. Neither proposed custodian had signed the statutorily required statement of understanding, and the record did not establish a basis for either placement.
Key quotations
“Ohio courts have recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected right to be present at permanent custody hearings, but that right is not absolute if the parent is incarcerated.” (¶ 25)
“A parent’s due process right to be heard prior to termination of parental rights can be satisfied by arranging for his or her presence at the permanent custody hearing or by an alternate method of meaningful participation.” (¶ 26)
“A proposed legal custodian may not be awarded legal custody of the child unless the proposed legal custodian signs a statement of understanding for legal custody that contains the statutorily required provisions of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(a) through (d).” (¶ 38)
Factual background
E.H. was born in New York in July 2023 after Mother and her husband, Father, left Ohio and became homeless. Mother tested positive for marijuana at delivery, and after Mother and Father were arrested on outstanding warrants, a New York agency took custody of E.H.; MCCS later received the child and placed him with the foster family caring for his five siblings. Mother remained incarcerated, had not visited E.H., and had not completed her case-plan objectives. The proposed great-grandmother refused to cooperate with a criminal-background check, and the alleged biological father, J.D., had not completed paternity testing or signed the required legal-custody statement.
Procedural history
The juvenile court adjudicated E.H. dependent, suspended visitation, and later granted MCCS's motion for permanent custody after a November 5, 2024 hearing at which Mother, who was incarcerated, was not present but was represented by counsel. The magistrate awarded permanent custody to MCCS and denied proposed legal-custody placements with the child's great-grandmother and alleged biological father. On August 1, 2025, the trial court overruled Mother's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. The court of appeals affirmed.