Summary
This Ohio Court of Appeals decision reviews a juvenile court order terminating a mother’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody of her child to the county children services board. The mother appealed, arguing the trial court improperly cited a statutory provision regarding abandonment rather than failure to remedy conditions causing the child's removal. The appellate court determined the statutory citation was a non-prejudicial typographical error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on clear and convincing evidence that the mother could not safely care for the child while incarcerated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the juvenile court's permanent-custody judgment was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence because the judgment cited R.C. 2151.414(E)(10), the abandonment factor, rather than R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the failure-to-remedy factor.
- Whether the trial court was required to identify a specific subsection of R.C. 2151.414(E) when its written findings otherwise established the applicable factor.
- Whether any typographical error in the trial court's citation prejudiced Mother.
Holdings
- A juvenile court need not cite a specific subsection of R.C. 2151.414(E) if the findings in the judgment entry permit the applicable factor to be ascertained.
- The trial court's citation to R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) was a non-prejudicial typographical error referring to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), and it did not invalidate the permanent-custody judgment.
- The permanent-custody judgment satisfied the statutory requirements because the trial court found both an applicable R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) ground and that permanent custody was in M.P.'s best interest.
Key quotations
“The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted the plain language of Section 2151.414 to require a juvenile court to make only two specific findings to support its award of permanent custody” (¶ 13)
“This Court must reasonably construe the quoted language to constitute a finding that Mother had failed to remedy the conditions that caused the removal of M.P. from her home and prevented his safe return to her custody.” (¶ 17)
Factual background
M.P.'s father was deceased, and M.P. was removed from Mother's custody after a child whom Mother was babysitting died from a fentanyl overdose. Mother tested positive for fentanyl, admitted using it in the home, and was later incarcerated on felony child-endangering and involuntary-manslaughter charges. During the ensuing year, Mother had video visits but did not make progress on case-plan goals concerning her ability to meet M.P.'s basic needs, and the agency sought permanent custody.
Procedural history
The Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicated M.P. dependent, placed him in the temporary custody of the agency, and later granted the agency permanent custody after a hearing. The trial court found that M.P. could not or should not be returned to Mother within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child's best interest. Mother appealed, arguing that the permanent-custody judgment lacked clear and convincing evidentiary support and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.