In re R.R.
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 1620 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 8-20-26 |
| Parties | IN RE: R.R., DEPENDENT CHILD. [KIRSTEN T.G. - APPELLANT] |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Family Court Division
Judgment Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Chelsea R. Brown for Appellee
{¶1} Mother-Appellant, Kirsten T.G. ("Mother"), appeals the June 8, 2020 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, granting the motion for permanent custody of her child, R.R., filed by Logan County Children Services (the "Agency") and terminating her parental rights.
{¶2} The record indicates this case originated when Mother, a minor, appeared for a hearing on allegations that she had committed violations of the terms of her juvenile probation. R.R., the child who is the subject of this appeal, was born to Mother in 2017. The record of the probation violation hearing itself is not before us. However, at the subsequent permanent custody hearing, Jamie McNeal, a case investigator for the Agency, testified that the Agency first became involved with Mother and R.R. upon receiving reports on August 2, 2018 that Mother had taken "half a bottle of prescription medication claiming she did not want to be here while being the only caregiver for R.R. at the time." (Doc. No. 210 at 27).
{¶3} Upon receiving the referral, McNeal contacted paternal grandfather, Mother's father, due to Mother being a minor, and obtained his permission to speak with Mother about the allegations. McNeal stated that the Agency was aware of Mother's probation violation and her potential for placement in a Juvenile Detention Center ("JDC"). Prior to the probation hearing, McNeal recalled that "we haddiscussed her coming up with a safety plan [regarding custody of R.R.], finding a party willing to work with the agency; however, [Mother] did not find anybody, so at that point Judge Martin did order her into JDC and ordered R.R. dependent and at that point they came into our care." (Doc. 210 at 28).
{¶4} The trial court found Mother had violated her probation and ordered her to be placed in JDC for 22 days. As testified by the case investigator noted above, it appears that Mother was the sole caregiver for R.R. and that no suitable kinship placements could be established for immediate custody of R.R. Moreover, R.R.'s father, Adrian R. ("Father"), was also a minor at the time and on juvenile probation.
{¶5} As a result, on August 6, 2018, following the probation violation hearing, and in lieu of securing the filing of a complaint in dependency, the trial court issued a judgment entry/ex parte order "finding" R.R. to be dependent, "designating" the Agency as R.R.'s temporary legal custodian, and laying out the means and opportunities for Mother to challenge any of those matters at a subsequent hearing. (Doc. No. 1).
{¶6} On August 30, 2018, the trial court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") to the case.
{¶7} On August 31, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment entry which advised the parties that "[t]his action involves the potential termination of parentalrights and has strict time limits" and also appointed an attorney to represent Mother in the dependency case. (Doc. No. 6).
{¶8} On September 5, 2018, the trial court issued a "SUMMONS" notifying the parties, counsel and the GAL of a "dispositional hearing" set for October 17, 2018, and again apprising the parties of the potential consequences and dispositions available to the court "if the court makes an adjudication of dependency" at the upcoming hearing. (Doc. No. 10).
{¶9} On October 17, 2018, the trial court held the dispositional hearing. At the hearing, Mother and her counsel raised no objection or challenge to the court's prior finding of dependency and the parties agreed to continue R.R.'s placement in the temporary custody of the Agency with the parents having supervised visitation with the child. The trial court also expressed its intention to have the parties to attend regularly scheduled status conferences with the court to hold the young parents "more accountable" "instead of waiting a year or six months" to return to court. (Doc. No. 206 at 12).
{¶10} On December 4, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment entry journalizing its disposition of R.R. into the temporary custody of the Agency as a dependent child, reflecting the parties' agreement at the dispositional hearing and their failure to challenge the initial findings of dependency made in the August 6, 2018 judgment entry/ex parte order.
{¶11} The Agency subsequently devised a case plan to address the parents' mental health and substance abuse issues, as well as providing them with parenting classes.
{¶12} In the Spring of 2019, Mother gave birth to a second child, H.G. Genetic testing confirmed Father to be the biological father of H.G., who was also placed in the temporary custody of the Agency and added to the case plan.1
{¶13} On September 23, 2019, the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody of R.R. The Agency alleged that R.R. had been in its temporary custody for twelve or more of a consecutive twenty-two month period pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), and requested a hearing on its motion for permanent custody.
{¶14} On October 14, 2019, the Agency filed a motion for approval of an amended case plan to reflect Father's wishes to discontinue services from the Agency with respect to the pending cases involving R.R. and H.G. The trial court subsequently granted the motion and removed Father from the case plan. The record indicates that prior to this motion, Father had stopped participating in the case, had failed to appear at hearings, and had ceased communication with his counsel.
{¶15} On December 9, 2019, the GAL filed a report recommending the trial court grant the Agency's motion for permanent custody of R.R. based uponMother's lack of compliance with the case plan objectives, Father's lack of participation, and R.R.'s need for a legally secure permanent placement.
{¶16} On February 4, 2020 and on April 9, 2020, the trial court conducted hearings on the Agency's motion for permanent custody.2 Multiple witnesses testified for the Agency, including individuals involved in assisting Mother with completing objectives in the case plan, R.R.'s foster parent, and Mother's Juvenile Probation Officer. The Agency also called Mother upon cross-examination.
{¶17} On June 8, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the Agency's motion for permanent custody of R.R. Specifically, the trial court found that the Agency established by clear and convincing evidence that R.R. cannot be safely placed in the care of either parent within a reasonable amount of time or should not be. The trial court further found that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that granting permanent custody of R.R. to the Agency is in her best interest.
{¶18} Mother filed this appeal asserting the following assignments of error.
{¶19} In her first assignment of error, Mother does not directly challenge the trial court's judgment entry granting the Agency permanent custody of R.R., which is the subject of this appeal, but instead claims that the trial court erred in initially finding R.R. to be dependent without a complaint alleging R.R.'s dependency first being filed with the court.
{¶20} Specifically, Mother claims that because this case did not originate with a dependency "complaint" filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), the juvenile court's exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction pertaining to a dependency action was never invoked. As a result, Mother argues that any determination of dependency and all subsequent orders based thereon in this case, up to and including all of the orders and actions of the court pertaining to temporary and permanent custody over the next two years, are void, and thereby subject to the collateral attack Mother now makes in this appeal.
{¶21} In the alternative, Mother argues that even if the dependency findings, adjudications and dispositions set forth in the trial court's judgment entries of August 6, 2018 and December 4, 2018 are not considered void ab initio, that the failure of the trial court to follow the procedure for filing a complaint in dependency set forth in R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), deprived her of important due process rights necessary to: (1) fully present evidence or otherwise challenge the court's determination of dependency; or (2) apprise her that any of her actions in this case could ever lead to the termination of her parental rights
{¶22} Because the actions of the trial court from the initial judgment entry/ex parte order of August 6, 2018 through the final dispositional order of December 4, 2018 are at the heart of Mother's claims, we will address each of those actions in detail.
{¶23} As alleged by Mother, there is no dispute in this case that this dependency action was initiated by the filing of a "Judgment Entry" on August 6, 2018 and not by anything captioned as a "Complaint." However, any resulting claim that the trial court therefore commenced this action with an "adjudication of dependency" is misleading.
{¶24} On the contrary, the August 6, 2018 "Judgment Entry" at issue in this case, is described by its own language as merely an "Ex Parte Order," which despitecontaining a...
To continue reading
Request your trial