Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Mock
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings dismissing wrongful death and related claims against Hamilton County, county commissioners, HCJFS, and individual caseworkers was affirmed. Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity under Ohio law.
Excerpt
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY – R.C. CHAPTER 2744 – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS – TWP/COUNTY/STATE: Where a child was returned to her parents' custody where she died, the trial court properly granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Hamilton County, the Hamilton County Commissioners, and the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services in a wrongful-death case in which the claimants failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the agency defendants were not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02. The trial court properly granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by employees of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services in a wrongful-death case where the claimants failed to allege specific facts, offering only general allegations, to establish that the employees were not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). [But see DISSENT: The amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish that the employees ignored significant evidence of pervasive abuse such that the amended complaint sufficiently supports the allegation that the employees acted in a wanton or recklessly manner, which would reimpose liability pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).]
Similar Rulings
PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD — LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT — ABANDONMENT: Where Mother failed to assert in her objection to the magistrate's decision that the magistrate's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, and she did not advance a plain-error argument on appeal, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The juvenile court's decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that permanent custody was in the children's best interest where the record and testimony showed that the children had been in the agency's care for approximately 16 consecutive months, and Mother (1) failed to visit the children for nearly three years, (2) refused to sign a release of information so that she could be referred for services, including making a referral so that Mother could continue supervised visits, (3) failed to remedy the concerns regarding her housing, including having working utilities, and (4) failed to verify her income. The juvenile court's finding that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that she did not remedy the issues that initially caused the children to be removed from her care.
R.C. 2151.414 – PARENTAL TERMINATION – BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court's grant of permanent custody of Mother's children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was supported by sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record showed Mother failed to manage her bipolar disorder and failed to remedy the cause that prompted the children's removal.
PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY —REASONABLE EFFORTS — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The juvenile court's decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was based on competent, credible evidence where the parents' visitation never progressed from supervised, they failed to obtain stable housing and income and submit to drug tests, they did not demonstrate understanding of the children's trauma and special needs, and although the parents obtained housing they did so less than four months prior to the trial on the permanent-custody motion and had no furniture for the children in the home. Where Mother failed to assert in her objections to the magistrate's decision that the juvenile court did not make reasonable-efforts findings, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.