Court Opinion

ID: 9804254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:35:43.910656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:03.399452
License: Public Domain

O’Neill, J.,
dissenting-.
{¶ 29} This court has consistently held that the termination of parental rights is the family-law equivalent of the death penalty. See, e.g., In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 2007-Ohio-1105, 862 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 10; In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997). For whatever reason, there is always the possibility of a parent “waking up” after it is too late and finding no remedy, with the result often being a child languishing in the purgatory of foster care. Delayed appeals in criminal matters pursuant to App.R. 5 are only granted on a case-by-case basis and the motion in support of a delayed appeal must include the reasons for the delay. But alas, parents who have lost their children can look to neither a statute nor a rule for the same delayed-appeal right that Ohio has chosen to grant to criminal defendants.
{¶ 30} Let me give a hypothetical that demonstrates my point. A mother is a hopeless drug addict who is not a responsible parent. The state steps in and ultimately takes permanent custody of the five-year-old, with the noble plan of finding the child a permanent placement. Unfortunately, as happens in so many cases, no permanent placement is found, and the child bounces from foster home to institution to foster home. Five years later, the mother enters rehabilitation and miraculously kicks her habit and stays clean and sober for two years. She wants her kid back, and she is ready to resume her role as parent. She cannot. The termination of her parental rights is complete, and the Latin god of res judicata has closed the courthouse doors forevermore.
{¶ 31} The Supreme Court of Ohio can promulgate a rule authorizing the appellate court to grant a hearing on a delayed appeal where necessary. Surely society, and the judiciary, would be well served by a mechanism by which a competent court could revisit the case. Isn’t this parent entitled to the same due process as a petty thief?
{¶ 32} I dissent.
*64Robert J. McClaren, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Public Children Services Association of Ohio.