Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re K.C.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

November 1, 2017

IN RE: K.C., K.C., AND J.C.

         Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court TRIAL NO. F08-568X

          Kacy C. Eaves, for Appellants, K.C., K.C., and J.C.,

          Phyllis Schiff, for Appellant Mother,

          Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and R. Michael Waddle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services;

          Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Megan E. Busam, Assistant Public Defender, Appellee Guardian Ad Litem for K.C., K.C., and J.C.

          OPINION

          MYERS, JUDGE.

         {¶1} The children, K.C., K.C., and J.C., and their mother appeal the judgment of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services ("HCJFS") and denying the petition for custody filed by a maternal aunt. The aunt did not appeal the denial of her custody petition. The guardian ad litem ("GAL") has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals.

         Denial of a Relative's Petition for Custody

         {¶2} In her sole assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court should not have granted permanent custody of her children to HCJFS, but instead should have granted the aunt's petition for custody of the children. She does not contest the termination of her parental rights.

         {¶3} In their single assignment of error, the children argue that the trial court's judgment granting permanent custody to HCJFS was against the weight of the evidence and was not in their best interest because the court should have granted their aunt's petition for custody. They also do not contest the termination of mother's parental rights.

         Standing to Appeal

         {¶4} The children's guardian ad litem ("GAL") asks this court to dismiss the appeals because mother and the children challenge only the denial of custody to the aunt, and not the termination of mother's parental rights. The GAL argues that mother and the children lack standing to challenge the judgment granting permanent custody to HCJFS and denying the custody petition of the children's aunt.

         {¶5} To bring these appeals, the litigants must have standing. Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 20. To establish standing, a litigant must show that she "suffered (1) an injury that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and (3) likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Id. at ¶ 22. "These three factors - injury, causation, and redressability - constitute the 'irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.' " Id., citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Generally, to have standing, litigants must assert their own rights, not the rights of third parties. Util. Serv. Partners, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 284, 2009-Ohio-6764, 921 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 49, citing N. Canton v. Canton, 114 Ohio St.3d 253, 2007-Ohio-4005, 871 N.E.2d 586, ¶ 14.

         {¶6} Mother's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.