ZANESVILLE − The Supreme Court of Ohio has set a new precedent in custody law due to a Muskingum County case in which a mother said she was denied due process in fighting for custody of her children. She lost that argument when the highest court of the state rendered its decision on Tuesday.
“We’re very pleased with the decision of the Supreme Court,” said Muskingum County Prosecutor Ron Welch, whose office was accused of denying a Muskingum County woman identified as K.G. the right to cross-examine a psychologist during a May 2022 legal custody hearing.
The psychologist’s report was issued after four separate meetings with K.G. and questioned her parenting. It was one of the factors used for justifying the removal of her children from her care.
“From the time that the case was heard up until the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court ... we feel like we acted properly and legally,” said Welch, who represented Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services in the case. “To have that verified by the Supreme Court is satisfying.”
What happened
K.G. gave birth to two children in 2020 who were both significantly underweight. After the mother suffered mental health issues following the birth of her children, the hospital contacted Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services, who then asked the Muskingum Juvenile Court for temporary custody. The children were placed in the care of a family member.
Protective services filed a motion in 2021 to give the family member legal custody. The report filed by the psychologist questioning K.G.’s ability to parent her children was used during a May 2022 hearing, but the psychologist was not present. The mother's attorney objected, stating the mother should have been able to question the psychologist at the hearing.
The juvenile court disagreed and gave temporary custody to the family member. The mother then appealed the decision in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, where the decision of the issuing court was reversed. Protective services appealed the case, which was then taken up by the Ohio Supreme Court.
What does the case law decision say?
The ruling, re R.G.M., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2737, distinguished between permanency in custody rights, among other things.
It said that a parent in a legal custody proceeding in juvenile court (who still has legal rights but not physical control of the child, as in K.G.’s case), does not have the same legal safeguards as a parent facing the loss of parental rights in a permanent custody proceeding, according to a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jennifer Brunner.
The Supreme Court ruling also stated that “K.G. was not denied an opportunity to question the psychologist,” as was stated in her appeal.
In fact, according to the Supreme Court ruling, K.G. and her attorney had the report from the psychologist for almost a year, didn't question him or subpoenaed him to the May 22 hearing for cross-examination.
“The defense had access to the report and an opportunity to request the chance to question the author about the findings,” said Welch, noting that they just didn’t do it. “The state didn’t violate the parent’s rights during the course of the hearing.”
The court also ruled that K.G. could not show she was harmed by the decision of the juvenile court.
From this day forward
Duking it out at the state Supreme Court level is like breathing rarefied air, said Welch.
“It’s significant. Because not a lot of cases make it to the Supreme Court. It's considered a court of last resort in Ohio. It’s the final say of case law in the state.”
From this day forward, this Muskingum County case will be cited as case law in other court trials with similar facts.
“It has set a precedent,” said Welch. “If this were to come up in (any court in Ohio) that has similar facts, this is going to be what the case law is.”
This article originally appeared on Zanesville Times Recorder: Ohio’s highest court says parent’s rights were not violated in local 2021 custody case
Most Popular
Comments / 0