In re Fassinger, 330 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Fassinger, 330 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · …the filing of a complaint containing a prayer requesting permanent custody, sufficiently apprising the parents of the grounds upon which the order is to be based, and the service of summons upon the parents, explaining that the granting of such an order permanently divests them … ✓
44 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Covin (ohioctapp, 1982-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Covin
Ohio Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Although the appellant cites R.C. 2151.414 in support of her claim that the welfare department’s motion for permanent custody failed to apprise her sufficiently of the grounds for the department’s request for permanent custody, 1 that claim would more appropriately lie under R.C. 2151.353(B) which provides in pertinent part: “No order for permanent custody shall be made at the hearing at which the child is adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent except and unless the complaint alleging the abuse, neglect, or dependency contains a prayer requesting permanent custody and the summons se…
discussed Cited "see" In Re Matter of Shepherd, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2001) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Fassinger (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 505 , 330 N.E.2d 431 .
examined Cited "see" In Re Brown (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Fassinger (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 505 , 71 O.O.2d 503 , 330 N.E.2d 431 .
discussed Cited "see" In Re Lucas (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Fassinger (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 505 [ 71 O.O.2d 503 ].
discussed Cited "see" In Re Sims (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Fassinger (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 505 [ 71 O.O.2d 503 ].
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re J.H.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare In re Fassinger, 42 Ohio St.2d 505 (at a time when a summons would have been required and the initial complaint was lacking content as well).4 It is undisputed BCDJFS’s motion for permanent custody contained reasons based on the (E)(1) factor supporting the particular ground alleged under division (B)(1)(a) of R.C. 2151.414. {¶55} Even assuming the Supreme Court would adopt the mother’s argument equating a reason or factor with the required Juv.R. 19 notice (“state with particularity the grounds”), the mother does not contest the sufficiency of the notice in the permanent cust…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Fassinger
No. 74-804.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 25, 1975.
330 N.E.2d 431
1975 Ohio LEXIS 523
Mr. Joseph Lajack, for appellant, Cuyahoga County Welfare Department., Mrs. Harriet B. Holtzman and Mr. Sarge R. Holtsman, for appellees, Donald and Jean Fassinger.
Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
Paul W. Brown, J.

E. C. 2151.353 provides that:

“No order for permanent custody shall be made at the hearing wherein the child is adjudicated neglected or dependent except and unless the complaint alleging the neglect or dependency contains a prayer requesting such permanent custody and the summons served on the parents contains a full explanation that the granting of such an order permanently divests them of their parental rights.”

Because the Cuyahoga County Welfare Department failed to comply with the explicit requirements of this statute, the agency’s laudatory effort to provide the Fassinger children with adequate parental care must come to naught.

The agency’s original complaint, filed on December 13, 1971, did not purport to seek permanent custody. Had it done so, it would have been defective, in that the summons served upon the parents failed to contain the explanation required by E. C. 2151.353, that the granting of the order sought would permanently divest them of their parental rights.

The agency’s subsequent motion, filed on August 20, 1973, was also deficient. Though not denominated a complaint, it specifically requested an order changing permanent custody. The summons served upon the parents contained the explanation required by law. But the motion itself failed to allege neglect or dependence, or to assert any other ground for a change in custody with sufficient definiteness that the parents could be apprised of the charge they would be required to meet.

The mandate of E. C. 2151.353 is clear. To modify its requirements in a well-intentioned effort to assist the Fassinger children, or to construe the agency’s complaint and motion together, so as to bring them into compliance with the statute, would be improper. The parents of Celeste and Christine Fassinger sought, and concurred in, the initial vesting of temporary custody in the agency. To deny them permanent custody, without proper notice, summons, and hearing, would be manifestly unfair.

[*508] We hold that under R. C. 2151.353, the filing of a complaint containing a prayer requesting permanent custody, sufficiently apprising the parents of the grounds upon which the order is to be based, and the service of summons upon the parents, explaining that the granting of such an order permanently divests them of their parental rights, are prerequisite to a valid adjudication that a child is neglected or dependent for the purpose of obtaining an order for permanent custody divesting parental rights.

The judgment of the Court of. Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze and W. Brown, JJ., concur.