2013 Ohio 1802
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CCDCFS sought and obtained ex parte custody of A.C. in May 2011 and filed a neglect/dependency petition the following week for disposition and predisposition custody.
- A.C. was adjudicated neglected and placed in CCDCFS temporary custody after a July 2011 adjudicatory hearing in which mother admitted to an amended complaint.
- CCDCFS moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody, with trial dates in 2012 that repeatedly occurred without mother appearing.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing in September 2012 and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS, terminating mother's parental rights.
- At the permanent custody hearing, mother failed to complete case-plan objectives (substance abuse treatment, mental health services, housing), and had minimal, inconsistent visitation with A.C.
- Guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS due to lack of progress and an adoptive foster placement with a strong bond to A.C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion | Appellant argues denial prevented a full defense and violated Juv.R. 23. | CCDCFS contends continuance not warranted; mother had notice and counsel represented her; guardians objected to delay. | No abuse; trial court acted within discretion to proceed in absence. |
| Whether permanent custody to CCDCFS was proper | Mother contends trial court erred by terminating parental rights and awarding custody to CCDCFS. | CCDCFS contends clear and convincing evidence showed parent failures to remedy conditions and best interests support custody to the agency. | Permanent custody to CCDCFS affirmed; evidence supported best interests and inability to place with either parent. |
| Whether ICWA obligations were violated | Mother asserts ICWA requirements were not followed. | State argues no Indian child status was shown and ICWA did not apply. | Assigned error overruled; ICWA not triggered as no Indian child finding was established. |
| Whether mother received ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to seek recess and failed to call witnesses for mother. | Mother did not demonstrate prejudice or specify who could have testified; counsel's performance not shown deficient. | Appellant's ineffective-assistance claim overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.S., 8th Dist. No. 95809, 2011-Ohio-3836 (8th Dist. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances in juvenile proceedings)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981) (Sup. Ct. 1981) (abuse-of-discretion framework and standard for trial court decisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (Sup. Ct. 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion and review scope)
- In re T.S., 8th Dist. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496 (8th Dist. 2009) (evidence standard for permanency and custody decisions)
- In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-780 (8th Dist. 2010) (R.C. 2151.414 framework and placement considerations)
- In re I.K., 2011-Ohio-4512 (8th Dist. 2011) (application of R.C. 2151.414(E) factors when determining inability to place)
- In re H.F., 8th Dist. Nos. 90299 and 90300, 2009-Ohio-1798 (8th Dist. 2009) (continuance denial cases under Juv.R. 23)