In re A.E.
2021 Ohio 488
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Mother S.E.'s three younger children (W.P., A.J., A.E.) entered juvenile proceedings after S.E. tested positive for opioids at A.E.'s birth and admitted prenatal Percocet use; A.E. showed withdrawal.
- FCCS obtained temporary custody; case plans required substance-abuse assessment, regular drug screens, parenting training, and caseworker contact.
- Children were returned to relatives/foster care intermittently; S.E. repeatedly missed or failed drug screens, admitted relapses, and did not complete AOD assessment or parenting program.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody after multi-year involvement; GAL recommended permanent custody; foster parent willing to adopt A.E. and A.J., possibly W.P.
- S.E. did not appear at the permanent-custody hearing (counsel requested continuance for her in residential treatment but court proceeded); juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence.
- S.E. appealed, raising three assignments: (1) W.P. was denied counsel due to conflict, (2) ineffective assistance of mother’s counsel, and (3) judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.E.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence | S.E.: she could remedy conditions; evidence insufficient to show children cannot be placed with parents within reasonable time | FCCS: S.E. repeatedly failed to complete case-plan requirements (drug treatment/screens, parenting), children need legally secure placement | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and best-interest finding |
| Whether S.E. received ineffective assistance of counsel | S.E.: trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony about positive drug screens and otherwise performed deficiently | FCCS: counsel’s conduct was within trial strategy; even if deficient, no prejudice because record overwhelmingly shows case-plan failures | Court: Rejected — no deficient performance shown; or no prejudice under Strickland if any error |
| Whether W.P. was denied effective counsel due to conflict in counsel’s representation | S.E.: counsel for W.P. conflicted between W.P.’s wish to reunify and siblings’ differing interests, so W.P. lacked advocacy | FCCS: S.E. lacks standing; argument waived; no actual/apparent conflict in record | Court: S.E. had standing but waived by not raising below; record shows no actual/apparent conflict and no prejudice; claim fails |
| Admissibility of testimony about drug-test results (hearsay) | S.E.: Schilling's testimony about positive ACS drug screens was hearsay and inadmissible absent proper foundation | FCCS: such records fall under business/public-records exceptions and were admissible; in any event any error was harmless | Court: Court treated foundation as uncertain but found any admission harmless given extensive admissible evidence of noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a constitutionally protected fundamental interest in raising their children)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (termination of parental rights is the family-law equivalent of the death penalty; heightened protections required)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (circumstances requiring appointment of independent counsel for a child when GAL’s recommendation conflicts with child’s expressed, repeated strong wishes)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (appellate standard: interpret evidence most favorably to sustaining trial court’s judgment)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)