In re A.L., 2016 Ohio 3189

FCCS filed neglect/dependency complaints (Jan 2014) after reports that two young children lived in a drug-infested home with exposure to cocaine use, domestic violence, unsupervised conditions, and unexplained injuries.
Children were adjudicated neglected (Feb 2014). A reunification case plan required father to complete AOD treatment, provide clean drug screens, obtain stable housing and income, attend parenting classes and medical appointments, and address mental/physical health issues.
Over ~2 years father made intermittent progress (some negative screens, treatment attendance, temporary housing) but repeatedly relapsed, missed many requirements, was hospitalized after a suicide attempt, and had visits suspended after threatening a caseworker.
FCCS moved for permanent custody (Nov 2014). At the October 2015 permanent-custody trial father sought a continuance to finish inpatient drug treatment and establish housing; the trial court denied the continuance and awarded permanent custody to FCCS, finding the children thriving in foster care and father noncompliant with multiple case-plan objectives.
On appeal father challenged only the trial court’s denial of the continuance; the appellate court reviewed the Ungar factors and affirmed, holding denial was not an abuse of discretion because the requested delay was indefinite, father contributed to the delay, prior time had been given, and a continuance likely would not have altered the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a day-of-trial continuance to allow father to complete inpatient drug treatment and pursue medical care	Father: needed short continuance to finish treatment, enter aftercare, and obtain housing so reunification might be possible	FCCS: children had been in custody ~2 years; further delay would prejudice children’s interest in permanency; father had many unmet case-plan obligations and prior opportunities	Denied. Court affirmed denial as not an abuse of discretion: requested delay was effectively indefinite, father contributed to the delay, prior time had been provided, and a continuance likely would not have changed the outcome

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental liberty interest is fundamental)
In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (termination of parental rights is last resort; best interest controls at disposition)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parents entitled to full procedural and substantive protections)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance and factors to consider)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (permanent termination as last resort)
In re Brofford, 83 Ohio App.3d 869 (Ohio Ct. App.) (weight-of-evidence standard for permanent-custody decisions)