In re A.U.
2021 Ohio 2658
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) moved for permanent custody of A.U. in August 2018; the child had been in agency custody continuously since late 2016.
- At the November 2020 permanent custody trial the court conducted an in-camera interview; the eight-year-old child said she wanted to remain with her foster parents and tried calling mother without success.
- Mother had inconsistent housing and employment, poor compliance with required assessments and services (mental health, domestic violence, AOD), reduced and sporadic visitation (including two gaps >90 days), and no demonstrable bond with the child.
- FCCS’s caseworker and the guardian ad litem testified the child was strongly bonded to foster parents, who were willing to adopt; both recommended permanent custody for FCCS.
- Mother’s counsel sought a continuance because mother was absent and claimed lack of notice; the trial court denied the continuance, granted FCCS permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), and mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance violated due process | Mother said she did not know the trial date or was sick and needed more time | Court and FCCS noted counsel knew the date, no proof of illness, and case already delayed well beyond statutory timelines | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no due-process violation |
| Trial court erred by relying on R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) | Mother argued B(2) inapplicable because no reasonable-efforts-bypass finding under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2) | FCCS relied on permanent-custody grounds; trial court also found alternate basis under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) | Court agreed B(2) was improperly applied but error was harmless because B(1) independently supported the award |
| Permanent custody not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued the evidence did not justify terminating parental rights or show best interest findings | FCCS/guardian cited child’s strong foster bonds, child’s wishes, long custodial history, mother’s failure to complete services, and periods of abandonment/90+ day noncontact | Trial court’s grant of permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) was supported by competent, credible evidence and not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (no mechanical test for continuance denials; context-specific due-process inquiry)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental interest)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (appellate courts construe evidence favorably to sustain a judgment)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor is entitled to greater weight)