In re A.W.
2020 Ohio 3373
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- CCDCFS removed three children (ages 11, 9, 8 at hearing) in October 2017 after mother left them unsupervised; children remained in agency custody since October 2017.
- Agency filed for permanent custody on September 12, 2018; numerous hearings followed (trial date November 13, 2019 was the 14th court-scheduled hearing and third trial date).
- Mother repeatedly missed visits, failed to maintain housing, had limited engagement with mental-health and substance-abuse services, and missed multiple court dates; visitation with children was sporadic and later suspended.
- At the November 13, 2019 permanent-custody hearing mother was absent; her counsel requested a continuance but offered no explanation for her absence and did not request a specific delay length or report efforts to contact her.
- Trial proceeded without mother; evidence and testimony (social workers, foster parent, GAL) documented instability, unfulfilled case-plan tasks, children’s progress in foster care, and GAL’s recommendation for permanent custody.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS; mother appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance and failing to inquire into her absence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying counsel’s oral request to continue the permanent-custody hearing after mother failed to appear | The court should have granted a continuance or at least attempted to contact mother to learn why she was absent before proceeding | Mother had repeatedly failed to appear, counsel offered no explanation or specific continuance length, local rules require good cause for same-day continuances; denial was within court’s discretion | Affirmed: applying Unger factors, court did not abuse discretion—mother’s lack of cooperation and absence of good cause justified denial and proceeding with trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (recognizes parental right as fundamental)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (termination of parental rights is a grave matter)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (child welfare controls parental-rights analysis)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1979) (factors for evaluating denial of continuance)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process balancing framework)