2023 Ohio 1112
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Mother has longstanding substance-abuse, criminal, and sexual‑abuse findings; multiple Agency involvements since 2012. Father remained in a relationship with Mother despite these issues.
- Billy (b. 2017) and Josh (b. 2018) were removed from Father’s care on November 25, 2020; adjudicated dependent February 9, 2021.
- Agency provided intensive services (Ohio START), supervised/unsupervised visitations, and a reunification case plan; children stayed in the same foster home with their half‑sisters.
- Agency moved for permanent custody February 10, 2022 (children in Agency custody >12 months of a 22‑month period); guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody.
- Trial evidence: Father bonded with children and attended visits and some services but had recent positive alcohol tests, missed screens, housing/income documentation gaps, and continued ties to Mother; no secure relative placement available.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to Clinton County Children Services (November 2, 2022). Father appealed, raising (1) insufficiency/manifest‑weight of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / not against manifest weight (best‑interest inquiry under R.C. 2151.414) | Agency: children had been in temporary custody >12 months, parents failed to remedy conditions (substance abuse, domestic violence, unstable housing, Father’s inability to separate from Mother); legally secure placement required. | Father: he is bonded to the children, made progress on the case plan, has support from family, and can provide legal custody; agency undervalued his parenting and progress. | Affirmed. Court found clear and convincing evidence permanent custody served children’s best interests (stability, security); Father had not substantially remedied causes for removal and risk Mother would remain in children’s lives. |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel at the permanent‑custody hearing (Strickland claim) | Father: trial counsel failed to cross‑examine the guardian ad litem, failed to challenge alleged lies about November 2020 conduct, did not call/offer witnesses (e.g., Sarah), and waived closing argument. | Agency: counsel’s choices were strategic trial decisions; Father had opportunity to respond; no reasonable probability of a different result. | Affirmed. Court held counsel’s conduct fell within reasonable trial strategy and Father failed to show deficient performance or prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove parental‑rights termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best‑interest factor controls)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (statutory framework for permanent‑custody determinations)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (decision whether to call witnesses is tactical trial strategy)