2022 Ohio 3136
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Infant C.B. (born 9/21/21) was removed days after birth when CCDCFS filed for emergency predispositional custody and sought permanent custody the same day.
- Mother (R.C.) has a long history with the agency since 2014: five older children removed, unstable housing, unresolved mental-health and substance-abuse issues, and criminal convictions including domestic violence and endangering children.
- Father acknowledged paternity but also has substance abuse, domestic-violence, and mental-health concerns and refused visitation; he did not appeal.
- Mother missed multiple court dates, had inconsistent contact with counsel and the agency, and visitation with C.B. was sporadic.
- At the adjudicatory hearing the agency’s social worker testified to Mother’s history; the court adjudicated C.B. dependent and, after considering dispositional evidence and the GAL’s recommendation, awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- Mother appealed, raising three assignments of error: denial of continuance, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficiency of clear-and-convincing evidence for permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of counsel’s request to continue the adjudicatory hearing violated due process | Mother argued continuance was warranted because she was absent and counsel lacked contact; her presence would provide material testimony | Agency/court argued Mother repeatedly failed to cooperate or communicate and had prior missed hearings; delay would be unjustified | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no due-process violation given Mother’s prior non-cooperation and Unger factors weighed against continuance |
| Whether appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance | Mother alleged counsel failed to file pleadings, cross-examine, make opening/closing statements, call witnesses, or seek continuance | Agency argued counsel made tactical decisions, participated in discovery, sought continuance earlier, and evidence showed counsel’s actions were reasonable | Counsel was not ineffective; presumption of reasonable strategy not overcome and Mother failed to show prejudice (Strickland standard) |
| Whether the trial court’s permanent-custody award was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued the court lacked clear-and-convincing proof that C.B. could not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest | Agency pointed to Mother’s long history of failing to remedy conditions, prior terminations of parental rights to siblings, chronic mental/chemical issues, sporadic contact/visitation, and GAL recommendation for permanency | Affirmed: court found multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (including failure to remedy conditions and prior involuntary terminations) and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental right is an essential civil right)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (2002) (termination of parental rights likened to death penalty; last resort)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 (2020) (trial-court discretion as to continuances)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (presumption of effective assistance; standards for proving ineffectiveness)