In re C.B.
2023 Ohio 620
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- CCDCFS filed neglect and temporary custody complaints (Apr 13, 2021) for five children after mother A.M. and infant J.W. tested positive for oxycodone and benzodiazepines at birth; complaints alleged ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental‑health issues, and failure to engage child services.
- A case plan aimed at reunification was developed; several fathers were not involved and are not parties to this appeal.
- A permanent custody/trial modification was set for June 14, 2022. On the day of trial, mother’s counsel asked for a continuance because he had been unable to contact A.M. and did not know her position. The agency opposed, noting service was proper and the mother had missed recent hearings.
- The trial court denied the continuance, proceeded, and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS, terminating mother’s parental rights. Mother had attended some earlier hearings but missed three pretrial dates in 2022.
- The appellate majority reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance (noting the court made no findings and that the agency’s family advocate testified she had contacted mother the morning of trial). Judge Sheehan dissented, arguing the Unger factors, local rules, and the children’s need for timely placement supported denial of the continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Mother (A.M.) | CCDCFS (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance of the permanent‑custody trial when counsel could not contact the mother | Counsel lacked contact with mother and could not present her position; continuance was necessary to secure her participation and protect parental liberty interests | Mother was properly served, had missed prior hearings, counsel gave no explanation or requested length of delay, and further delay would prejudice children and exceed statutory timelines | Reversed and remanded — majority finds denial an abuse of discretion; trial court made no findings and evidence suggested contact that morning, warranting further proceedings (dissent disagreed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981) (factors for evaluating a motion for continuance and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of children)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990) (recognizing parental liberty interest in custody decisions)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 776 N.E.2d 485 (2002) (permanent custody as a last‑resort remedy)