In re C.B., 214 N.E.3d 673

CCDCFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody for five children; hearing set for June 14, 2022.
Mother’s privately retained counsel withdrew in February 2022; the juvenile court appointed new counsel (P.D.) in April 2022, but appointment notices were mailed to a Parma address from which Mother had been evicted and some mail was returned as undeliverable.
Mother missed several pretrial/arraignment dates in April–May 2022 and did not appear at the June 14 permanent‑custody hearing; counsel P.D. reported he had been unable to contact her and requested a continuance.
The juvenile court denied the same‑day continuance request without making further inquiry; the hearing proceeded with only two agency witnesses testifying, Mother presenting no witnesses or evidence, and P.D. asking no questions.
On October 5, 2022 the juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency and terminated Mother’s parental rights; Mother appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance.
The Eighth District reversed and remanded, holding the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance without conducting a minimal inquiry into the reasons for Mother’s absence; Judge Sheehan dissented, finding the trial court acted within Unger factors and Mother showed no prejudice.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency/Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion (violated due process) by denying counsel’s same‑day continuance request when Mother was absent and counsel had been unable to contact her	Denial was an abuse of discretion because the court made no inquiry into why Mother was absent or whether she had notice of new counsel; a brief continuance was necessary to secure fair treatment	Mother had notice, had missed prior hearings and visits, counsel offered no specific reasons or length of delay, and the agency’s statutory timeline and need for permanency justified proceeding	Reversed and remanded: court abused its discretion by denying continuance without even minimal inquiry into circumstances; a brief continuance may have been imperative to ensure fair treatment (majority). Dissent: trial court acted within Unger discretion and Mother failed to show prejudice

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (establishes due‑process interests in parental‑rights termination)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (discusses factors for evaluating continuance requests)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (no mechanical test; must examine circumstances at time request was denied)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (standard for abuse of discretion)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 679 N.E.2d 680 (parents’ parental‑rights protections and due process)
In re Q.G., 170 Ohio App.3d 609, 868 N.E.2d 713 (parental due‑process protections in juvenile proceedings)