In re C.D., 2019 Ohio 4911

Mother (T.W.) has a long history of heroin addiction and criminal-justice involvement; she admitted dependence and failed to complete a case plan (no assessment, no parenting classes, poor contact with the caseworker).
Child C.D., age 16 during proceedings, had behavioral and substance-use problems, multiple placements (therapeutic foster home, detention, Marsh Foundation, Buckeye Ranch), and delinquency contacts; the Agency provided intensive behavioral/mental-health services.
Guardian ad litem filed a dependency complaint in March 2017; the juvenile court adjudicated C.D. dependent and placed him in the Agency’s temporary custody.
The Agency moved for permanent custody in May 2018; Mother did not attend the permanent-custody hearing (she later said she overslept), counsel sought a continuance which the magistrate denied, but the court allowed Mother, C.D., and Father to later testify.
Magistrate granted the Agency’s motion for permanent custody; the juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections and affirmed. Mother appeals, arguing (1) the permanent-custody award was against the manifest weight/unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) the denial of a continuance was erroneous.
The juvenile court found Mother’s credibility questionable, noted Mother had been in Agency custody for at least 12 of 22 months (a statutory ground), and emphasized C.D.’s need for stable, ongoing behavioral and medical services that the Agency could provide.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether granting permanent custody to the Agency was in C.D.’s best interest (and supported by clear and convincing evidence)	Mother: she is sober, has housing and employment, can reunify and care for C.D.	Agency: Mother failed case-plan tasks, has ongoing instability and credibility issues; C.D. needs secure placement and treatment only the Agency can provide	Court: Affirmed permanent custody to Agency; decision supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against manifest weight
Whether denial of a continuance (Mother absent at hearing) was unreasonable/arbitrary	Mother: denial denied fair process because she missed the hearing (overslept)	Agency/Court: State ready, witnesses present; counsel participated and Mother later testified; no plain error shown	Court: Denial not reversible; Mother later testified and the proceedings remained fair; assignment overruled

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (sets the standard for manifest-weight review and when a reviewing court may overturn factfinder’s credibility and weight determinations)