In re C.G., 2012 Ohio 5999

CSB filed a dependency complaint for C.G. due to Mother's ongoing substance abuse; custody issues for C.G. only are at issue on appeal.
All four children were adjudicated dependent on March 11, 2010, and initially remained with Mother under protective supervision.
On October 15, 2010, C.G. and half-sister M.W. were placed in temporary custody of Shawn W., with CSB retaining protective supervision.
Paternity was established in August 2010; first visits with Father occurred but ceased after Father’s domestic-violence arrest and incarceration; Father later sought appointed counsel and resumed contact after release.
By January 2012, hearings addressed competing motions for legal custody (Father vs. Shawn W.); Father failed to appear, a continuance was denied, and the magistrate granted custody to Shawn W.; the trial court adopted that decision and Father appealed.
The court ultimately affirmed the custody award to Shawn W., holding that the continuance denial did not violate due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance violated due process	Father contends the denial violated due process rights by preventing witnesses and caseworker testimony.	Shawn W. argues the court balanced Unger factors and Father’s absence caused unavoidable delay and prejudice.	No reversible error; denial of continuance upheld due to Father’s unexplained absence and lack of legitimate reason.

In re J.S., 2011-Ohio-985 (9th Dist. 2011) (parental presence not absolute; due process requires cooperation)
In re Q.G., 2007-Ohio-1312 (8th Dist. 2007) (due process considerations in custody proceedings)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (not every delay violates due process; factors apply)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (Unger factors for continuances)
In re B.M., 2009-Ohio-4846 (10th Dist. 2009) (parental absence and continuance discretion depend on communication)