2021 Ohio 2640
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- C.R. (b. Sept. 2019) was placed in temporary custody of relative Anneliese after the Seneca County JFS alleged parental drug use and lack of proper care; temporary orders issued Oct. 2019.
- Case plan (Nov. 2019) required Kimberly to complete drug/alcohol and mental‑health assessments and counseling, obtain housing/employment, sign releases, and submit to random drug tests.
- Parents admitted dependency (Jan. 6, 2020); neglect allegations were dismissed without prejudice; supervised visitation ordered.
- Semi‑annual reviews showed Kimberly continued to test positive for illegal drugs, failed to engage consistently in services or sign releases, and had sporadic visitation; SCDJFS moved for legal custody to Anneliese (June/Oct. 2020).
- At the Oct. 7, 2020 hearing Kimberly (through counsel) requested an extension/continuance citing COVID‑related impediments; the trial court denied the request, proceeded, and later granted legal custody to Anneliese (Oct. 21, 2020).
- Kimberly appealed only the denial of the continuance/extension; the appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and declining to reach Kimberly’s bare assertion that awarding legal custody was an abuse because it was inadequately briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Kimberly’s request for a continuance/extension of temporary custody | Kimberly: COVID disrupted access to treatment; she had recently made progress (stable housing) and needed more time to comply with the case plan | SCDJFS: local services were available during COVID; mother refused or failed to engage, failed to sign releases, continued positive drug tests, and had poor visitation history | Denial was not an abuse of discretion. Evidence showed insufficient progress, no reasonable belief reunification would occur within an extension, and Unger continuance factors weighed against delay |
| Whether awarding legal custody to Anneliese was an abuse of discretion | Kimberly summarily asserted abuse of discretion on appeal | SCDJFS and trial record: caseworker and GAL recommended legal custody to Anneliese; evidence supported the placement | Appellate court declined to consider this assignment because Kimberly failed to brief or cite authority/record as required; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard).
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors to consider when deciding continuance requests).