In re C.W., 2024 Ohio 4987

C.W., a child born in 2020, was removed from his mother's care after repeated incidents of mother's criminal conduct, mental health concerns, and inconsistent visitation, leading Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS) to seek first temporary and then permanent custody.
C.W. was placed with his maternal great-grandmother (M.S.), who provided care and sought to adopt him. C.W. thrived in this stable environment.
Mother had an extensive criminal history, multiple incarcerations, and struggled to consistently participate in visitation and court-ordered services due to her legal troubles.
The magistrate granted one continuance for a permanent custody hearing based on mother's incarceration, but denied a second, proceeding without her physical or remote presence (her counsel participated on her behalf).
The trial court agreed with the magistrate’s findings, overruling mother’s objections, and granted permanent custody of C.W. to HCJFS. Mother appealed, arguing due process violations and evidentiary errors.

Issue	Mother's Argument	HCJFS/Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance/remoteness	Error to deny another continuance for her appearance at hearing; court should have facilitated remote access	Mother's ongoing incarceration undermines permanency for C.W.; one continuance already granted	No plain error—mother represented; interests balanced
Sufficiency/weight of evidence	Insufficient evidence that permanent custody was in C.W.’s best interest; manifest weight against agency	Mother’s inconsistent involvement, ongoing risk, abandonment due to lapse in visitation	Sufficient evidence supports judgment

In re J.W. and H.W., 2019-Ohio-2730 (plain error review applies where parent fails to object to denial of continuance in magistrate objections; counsel’s representation and record suffices for due process)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)