In re D.H.
2016 Ohio 7933
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother Angela H. and father Orvin E. had four children adjudicated dependent/neglected in 2012; Columbiana County JFS obtained temporary custody.
- Case plan required home remediation (bedbugs/cockroaches), utilities, parenting classes, counseling, and visitation; children were reunified with parents in Dec. 2014.
- After reunification, home conditions and care deteriorated; mother requested removal in May 2015; agency briefly returned the children but later obtained temporary custody in July 2015 citing infestations, violence, missed medical care, and poor nutrition.
- JFS filed for permanent custody Oct. 29, 2015; hearing held March 14, 2016; witnesses included the court-appointed special advocate and three JFS workers.
- Trial court found father had effectively abandoned the children; mother had poor visitation (11 of 32 offered) and failed to comply with the case plan; court concluded reunification could not be achieved in a reasonable time and granted JFS permanent custody.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) agency witnesses were unqualified to give opinions and counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and (2) the court failed to consider the children’s wishes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were JFS witnesses improperly allowed to give opinion testimony without qualifications? | Appellant: witnesses lacked expert qualifications and thus could not opine that permanent custody was in children’s best interests; counsel was ineffective for not objecting. | JFS: witnesses testified as lay witnesses whose opinions were based on perception and were helpful under Evid.R. 701; only one witness actually opined on best interest. | Court: No error. Witnesses gave permissible lay testimony; only the CASA expressly opined and was qualified by her observations. Counsel not ineffective. |
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to witness testimony? | Appellant: failure to object fell below reasonable standard and prejudiced outcome. | JFS: licensed counsel presumed competent; testimony admissible so no prejudice. | Court: No ineffective assistance—presumption of competence and no prejudice shown. |
| Did the court fail to consider the children's wishes as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b)? | Appellant: children’s wishes were not adequately considered. | JFS: CASA attempted to elicit wishes; children (especially younger ones) were too young or unresponsive. | Court: No abuse of discretion—CASA testimony showed children were unable to reasonably express wishes. |
| Was permanent custody in the children's best interests supported by the record? | Appellant: implied challenge via objections to testimony and process. | JFS: record showed abandonment by father, mother’s poor visitation and noncompliance, unsafe home, and inability to reunify timely. | Court: Affirmed permanent custody—best-interest factors supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental-rights fundamental liberty interest)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights as liberty interest)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (describes termination as family-law equivalent of death penalty)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (discusses gravity of terminating parental rights)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (presumption of licensed-attorney competence)