In re D.W.
2013 Ohio 272
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- D.W. was born 1/24/2010 and removed to CCDCFS on 1/26/2010; the child was declared dependent and placed in agency custody by April 2010.
- CCDCFS filed for permanent custody on 1/13/2011; after a 2/14/2012 hearing, a magistrate granted permanent custody to the agency; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on 3/7/2012.
- Appellant-mother appeals the permanent custody ruling on two grounds: manifest weight of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The court applied a two-prong test under RC 2151.414(B) and (D) to determine whether permanent custody to the agency is warranted and whether a legally secure permanent placement is possible without terminating parental rights.
- The trial court found two RC 2151.414(E) factors supported removal and non-reunification: mother’s failure to remedy substance-abuse and prior involuntary termination of rights to siblings; the child has bonded with foster parents and cannot be placed with mother within a reasonable time.
- The court ultimately held the permanent-custody order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and denied ineffective assistance, affirming the agency’s permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to CCDCFS is supported by clear and convincing evidence. | D.W. cannot be reunified within a reasonable time. | Agency proved multiple RC 2151.414(E) factors favoring nonreunification. | Yes; supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether appellate counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness requires reversal. | Counsel failed to object to cocaine-test testimony. | Objections were trial strategy; no prejudice shown. | No; ineffective-assistance claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reunification standards; clear-and-convincing evidence standard applied to permanent custody)
- In re K.M., 8th Dist. No. 98545, 2012-Ohio-6010 (Ohio 2012) (appellate standard for manifest weight and sufficiency in custody cases)
- In re R.M., 2012-Ohio-4290 (Ohio 2012) (clear and convincing evidence in custody determinations)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996-Ohio-182 (1996) (one factor under RC 2151.414(E) may support custody decision)
- In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683, 621 N.E.2d 426 (3d Dist. 1993) (1993) (court may rely on a single best-interest factor)
- In re C.H., 8th Dist. Nos. 82258 and 82852, 2003-Ohio-6854 (2003) (best-interest factors; flexibility in weighing factors)
- State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 358 N.E.2d 623 (1976) (1976) (reasonable performance standard for counsel)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)