2020 Ohio 5610
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Children F.B. (b.2007), S.B. (b.2008), and H.B. (b.2009) were removed from mother’s care after safety-plan violations and a van crash; mother died in Feb. 2017. Father lived in Michigan and had little contact with the children for extended periods.
- An ICPC to move the children to Michigan was discussed but never completed; the children were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care and therapy, each diagnosed with PTSD and related needs.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody in June 2018. The juvenile court ordered father to complete services and attend visits; father’s counsel changed and father repeatedly sought new counsel during the proceedings.
- Trial occurred Nov. 2019 and Jan. 2020; the magistrate granted HCJFS permanent custody in Feb. 2020. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in Aug. 2020. Father appealed.
- The court affirmed: (1) denial of father’s request to discharge appointed counsel was not error, and (2) HCJFS proved by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest (12+ months in agency custody, abandonment, weak parent–child bond, and children’s therapeutic needs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying father’s request to discharge appointed counsel | HCJFS: denial was within court’s discretion; counsel remained effective and prepared | Father: communication breakdown with counsel required substitution to protect his right to effective assistance | Court: no plain error; father failed to show a breakdown jeopardizing effective assistance; request properly denied |
| Whether HCJFS proved by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is appropriate | HCJFS: children were in agency custody >12 months, father abandoned children, weak parental bond, children need a legally secure placement and ongoing therapy | Father: insufficient proof of lack of bond; children (or some) expressed desire to live with father | Court: affirmed—statutory prongs satisfied (2151.414(B) and (D)(1)); best-interest factors supported permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substitution of counsel)
- State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 1988) (test for discharging appointed counsel: breakdown in attorney-client relationship that jeopardizes effective assistance)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard and its limited application)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio 2017) (plain-error applied only in extremely rare cases affecting fairness/integrity)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (parental-rights termination is extreme but permitted when necessary for child welfare)
- In re Fassinger, 42 Ohio St.2d 505 (Ohio 1975) (same principle regarding termination as last resort)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (no single best-interest factor is dispositive)