In re I.N.
2021 Ohio 1406
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Children I.N., D.N., and F.N. were placed in CCDCFS custody in Feb. 2019 and adjudicated dependent in Apr. 2019; CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in Oct. 2019.
- Trial on the permanent-custody motion was ultimately set for Sept. 25, 2020; Mother (S.K.) failed to appear.
- Mother's counsel requested a same-day continuance after learning Mother emailed the caseworker at 3:00 a.m. claiming she was quarantining for COVID exposure and could not attend.
- Prosecutor and the guardian ad litem disputed Mother’s credibility, noted delays and lack of verification, and said Mother made no effort to participate by phone or video.
- The trial court denied the continuance, found Mother had a history of poor communication/cooperation, and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS; Mother appealed the denial of the continuance.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the unverified, last-minute continuance and concluding the permanent-custody outcome would not have changed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CCDCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother's same-day continuance request based on alleged COVID quarantine | Mother's excuse was unverified, suspiciously tardy, and likely a dilatory tactic; Mother failed to contact counsel or attempt remote attendance; prior continuances and children's need for finality weigh against delay | Mother was quarantining due to COVID exposure and could not contact counsel; local and Supreme Court COVID orders permit continuances for health reasons | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Mother offered no verification, had a pattern of noncooperation, and even a short continuance would not have altered the custody outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio 1981) (sets Unger factors for continuance decisions and discretionary review)
- In re Hockstok, 781 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio 2002) (parental-rights restrictions require due process: notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Thomas v. Cleveland, 892 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review includes misapplication of legal standards or clearly erroneous factual findings)
- Vannucci v. Schneider, 110 N.E.3d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for trial court’s discretion)
- In re Q.G., 868 N.E.2d 713 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (parent must cooperate and communicate with counsel/court to assert due-process objections in termination proceedings)