In re J.E.
100 N.E.3d 151
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Child J.E., born Dec. 2014, was placed in Agency custody January 2015 after dependency findings; mother is Sasha Steele.
- Agency filed for permanent custody on April 26, 2016; multiple continuances occurred and hearing ultimately held January 12, 2017.
- Steele moved to continue the January 12, 2017 permanent-custody hearing; the trial court denied the motion and later granted permanent custody to the Marion County Children’s Services Board on March 8, 2017.
- Steele appealed, raising three issues: denial of continuance, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the permanent-custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence / contrary to law.
- Trial court found (and the record showed) that J.E. had been in temporary custody for over 12 of 22 months, that parents lacked stable housing and sobriety, and that a legally secure permanent placement for J.E. required granting the Agency permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steele) | Defendant's Argument (Agency / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance | Needed time for sober-living move, probation hearing, treatment progress; denial was an abuse of discretion and entry was cursory | Multiple prior continuances; request was indeterminate in length; delay would inconvenience parties and likely not change outcome; statutory 120-day benchmark already exceeded without good cause | Court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance; denial affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel failed to object to hearsay about kinship placement availability, prejudicing outcome | Even if excluded, court not required to consider kinship placement and ruling would likely be same; no demonstrated prejudice | No ineffective assistance shown (no prejudice); claim overruled |
| Manifest weight / contrary to law on permanent custody | Trial court failed to enumerate which R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors supported custody and decision was against the weight of evidence | Court cited statute, made factual findings tied to statutory factors (custodial history, parent-child bond, stability, child’s need for permanent placement); clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody | Decision supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and not against manifest weight; permanent custody affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandusky Props. v. Aveni, 15 Ohio St.3d 273 (1984) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in child custody)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (application of Strickland in Ohio)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (clear-and-convincing standard in parental-rights cases)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental right to raise a child is a fundamental right)