2019 Ohio 2152
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- J.J., born July 6, 2017, was placed in foster care shortly after birth after his father overdosed; MCJFS filed for dependency and temporary custody on September 9, 2017.
- Mother (K.H.-M.) had a prior child removed for substance abuse and had an open case; case plans focused on addressing Mother’s long‑standing substance abuse.
- Mother inconsistently engaged in treatment, escalated to daily heroin/fentanyl use, missed visits and court hearings, provided no stable address, and ceased regular contact with the agency and guardian ad litem.
- MCJFS moved for permanent custody after Mother failed to remedy conditions that led to placement; a two‑day permanent custody hearing was held which Mother did not attend but was represented by counsel.
- The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights and awarded permanent custody to MCJFS; Mother appealed, raising two assignments of error (denial of continuance and that the permanent custody award was not supported by the evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (MCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying counsel’s oral request to continue the permanent custody hearing when Mother could not obtain transportation | Denial was reversible error because Mother couldn’t appear due to lack of transportation and counsel asked for a continuance | No abuse of discretion: request was last‑minute, not in writing, no proposed new date, Mother had a history of failing to appear and communicate; continuance would prejudice court and parties | Denied: Court did not abuse discretion in refusing last‑minute continuance under Juv.R. 23 and local rules; Assignment I overruled |
| Whether the permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence / not in the child’s best interest | Permanent custody was not supported by evidence; Mother argued for preservation of parental rights | MCJFS: Mother failed to remedy conditions, remained actively using serious opioids, had minimal compliance with case plan, lacked bond with child; foster placement provided stability and bond | Affirmed: Trial court’s best‑interest finding was supported by the evidence; permanent custody to MCJFS appropriate; Assignment II overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors for evaluating trial court’s exercise of discretion over continuances)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody requires proof of both R.C. 2151.414(E) and R.C. 2151.414(D) prongs)