2022 Ohio 907
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- J.J. born July 2018 and tested positive for suboxone, cocaine, and marijuana; Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) removed the child and obtained temporary custody the same day.
- FCCS filed an abuse/neglect/dependency complaint Oct. 1, 2018; mother has a long history of substance abuse and other children previously removed.
- Putative father was initially incarcerated, has a criminal history, was later released, but never established paternity, never met or visited J.J., and had only intermittent contact with the caseworker (last contact May 2020).
- FCCS moved for permanent custody Dec. 9, 2019; guardian ad litem and the agency recommended permanent custody for adoption by the child’s foster parents, who had cared for J.J. since birth.
- Trial proceeded Jan. 7, 2021; putative father was absent, his counsel requested a continuance which the trial court denied and then held the permanent custody hearing based on testimony from the FCCS caseworker and the GAL.
- Trial court granted permanent custody March 19, 2021; putative father appealed solely arguing denial of a continuance violated due process. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying putative father's last-minute continuance request and proceeding in his absence | Denial violated due process; father could not attend and needed more time to participate | Hearing had been delayed well beyond statutory timelines; father failed to engage, did not establish paternity or show he would offer evidence, child had long-term foster placement and potential adoptive home; counsel represented him | Denial was not an abuse of discretion. Unger factors and docket/child-welfare concerns favored proceeding; father’s absence was unexplained and he failed to show a continuance would change the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (continuance denial reviewed in context of surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors to consider when ruling on a continuance)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subject to child welfare considerations)
- In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619 (1994) (standards in parental-rights/child custody appellate review)