2024 Ohio 626
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- X.S. is the biological father of J.S., and acted as father to J.R., both of whom were found to be dependent children due to parental drug use, domestic violence, and neglect (including lack of feeding).
- Children were placed in temporary custody of Logan County Children’s Services (the Agency) in May 2020 and a guardian ad litem was appointed.
- X.S. was not served with the original complaint but later appeared and waived any defect in service; he intermittently engaged in case plan services designed to allow reunification.
- The mother, A.R., passed away in September 2021; thereafter, the Agency moved for permanent custody as children remained in care for over 12 of 22 months.
- X.S. struggled with substance abuse, mental health, compliance with the case plan, and lost visitation due to attending under the influence; both the GAL and Agency recommended against reunification.
- After a permanency hearing, the trial court granted the Agency permanent custody and denied X.S.'s motions for custody, resulting in this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over X.S. at adjudication | Lack of personal jurisdiction voids the dependent finding | Personal jurisdiction was waived by X.S.'s appearance | Waiver applies, not void; overruled |
| Manifest weight—permanent custody | Granting custody was against the manifest weight | Agency met statutory requirements; evidence supports | Evidence supports Agency; affirmed |
| Reasonable efforts to reunify | Agency failed to make reasonable efforts | Agency provided referrals and opportunities as required | Reasonable efforts found; affirmed |
| Denial of X.S.'s motion for J.R. custody | Error to deny legal custody to X.S. | Continuing problems justified denial | Denial supported by record; affirmed |
| Stay during third-party appeal | Error to stay proceedings for non-party appeal | No timely objection and no prejudice shown | No prejudice; overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object on key issues | No prejudice shown; actions may have been strategic | No ineffective assistance; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.K., 170 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 2022) (distinguishes void vs. voidable judgments in custody context)
- State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (Ohio 1976) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (Ohio 1976) (two-step test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (burden and presumption of competency for attorneys)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (definition of prejudice in ineffective assistance claims)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parent’s fundamental right but rights can be terminated with due process)
- In re Leveck, 2003–Ohio–1269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (standards for terminating parental rights)
- State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513 (Ohio 2019) (arguments must be timely raised in trial court for appeal)