2018 Ohio 2020
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Alison Ward appealed the juvenile court's September 19, 2017 judgment terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of her four children to Geauga County Department of Job and Family Services (GCDJFS).
- Ward raised four assignments of error, including challenges to extensions of temporary custody, post-judgment proceedings, case planning/diligence by GCDJFS, and a claimed conflict of interest involving counsel.
- The conflict claim: Donovan DeLuca had been appointed as Ward’s co-counsel on August 4, 2014, but DeLuca later represented GCDJFS; the record also shows Del Balso withdrew and Paul Mooney entered appearance for Ward; DeLuca was later dismissed sua sponte.
- There were no pleadings by DeLuca on Ward’s behalf, no allegation in the trial court that his dual representation caused prejudice, and Ward did not object below on conflict grounds.
- The appellate court concluded a possible conflict existed because DeLuca had represented both Ward and GCDJFS during the same proceedings, triggering the court’s duty to inquire under controlling precedent.
- The court remanded for a limited hearing to determine whether an actual conflict existed; if so, the trial court must hold a new permanent custody hearing free of conflict; if not, the case returns to the appellate court for completion of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ward) | Defendant's Argument (GCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated Ward’s right to conflict-free counsel by allowing DeLuca to prosecute GCDJFS’s custody motion after his prior appointment for Ward | DeLuca previously served as her court-appointed co-counsel, creating a conflict when he later represented GCDJFS | DeLuca’s prior role was minimal/on-paper; he was dismissed and Ward suffered no shown prejudice | Remanded: possible conflict required a hearing to determine if an actual conflict affected representation; if actual conflict found, new hearing mandated; if not, appellate review resumes |
| Whether an affirmative duty to inquire into possible conflict existed | Ward argues the court should have inquired and prevented conflict | GCDJFS would argue no actual conflict or prejudice shown; appointment was brief/administrative | Court held duty to inquire applied and remand for hearing was required |
| Whether lack of pleadings or identifiable prejudice defeats conflict claim | Ward contends any earlier representation that overlaps with later adverse representation raises the need for inquiry | GCDJFS argues absence of filings or demonstrated adverse effect means no actual conflict | Court required factfinding to determine if conflict actually affected counsel’s performance |
| Appropriate remedy if actual conflict found | Ward seeks new permanent custody hearing | GCDJFS opposes remand/new trial absent showing of prejudice | If actual conflict found: order new trial; if not: no further proceedings on conflict issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gillard, 64 Ohio St.3d 304, 595 N.E.2d 878 (1992) (court must inquire when it knows or should know of a possible conflict; if actual conflict found, remedy includes new proceedings)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (defines "actual conflict of interest" as one that adversely affects counsel’s performance)