2018 Ohio 3897
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Aug. 2016 Akron police removed four children from Mother’s home for unsanitary conditions and alleged captivity; CSB filed complaints and children were adjudicated neglected and dependent and placed in CSB temporary custody.
- CSB moved for permanent custody in June 2017 alleging parents had not remedied conditions and fathers had abandoned the children; CSB sought permanent custody as in the children’s best interest.
- Father (biological father of one child, F.V.) lived in Illinois for much of the case and had limited engagement with CSB and services until shortly before the permanent custody hearing.
- At the two-day permanent custody hearing the juvenile court denied parents’ requests for a six‑month extension, granted CSB’s motion for permanent custody, and terminated parental rights; both parents appealed.
- Mother failed to file an appellate brief and her appeal was dismissed for abandonment; Father raised two assignments of error: (1) CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance for the first day of the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CSB / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with F.V. | CSB did not use reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification, making permanent custody improper. | CSB communicated regularly, attempted to secure out‑of‑state services, and Father largely failed to comply with or pursue services within his control. | Court held reasonable efforts were made; Father forfeited some challenges by not objecting below; finding not against manifest weight of the evidence. |
| Whether denial of continuance for first day of hearing was an abuse of discretion | Denial was arbitrary and prejudicial because Father was absent and needed counsel present in person. | Father had months’ notice, counsel was present and cross‑examined witnesses, and the court later granted a continuance and allowed recall of witnesses; Father did not show prejudice. | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (explains reasonable‑efforts framework in child‑welfare cases)
- Unger v. Sarafite, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (sets factors for evaluating continuance requests and abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (discusses appellate review limits on substituting judgment for trial court)