In re K.H., 2022 Ohio 2588

Mother (T.H.) has five children; CCDCFS filed a refiled complaint alleging neglect/dependency based on Mother's mental‑health/anger issues, daily marijuana use while caring for the children, and a 2016 prior removal of three older children.
Children were placed in agency emergency custody in July 2021; case plan required mental‑health and substance assessments, anger management and parenting classes, and random drug screens.
Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings were set for December 7, 2021 (about day 88 of the 90‑day deadline). Mother's primary public‑defender attorney (Daugherty) learned of COVID exposure and could not appear in person; Supervising attorney Amata moved for a continuance and instead substituted in to represent Mother.
Magistrate denied the continuance citing statutory time constraints, conducted hearings, and adjudicated the children neglected and dependent; temporary custody was granted to CCDCFS based on testimony about Mother's statements, admission of daily marijuana use, refusal of recommended substance‑abuse treatment, and repeated volatile visitation behavior.
Mother objected, arguing denial of the continuance deprived her of effective counsel and due process; the juvenile court conducted an independent review, found Amata provided effective representation, overruled objections, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding the denial was not an abuse of discretion and Mother showed no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance (and refusal to dismiss under R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)) violated Mother's due‑process/right to effective counsel and required dismissal or rehearing	Daugherty was the prepared attorney but quarantined due to COVID exposure; Amata had little time to prepare; denial deprived Mother of effective counsel and she was entitled to a continuance or dismissal/refile to preserve fairness	Amata effectively and zealously represented Mother; statutory deadlines and children’s need for prompt permanency outweigh a brief continuance; dismissal/refiling would delay and harm children; Mother was not prejudiced	Court affirmed: denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion; no due‑process violation; Mother failed to show prejudice and Amata competently represented her

Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (due‑process analysis requires case‑specific inquiry into whether denial of continuance was arbitrary)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (enumerates factors to consider in ruling on continuance requests)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
State v. Sowders, 4 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1983) (recognizes right to counsel’s reasonable opportunity to prepare as a due‑process concern)