Background - Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) removed three young children (born 2010, 2012, 2013) after reports of parental drug use, physical abuse in the children's presence, unsanitary/unsafe home conditions, and prior cigarette burn on a child. - Children entered temporary custody in Feb 2015; they remained in FCCS custody for over two years as parents failed to complete case-plan requirements and tested positive for heroin. - FCCS filed for permanent custody (PCC) in Nov 2016; multiple pretrials were held and the final PCC hearing was set for June 5–6, 2017. - Both parents failed to appear at the June 5, 2017 hearing: mother claimed a medical emergency (unverified); father was allegedly incarcerated in South Carolina (counsel learned that morning). - Trial court denied day‑of‑trial continuance requests, proceeded with testimony from FCCS witnesses and the guardian ad litem, and granted FCCS permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence. - Parents appealed arguing denial of continuance and, for father, violation of due process by not securing his attendance or alternative participation; the appellate court affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mother's day‑of‑trial continuance | Mother: continuance needed due to sudden medical emergency to allow her to testify and present improved case‑plan compliance | FCCS: mother had history of last‑minute nonappearances, PCC already delayed beyond statutory 120‑day goal, continuance would further harm children's need for permanency | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; continuance request lacked credibility and would unduly delay permanency | | Whether father's absence and lack of transportation/alternatives violated his constitutional right to be present | Father: court should have ensured transport or alternative means (e.g., video/telephonic) to secure his participation | FCCS: no such request was made below; issue not preserved for appeal | Appellate court refused to consider for first time on appeal and overruled this argument | | Whether denying father's continuance while he was incarcerated violated due process | Father: denial prevented his meaningful participation in PCC proceedings | FCCS: father had long been absent from children's lives, had not worked his case plan, counsel represented him, and delay would prejudice children | Denial did not violate due process under Mathews balancing; little risk of erroneous deprivation and burdens of delay outweighed possible benefit | ### Key Cases Cited Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents' fundamental liberty interest in raising their children) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion) Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (no mechanical test for continuance denials; context‑sensitive review) Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three‑part balancing test for procedural due process) * In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio recognition of parental rights as essential but not absolute)