2023 Ohio 359
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- K.R. (b. 2007) became subject to FCCS custody proceedings; father (appellant C.S.J.) was genetically confirmed as the father in 2007.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody in April 2019; the hearing was repeatedly continued and did not occur until October 18–19, 2021 (≈2½ years after the motion).
- A court-ordered warrant to convey father from prison to the custody trial was issued days before trial, but an administrative error prevented his transfer; father’s counsel was present and moved for a one-day continuance that the court denied.
- FCCS caseworker and the guardian ad litem testified that K.R. needed a legally secure, permanent placement due to mental-health needs and instability; both recommended permanent custody to FCCS.
- Trial court granted permanent custody to FCCS; father appealed solely arguing the denial of the continuance violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion: father’s incarceration resulted from his own conduct, counsel represented him, there had been significant delay, a full record was made, and father failed to show prejudice or that his testimony would have changed the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | FCCS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying father’s request for a continuance was an abuse of discretion | Continuance required because an administrative error, not father’s fault, prevented his conveyance and he was entitled to be present | Father’s incarceration stemmed from his actions; counsel was present; prior lengthy delays; continuance not in child’s best interest | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether proceeding in the absence of an incarcerated parent violated due process | Absence deprived father of the opportunity to be heard at a hearing terminating parental rights | Due process satisfied where father had counsel, a full record was made, and testimony could be presented by deposition | No due process violation |
| Whether denial of continuance prejudiced father or likely changed the outcome | Father contends he was prevented from participating, implying prejudice | Caseworker and GAL testimony supported permanent custody; father did not show he had evidence/testimony that would alter result | Father failed to show prejudice or likely different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors to consider when ruling on continuance requests)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (termination of parental rights compared to the ‘‘family law equivalent of the death penalty,’’ requiring procedural protections)