2016 Ohio 8188
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Two half-siblings, R.C. (placed in MCCS custody in Oct. 2013) and L.C. (born drug-positive July 2014), were in foster care and MCCS moved for permanent custody of both.
- Father was incarcerated (charged with serious crimes) at the time of the April 24, 2015 permanent-custody hearing; he was represented by counsel but was not physically present.
- Father’s counsel attempted to request conveyance from jail by email but failed to use the required procedure; counsel also requested a continuance, which the court denied.
- Testimony at the hearing included the paternal grandmother, foster parent, caseworker, and mother’s psychologist; the guardian ad litem filed reports recommending MCCS custody.
- The magistrate granted MCCS permanent custody; the trial court overruled objections and affirmed. Father appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure his presence or other meaningful participation, and (2) abuse of discretion in denying a continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to secure Father’s conveyance or arrange alternate meaningful participation violated due process / amounted to ineffective assistance | Father: counsel was deficient for failing to timely/methodically request conveyance and failing to secure depositions/affidavit/telephone participation | MCCS/Trial Court: Father was represented by counsel, a full record was made, other witnesses covered Father’s positions, and Father did not identify what additional evidence he would have provided | Court: Counsel’s performance was deficient but Father failed to show prejudice under Strickland; no ineffective assistance found |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance | Father: continuance was needed so he could be present and because MCCS’s motion re: L.C. was filed only 18 days earlier | Trial Court: notice and timing were adequate (R.C. motion filed earlier; Father had filed motions too); docket control and witness availability weighed against continuance | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial of continuance was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and manner)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (right to hearing before deprivation of liberty/property interests)
- Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (importance of being heard before grievous loss)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (presumption of competency for trial counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (factors for evaluating continuance requests)