2021 Ohio 2850
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Twin children born October 7, 2014; mother was custodial parent and had a long history of drug use and unstable caretaking, leading to repeated GCCS involvement.
- Children placed in foster care after mother signed voluntary agreement in August–September 2019; GCCS obtained ex parte temporary custody December 12, 2019 and adjudicated the children dependent February 2020.
- Father was added to the case plan March 19, 2020; caseworker testified Father had had little or no contact with the children before GCCS involvement.
- Father has Crohn’s disease and testified he used marijuana and other substances for pain; he tested positive for marijuana and for other substances during the case, missed substance‑treatment appointments, and did not obtain a medical marijuana card while encouraged to do so.
- Father had unstable housing and inconsistent visitation; the children remained placed with the same foster parents, were bonded to them, and the GAL recommended permanent custody to GCCS.
- Trial court granted GCCS permanent custody March 29, 2021; Father appealed claiming ineffective assistance for failing to seek a six‑month extension (pandemic-related), and arguing the permanent‑custody ruling was against the manifest weight and not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | GCCS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for counsel not requesting a 6‑month extension | Counsel should have sought an extension because COVID‑19 shortened the time available to complete the case plan | Father’s noncompliance—not the pandemic—prevented progress; counsel’s strategy reasonable | Counsel not deficient; no reasonable probability outcome would differ; Assignment overruled |
| 2. Permanent custody against manifest weight of the evidence (best interests) | Father had visits, loved the children, and would make more progress if given time | Children bonded with foster parents; father’s substance use, unstable housing, and lack of case‑plan compliance supported custody change | Trial court’s finding supported by competent, credible evidence; manifest weight argument rejected |
| 3. Insufficient clear and convincing evidence that children could not be placed with Father and that termination was in their best interest | More time or extension would allow Father to remedy deficiencies | Father repeatedly failed to remedy conditions, had chronic substance use and unstable housing, and poses delay risk to children’s need for permanency | Clear and convincing evidence supported finding that placement with Father within a reasonable time was unlikely and permanent custody served children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955) (deference to counsel’s reasonable strategic choices)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (standard for reversing a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence)