In re L.M.R.
2017 Ohio 158
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Department filed dependency complaint (June 2014) concerning three children; appellant Christopher Robinson is father of L.M.R. (b. 2011).
- Case plan required parents (including Robinson) to complete mental health and substance-abuse evaluations and to provide stable housing and supervision; Robinson had intermittent counseling, multiple positive/missed drug screens, and frequent counselor changes.
- Children were removed from the home (June 2015) after unsafe conditions; L.M.R. was placed in foster care and visits with Robinson were sporadic and often missed due to work/transportation claims.
- Department moved for permanent custody (May 2016); trial court granted permanent custody to the Department and terminated parental rights.
- Robinson appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) denial of his second oral continuance request for the custody hearing; (2) trial court’s finding that L.M.R. was abandoned under R.C. 2151.011(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance | Robinson counsel: needed more time—father missed day due to work and then claimed medical issue (colonoscopy); requested continuance to secure housing and GAL inspection | Court/Dept: father had long notice, prior chances, reasons vague/dilatory; GAL opposed; public interest and docket control weigh against continuance | Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed |
| Abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C) (90-day no contact presumption) | Robinson: work/transportation issues impeded visitation; attempted scheduling via caseworker | Dept: Robinson had no contact/visits for >90 days; caseworker efforts to arrange visits did not amount to parent-child contact | Concurring opinion: record supports presumption of abandonment; parent did not rebut by demonstrating direct contact (calls/letters) — finding of abandonment upheld |
| Alternative ground: inability to place with parent within reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)) | Robinson did not contest this factor | Dept: presented evidence of ongoing substance abuse, noncompliance with services, unstable housing, inability to provide permanency | Trial court’s finding that child could not be placed with parent within a reasonable time was supported; appellate court affirmed permanent custody on this independent basis |
| Best interests analysis (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Robinson did not challenge best-interest finding | Dept and GAL: consistency, permanency with foster/adoptive home favored child | Court found custody to Department in child’s best interest (unchallenged on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- Unger v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (continuance denials evaluated under case-by-case due-process analysis)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (child welfare is controlling principle in parental-rights cases)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (standard for reviewing clear-and-convincing evidence in parental-termination cases)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio App.) (due-process protections in termination proceedings)