In re L.W., 2018 Ohio 2099

Background

Mother (H.B.) of seven; proceedings concerned three children (J.J., L.W., Z.W.) removed and placed with Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) in 2013; Temporary custody to FCCS entered Jan. 12, 2015.
FCCS moved for permanent custody June 24, 2016; hearing spanned five days in April 2017; guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to FCCS.
Evidence included testimony from FCCS caseworkers, foster father, counselors, the guardian ad litem, and Dr. Rhonda Lilley (psychologist who evaluated mother and several children); mother testified.
Juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4) applicable to mother and alternatively relied on the statutory 12-of-22-months custody ground (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)).
Court concluded permanent custody to FCCS was in the children’s best interests and entered final order July 21, 2017; mother appealed raising five assignments of error (best-interest analysis, manifest weight/due process, failure to appoint separate counsel for Z.W., ineffective assistance of counsel, and constitutional unfairness).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (H.B.)	Defendant's Argument (FCCS)	Held
Whether the juvenile court considered all R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e) best-interest factors	Court failed to consider R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11); those factors do not apply and their absence weighs against permanent custody	Those E(7)-(11) factors did not apply; court implicitly considered and rejected them where relevant	Court: No error; record shows court considered relevant E factors and implicitly found E(7)-(11) inapplicable
Whether grant of permanent custody was against manifest weight / violative of due process	Evidence showed mother’s bond with children and efforts toward reunification; placement and agency conduct undermined reunification; court wrongly credited experts and foster evidence	Court relied on clear-and-convincing evidence (psych evaluations, children’s wishes, custodial history, children’s special needs); 12-of-22-month custody ground also satisfied	Court: Judgment supported by competent, credible evidence; not against manifest weight; due process not violated
Whether court committed plain error by failing to appoint separate counsel for Z.W. (whose wish conflicted with GAL)	Z.W. stated she wanted to be with mother; that conflicted with GAL and counsel’s position, so separate counsel was required	Z.W. had cognitive/developmental delays and could not meaningfully express mature preference; GAL and court reasonably concluded no actual conflict	Court: No plain error; competent evidence supported finding Z.W. lacked capacity and no actual conflict warranted separate counsel
Whether mother received ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to (inter alia) request separate counsel for Z.W., object to in-camera interviews of other children, object to psychologist testimony/reports — prejudicing outcome	Even assuming some omissions, mother cannot show prejudice; court considered conflict issue and ruled; contested evidence would likely remain admissible; outcome would not likely differ	Court: No ineffective assistance; defendant failed to show deficient performance caused reasonable probability of different result

Key Cases Cited

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review: judgments supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against manifest weight)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2004) (child is a party to termination proceeding and may be entitled to independent counsel in certain circumstances)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error standard in civil cases)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland framework in Ohio)
Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (appellate deference to trial court fact findings)