In re M.A.S., 2019 Ohio 5190

March 2018: Complaint alleged M.A.S. (b. 11/12/2007) was neglected/dependent/abused; Ravenna PD removed the child from mother; father Shawn A. Synuria was incarcerated at the time.
April–May 2018: Juvenile court adjudicated M.A.S. dependent and placed him in Portage County JFS temporary custody.
June 19, 2019: JFS filed a motion for permanent custody alleging abandonment and father’s nonparticipation.
July 25–29, 2019: Synuria (incarcerated; counsel appointed July 25) requested a continuance for counsel preparation; the court denied the continuance and proceeded to the July 29 hearing.
August 12, 2019: Court granted JFS’s motion, terminating parental rights of both parents based on findings of abandonment, lengthy incarcerations, failure to complete the case plan, lack of bond/visitation, and child's expressed wish to reunify with mother.
August 26, 2019: Synuria appealed, raising (1) denial of a continuance and (2) failure to appoint independent counsel for the child (and related GAL cross‑examination issues).

Issue	Synuria's Argument	JFS/Court's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance of permanent‑custody hearing	Counsel unprepared because appointed only 4 days before hearing; needed more time to review service and case history	Synuria was dilatory; knew of proceedings or could have inquired earlier; public interest and docket control weigh against delay	No abuse of discretion; denial reasonable given delay, prior incarceration history, and lack of prejudice
Failure to appoint counsel for the child / GAL cross‑examination	Court erred by not appointing independent counsel for M.A.S. and by allowing GAL recommendation without a written report or cross‑examination	Child expressed no desire to be reunified with father; no prejudice from not appointing counsel; GAL was available and no party asked to cross‑examine	No plain error; appointment unnecessary because child’s wishes did not conflict with GAL; no prejudice shown from GAL’s oral recommendation

State v. Unger, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio 1981) (standard for reviewing continuance requests; trial court discretion).
State ex rel. Buck v. McCabe, 45 N.E.2d 763 (Ohio 1942) (trial court’s docket control and discretion).
In re Williams, 805 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 2004) (child in a termination proceeding is a party and may be entitled to independent counsel in certain circumstances; decided case‑by‑case).
In re Hoffman, 776 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio 2002) (parties have the right to cross‑examine GAL regarding a report that will factor in the court’s decision).
In re Q.G., 868 N.E.2d 713 (Ohio App. 2007) (parental cooperation and communication with the court weigh in due‑process and continuance contexts).