2023 Ohio 1316
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- BCDJFS filed complaints in April 2021 after involvement beginning with a voluntary safety plan in Oct. 2020 (mother positive for THC at A.G.'s birth); the juvenile court placed four children in temporary custody and adjudicated them abused/neglected/dependent.
- Mother consented to termination of her parental rights and agreed permanent custody to BCDJFS was appropriate.
- Father lives in South Carolina; an ICPC home study for placement there was approved, but Father had little contact with the children and limited participation in services.
- The juvenile court approved a January 2022 case plan for Father (mental‑health assessment, parenting classes, anger‑management, and twice‑monthly supervised in‑person visits in Ohio); Father attended few visits, was discharged from some services for nonparticipation, and missed multiple hearings.
- At the Sept. 21, 2022 permanent‑custody hearing Father did not appear; the caseworker and guardian ad litem testified that (1) the children were thriving in foster care, (2) Father lacked a meaningful bond with the children, and (3) permanent custody to BCDJFS served the children’s best interests.
- The juvenile court granted permanent custody to BCDJFS; Father appealed raising four assignments of error. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | BCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / hearsay at custody hearing | Plain error: caseworker testimony about supervised visits and parent–child bond was inadmissible hearsay and lacked foundation | Caseworker supervised some visits; testimony was cumulative and not prejudicial; no plain error | No plain error; testimony admissible/cumulative and any error harmless |
| Whether BCDJFS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Agency failed to offer/require services (ICPC approval made services unnecessary) | Agency provided a case plan and numerous services; Father failed to engage/complete them | Reasonable efforts proven; Father’s non‑engagement fatal to his claim |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for permanent custody | Insufficient and against manifest weight: reliance on hearsay, children were removed due to mother, ICPC approval favored placement with Father | Clear and convincing evidence from caseworker and GAL that children were thriving in foster care, lacked bond with Father, and needed legally secure placement | Affirmed: evidence sufficient and decision not against manifest weight |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to move to dismiss, failed to object to inadmissible testimony, failed to cross‑examine, and otherwise performed below professional standards | Many pretrial challenges were barred by res judicata or would have been futile; counsel did cross‑examine the caseworker; strategic choices presumed reasonable; no prejudice shown | Counsel was not ineffective under Strickland; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove parental‑rights termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (definition and scope of "reasonable efforts" by child‑welfare agency)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest‑weight review standard)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (plain‑error/obvious prejudice framework)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (distinguishing criminal charge from conviction)
- In re R.K., 152 Ohio St.3d 316 (describing parental‑rights termination as a grave deprivation requiring care in adjudication)