In re M.U., 2014 Ohio 1640

HCJFS first intervened in 2007, alleging dependency due to mother's mild intellectual disability, inconsistent care, unsanitary home conditions, and risky relationships with men (including a registered sex offender).
Earlier proceedings in 2008 allowed children to remain with mother under protective supervision; later the children were removed after further neglect allegations (filthy conditions, medical neglect, bed bugs).
Over multiple years mother participated in services and showed some progress, but repeatedly concealed and failed to notify HCJFS about adult men living in or having regular contact with the children, violating protective orders.
HCJFS sought permanent custody in 2012; the magistrate and trial court found the children dependent and granted HCJFS permanent custody, terminating mother’s parental rights in November 2013.
Mother appealed asserting (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to dismiss the permanent-custody complaint after a 90-day statutory deadline, and (2) that the court failed properly to consider the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best-interest factors (including the children’s expressed wishes).

Issue	Mother/Appellants' Argument	HCJFS/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss under R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) after the 90‑day deadline	Counsel should have moved to dismiss; failure was per se ineffective assistance	Dismissal without prejudice can harm children and parties; competent counsel may reasonably decline to seek dismissal for strategic/child‑safety reasons	Counsel was not ineffective; dismissal was not necessarily in the children’s best interests and counsel’s choice was a reasonable tactical decision
Whether the trial court failed to properly consider the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best‑interest factors (including children’s wishes)	Court ignored or undervalued children’s wishes to return to mother and failed to apply statutory factors	Court considered all statutory factors; children’s wishes were considered but outweighed by ongoing safety risks from mother’s relationships and guardian ad litem’s opposition	Court properly considered the statutory factors; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence

State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (ineffective-assistance standard described)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance test for counsel performance and prejudice)
State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305 (deference to strategic trial decisions)
In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520 (statutory deadlines not always mandatory where dismissal would harm child welfare interests)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (statutory best-interest factors for permanent custody)