2019 Ohio 567
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- MCCS removed A.C. (8) and N.C. (5) after deplorable home conditions and parental substance abuse concerns; temporary custody granted February–May 2016.
- Father had prior convictions (domestic violence, abduction), parole status, and inconsistent engagement with case plan; visits ceased voluntarily in January 2017 and were later terminated after in-camera interviews showed the children feared him.
- Mother was largely absent from the case, repeatedly incarcerated on drug charges, failed to complete case-plan tasks, and had not visited the children for long periods.
- MCCS moved for permanent custody in March 2017; the guardian ad litem and foster parents supported adoption by the foster family.
- At the November 2017 permanent-custody hearing Father requested a continuance and later claimed ineffective assistance; the magistrate denied the continuance and awarded permanent custody to MCCS; trial court overruled objections and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying Father’s day-of-trial continuance was an abuse of discretion | Father: counsel ineffective and communication breakdown justified continuance | MCCS: delay was dilatory; Father had months to raise concerns | Denial not an abuse of discretion (no unforeseen emergency; counsel had represented Father 19 months) |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel | Father: counsel missed impeachment opportunity, failed to object to hearsay, and did not present witnesses/Father | MCCS: strategy choices reasonable; substantial independent evidence of Father’s misconduct | No ineffective assistance; alleged omissions not prejudicial given record evidence |
| Whether permanent custody to MCCS was against the manifest weight / not in children’s best interests | Father: did not abandon children; could be reunified; had complied with case plan | MCCS: children in agency custody >12 months, bonded to foster family, children fearful of Father, parents failed case plans | Court found by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody to MCCS was in children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and E(10)) |
| Whether Anders procedure appropriate for Mother’s appellate counsel | Mother’s counsel filed Anders brief claiming frivolous appeal | Mother (no pro se brief filed) | Court independently reviewed record under Anders but announced it will no longer accept Anders briefs in termination cases going forward (policy decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- Unger v. State, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (continuance abuse-of-discretion factors)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (clear and convincing evidence definition)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (state authority to protect children; standard of review in termination cases)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (parental liberty interests are not absolute)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single factor controls best-interest analysis)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (Anders procedure is alternative, not constitutional mandate)