2023 Ohio 712
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Four children (ages 7–10) were removed from Mother’s home in July 2021 after repeated reports of sexualized behavior among the children and related safety/supervision concerns; Mother and Father had prior involvement with CCDCFS.
- Agency investigations included disclosures by children implicating Father historically; agency found those allegations unsubstantiated but found children believed the statements and were exhibiting ongoing sexualized behaviors with each other.
- CCDCFS documented additional concerns: inconsistent school attendance, improper medication administration, Mother’s marijuana use (later she obtained a medical card), and questions about Mother’s mental health and parenting capacity.
- Despite referrals and services (Protect Program, parenting classes, substance‑use programming, counseling, supervised visitation), agency witnesses testified Mother continued to engage in inappropriate conversations with children and had not demonstrated adequate benefit from services; supervised visitation was suspended.
- Magistrate adjudicated the children neglected and dependent, granted temporary custody to the agency as in the children’s best interest, and the juvenile court affirmed; Mother appealed alleging errors including lack of written emergency findings, due process violations, reliance on perjured testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predispositional temporary custody | Mother argued removal lacked written emergency finding and was improper | Agency argued interim custody was supported by probable cause and later superseded by dispositional order | Court found magistrate’s probable‑cause findings supported by record and overruled challenges (temporary custody moot as superseded but supported if considered) |
| 90‑day waiver / due process | Mother said she signed waiver under duress and counsel misled her; Father’s counsel lied to obtain continuance | Record showed signed, counsel‑filed written waiver and no evidence of duress or misrepresentation | Court rejected due process/duress claim; waiver was knowing and voluntary |
| Temporary custody / reasonable efforts / best interest | Mother argued services were adequate and children should be returned; court ignored children’s in‑camera statements and relied on perjured testimony | Agency pointed to ongoing safety, supervision, mental‑health and communication problems, guardian ad litem recommendation, and children’s progress in foster care | Court held temporary custody by preponderance supported: agency made reasonable efforts and placement served children’s best interest |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother alleged multiple lawyers were ineffective, withheld evidence, misadvised her, and caused prejudice | Record showed counsel cross‑examined witnesses, made objections, and no deficient performance or prejudice shown | Court applied Strickland/Bradley standard and rejected ineffective‑assistance claim (no prejudice proved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel — deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applies and explains Strickland standard in Ohio)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (discusses "reasonable efforts" requirement in child‑welfare context)
- Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review limited to the record on appeal)