2021 Ohio 3780
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- CCDJFS filed neglect complaints (Aug 31, 2018) for R.D. (b. 2006) and S.D. (b. 2008); juvenile court placed both children in temporary custody and later extended custody.
- The children suffered severe trauma from physical/sexual abuse by an older brother (L.D.), resulting in significant mental-health needs and residential treatment for both children.
- At the time of the permanent-custody hearing, L.D. and mother’s paramour lived in Mother’s home; maternal grandparents’ home-study failed for marijuana use.
- CCDJFS moved for permanent custody after the children had been in its temporary custody at least 12 of a consecutive 22 months. A magistrate granted permanent custody; Mother objected and sought return of the children.
- The juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections, finding CCDJFS witnesses credible and that permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was in the children’s best interest. Mother appealed raising four assignments of error (service, best-interest/placement, legal error awarding custody, ineffective assistance of counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Adequacy of service on motion for permanent custody | Mother: she was not properly served with the motion until the hearing day, so hearing should not have proceeded | CCDJFS: service was effected by regular/certified mail and personal service; Mother appeared and waived any service objection | Court: service was adequate (and, in any event, Mother waived challenge by appearing and fully participating); assignment overruled |
| 2. Whether children should be returned to Mother / best-interest finding | Mother: strong bond and her efforts justify reunification; agency failed to provide legally secure placement | CCDJFS: children need therapeutic, stable placement; Mother’s home contains triggers (abuser, paramour), Mother’s mental-health engagement is uncertain | Court: considered R.C. 2151.414(D) factors, found children’s mental-health needs and household risks made return unsafe; permanent custody to CCDJFS is in children’s best interest |
| 3. Whether statutory standard for awarding permanent custody was met | Mother: juvenile court erred in awarding permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 | CCDJFS: statutory two-part test met (best interest + 12-months-in-custody prong) | Court: statutory test satisfied (children in agency custody ≥12 months and best-interest factors supported award); assignment overruled |
| 4. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother: trial counsel failed to protect her interests (e.g., challenge adjudication, service, move to dismiss) | CCDJFS: many complaints were procedurally barred or waived; counsel’s performance did not fall below Strickland standard or cause prejudice | Court: ineffective-assistance claims rejected (pre-adjudication complaints were appeal-barred; no Strickland deficiency/prejudice shown); assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard and weighing evidence in civil cases)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single factor dispositive in best-interest analysis)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (personal-jurisdiction/presence by voluntary appearance)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2008) (timely appeal requirement for adjudication/temporary-custody orders)