2021 Ohio 4305
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother (A.W.) gave birth to four sons; she tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at the birth of the youngest, prompting the Agency to file abuse/neglect complaints and obtain emergency temporary custody in June 2019.
- The children were initially placed with kin and later with a family friend; the Agency developed case plans requiring parenting, substance‑abuse assessment/treatment, and anger management for both parents.
- Mother completed a parenting program and anger management but repeatedly failed to complete recommended intensive outpatient/inpatient substance‑abuse treatment and did not reliably provide drug screens; urine tests at CATS were positive for marijuana.
- The Agency moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody in February 2020; the magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents had severe chemical dependency preventing reunification and granted permanent custody; the trial court adopted that decision in July 2021.
- Mother appealed, raising (1) that the permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because relatives/interested persons were available and she needed only more time, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for not calling proposed custodial witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.W.) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight/contrary to best interest | Mother argued alternative custodians existed and she needed only a little more time to complete plan | Agency argued Mother failed to complete substance‑abuse treatment, potential custodians were not appropriate or unavailable, and statutory time limits barred further extension | Court affirmed: competent, credible evidence supported chemical‑dependency finding and best‑interest decision; R.C. limits prevented extending temporary custody beyond two years |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not subpoenaing proposed custodians | Counsel’s failure deprived Mother of witnesses who would have shown feasible alternative placements | Agency noted no evidence in record about what those witnesses would have testified to, so prejudice not shown | Court affirmed: Strickland standard not met — no showing that missing testimony would likely have changed outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.S., 34 N.E.3d 420 (Ohio 2015) (defines clear and convincing standard and permanent custody framework)
- In re L.S., 168 N.E.3d 149 (Ohio 2021) (statutory prerequisites for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (1987) (clarifies clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (1994) (discussion of clear and convincing proof in juvenile context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (1991) (trial court must consider best interests of the child)