2021 Ohio 4304
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- CCDCFS filed dependency/neglect complaints in June 2019 after newborn R.G.III tested positive for drugs; three children were placed in the agency’s temporary custody and a case plan was adopted.
- Father’s case-plan goals: establish paternity for two younger children, complete substance-abuse assessment/treatment, complete parenting and anger-management services; Father completed parenting and paternity for the oldest only.
- Father declined or failed to complete substance-assessment and urine screens, did not engage in anger-management despite referrals, and was inconsistent with visits (many missed in-person and virtual visits).
- Agency relocated/suspended visits after incidents of volatile and threatening behavior by parents toward the social worker; case plan was amended to add anger-management.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody (Feb 2020); hearing occurred June 14, 2021; juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency, and Father appealed on three grounds (insufficient evidence under R.C. 2151.414(B), inadequate reasonable efforts by agency, ineffective assistance of counsel).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS/Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(B) that the children could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time | Evidence was insufficient; Father challenges findings (including chemical-dependency finding) | Father failed to complete case-plan tasks (paternity for two children, substance assessment, anger management), missed visits, and showed volatile behavior | Affirmed: Court found R.C.2151.414(E) factors supported R.C.2151.414(B)(1)(a); any error relying on (d) was harmless |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family under R.C. 2151.419 | Agency failed to make anger-management services readily available and did not adequately pursue relatives as placements | Agency made diligent referrals (Recovery Resources, Beech Brook, New Visions), investigated relatives who were unsuitable or unwilling, and prioritized child safety | Affirmed: Court found the agency satisfied the reasonable-efforts standard given the circumstances |
| Whether awarding permanent custody was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Father emphasized his bond with the children and partial compliance with the plan | Agency relied on children’s need for permanency, Father’s inconsistent commitment, inappropriate behavior before the children, and foster family's stable bond | Affirmed: Court concluded best-interest factors favored permanent custody to the agency |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to hearsay, failure to call witnesses) | Counsel should have objected to hearsay statements about the alleged threat and should have called family witnesses to support placement alternatives | Hearsay testimony was harmless and used to explain agency actions; offered relatives were unsuitable or unwilling and testimony was speculative; late witness disclosure was Father’s fault | Affirmed: Court found no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight/credibility standard and deference to factfinder)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (12‑month rule for agency temporary custody and limitations on counting time)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor controls; court need only consider relevant factors)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for appellate review of discretionary determinations)