In re R.H.
2012 Ohio 1811
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- L.H. appeals a Stark County Juv. Div. judgment overruling her motion to continue the permanent custody hearing for R.H.
- R.H. had been in appellee Stark County Job & Family Services’ custody since birth; he was nearly two years old at the time of the hearing.
- Appellant was not present at the December 13, 2011 hearing but was represented by counsel.
- Counsel moved for a continuance because counsel could not contact L.H. and sought to visit her home to speak with her.
- Appellee preferred an expedited date over a lengthy continuance, though did not object to a short delay if the hearing could be expedited.
- The trial court proceeded with the hearing; the court recognized a parent's liberty interest but emphasized it is not absolute against the child’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying continuance | L.H. sought delay to enable contact and possible stipulation. | Appellee urged expedition; continuance would delay the child’s welfare resolution. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parents have fundamental liberty interests in child rearing; not absolute)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (child welfare interest governs parental rights)
- State v. McMilen, 113 Ohio App.3d 137 (3rd Dist.1996) (continuance decision rests in trial court discretion)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)