In re R.M.
2013 Ohio 4928
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CCDCFS removed three children from mother in Aug 2010 due to her drug use and abusive behavior; the children were diagnosed with PTSD and adjustment disorders.
- Father’s paternity was established May 3, 2011; CCDCFS then added him and created a case plan requiring sobriety, housing, income, health care, and parenting classes targeted to the children’s needs.
- Father visited regularly early on but repeatedly failed to comply with drug testing (positive hair test for cocaine in Apr 2012; subsequent refusal to provide samples) and did not complete substance-abuse reassessment.
- Father did not secure independent, adequate housing or stable income by the hearing; relatives (including paternal grandmother) either lacked suitable housing or did not file for legal custody.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in July 2012 after the children had been in agency custody since Aug 10, 2010; the GAL recommended permanent custody.
- Juvenile court granted CCDCFS permanent custody (Feb 2013); father appealed asserting (1) termination was against the manifest weight/denied due process and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence / violated due process | Father: He substantially complied with the case plan, maintained a strong relationship with the children, attended visits, so permanency award was not supported by clear and convincing evidence | CCDCFS: Children had been in agency custody >2 years; father failed to remedy case-plan deficiencies (sobriety, housing, income, specialized parenting) and no suitable relative stepped forward | Court: Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest and R.C. 2151.414(E) findings; permanency required under statutory framework |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance | Father: Counsel’s brief opening/closing, not calling father, and not emphasizing available relatives constituted deficient performance causing prejudice | CCDCFS: Counsel engaged in reasonable strategy (cross-examination, secured continuance); father’s testimony posed substantial risk given convictions and drug issues; no prejudice because statutory factors required grant of custody | Court: Affirmed — no deficiency shown or, alternatively, no prejudice under Strickland; outcome would not have changed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (8th Dist. 1994) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 1987) (definition of clear-and-convincing standard)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (Ohio 1977) (presumption of competent counsel)
- State v. Brooks, 25 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 1986) (application of Strickland in Ohio)