In re R.W.H.
2021 Ohio 4024
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- MCCS removed R.W.H. at birth after the child and mother tested positive for cocaine; the juvenile court granted MCCS temporary custody on Feb. 1, 2017.
- Paternity was established in Dec. 2017; the child was placed with paternal half‑sister S.R. (a relative) on Sept. 27, 2018; S.R. and her husband became licensed foster‑to‑adopt parents in Apr. 2019.
- MCCS filed for permanent custody on May 13, 2019; at filing the child had been in MCCS temporary custody ~27 consecutive months.
- Child has dysphagia requiring thickened liquids and careful feeding; providers and caseworkers testified that Father and paternal grandmother (G.A.) at times failed to follow feeding/food‑log protocols.
- Father is a registered sex offender (convictions for corruption of a minor), had repeated antagonistic/angry interactions with MCCS staff, was trespassed from MCCS property in Aug. 2019, and his supervised visitation was later suspended.
- G.A. sought legal custody but her home study was denied; after a four‑day hearing the juvenile court granted MCCS permanent custody and terminated parental rights; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | MCCS (Plaintiff) Argument | Father (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Statutory ground under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d): whether child was in agency custody 12+ months of a 22‑month period | Child had been in MCCS temporary custody for well over 12 of 22 months, satisfying (d) | Father argued relatives might have become placement within 12 months (paternity delay) | Held for MCCS: factor (d) satisfied (child in custody ~27 months) |
| 2) Best‑interest determination under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Permanent custody is in child’s best interest given bonding with S.R., stability, medical needs being met, parental shortcomings | Father argued he or G.A. were viable placements and the court erred weighing evidence | Held for MCCS: court’s best‑interest findings (bonding, medical care, Father’s behavior, G.A. concerns) supported by clear and convincing evidence (one E‑factor finding regarding Father lacked proof but did not change outcome) |
| 3) Ineffective assistance of counsel / waiver | MCCS: counsel issues do not negate proceedings; Father waived counsel before the hearing | Father claimed six appointed attorneys provided deficient representation and that withdrawals harmed his defense | Held for MCCS: Father knowingly waived counsel; waiver forecloses IAC claim; alternatively IAC claims lack merit or show no prejudice |
| 4) First Amendment / due process claims re: trespass, suspended visitation, and procedural delays | MCCS: trespass based on threats to staff justified; court provided hearings and counsel appointments; delays were not denial of due process | Father argued trespass punished speech, visitation suspension and counsel gaps violated due process | Held for MCCS: threats were unprotected speech; trespass and suspension justified; no due process violation (court repeatedly provided notice, hearings, and opportunity to be heard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents’ fundamental liberty interest requires due process)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (standard of review for termination decisions)
- In re R.K., 152 Ohio St.3d 316 (waiver of counsel in juvenile proceedings)
- State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (Gibson inquiry for valid waiver of counsel)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)