2015 Ohio 354
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Father Kyle Leonard is biological father of C.D. (b. 2012) and signed P.D.-L.’s (b. 2010) birth certificate; children were removed from the mother’s home in 2012–2013 due to unsafe/unsanitary conditions and injuries to C.D.
- Ashtabula County Children Services Board (ACCSB) obtained temporary custody and implemented case plans requiring safe housing, parenting evaluation, and classes; ACCSB placed the children together in foster care in August 2013.
- Leonard’s compliance was intermittent: he attended 15 of 35 supervised visits, lacked stable housing for the children throughout the case, refused offered housing help at times, and never demonstrated sustained adequate employment.
- Guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended permanent custody to ACCSB; foster parents were bonded to the children and willing to adopt them as a unit.
- Magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody to ACCSB was in the children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414), adopted by the juvenile court; Leonard appealed, arguing (1) the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leonard) | Defendant's Argument (ACCSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Leonard: He had housing and employment at hearing or soon would via programs; housing problems were not serious and could be remedied | ACCSB: Leonard lacked stable, suitable housing or steady income over case plan period; children were doing well in foster home and needed legally secure placement | Court: Affirmed permanent custody; clear and convincing evidence supports best-interest finding (housing instability, case-plan noncompliance, foster placement/adoptability) |
| Whether ACCSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | Leonard: Agency did not provide adequate help (e.g., mental health services) | ACCSB: Provided supervised visitation, referrals for housing, parenting evaluation, transportation help; reasonable efforts do not require every possible service | Court: ACCSB made reasonable efforts; no basis to deny custody solely for not implementing every case-plan component |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing pretrial recusal motion regarding the magistrate | Leonard: Counsel should have filed written motion and secured recusal for bias | ACCSB: Magistrate heard oral motion, denied it with explanation; record shows no bias affecting outcome | Court: No prejudice shown; denial of written motion would not have changed result; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for legal custody or add mental-health services to case plan | Leonard: Counsel should have sought legal custody or mental-health element | ACCSB: Given facts (housing/employment instability), such motions would likely fail; no showing outcome would differ | Court: No reasonable probability relief would have been granted; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parents have a paramount right to custody, but welfare may justify termination)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (best interests of the child control dispositional phase)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clear-and-convincing standard defined)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussion of weight vs. sufficiency of evidence)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (time between filing motion and hearing does not count toward the 12-of-22-month custody period)