In re S.U.
2014 Ohio 5748
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child M.S. (born ~2011) was removed after findings of failure to thrive and the mother’s instability; agency filed neglect/dependency complaint in April 2012.
- M.S. was adjudicated neglected in July 2012; mother received a case plan and two six‑month extensions but made little progress.
- The biological father (appellant) declined a case plan, moved out of county, intermittently incarcerated, and had no contact with the agency or child during foster care.
- Agency moved for permanent custody in August 2013 after extended efforts focused on mother; magistrate awarded permanent custody to the agency.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts toward him and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not securing his transport to hearings and for failing to object to the magistrate’s decision.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and that the child was abandoned by the father; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable reunification efforts toward father | Father: agency failed to provide a case plan or maintain contact; thus efforts were unreasonable | Agency: efforts targeting mother were reasonable; father declined a case plan and had no contact | Affirmed — efforts were reasonable given father’s lack of participation and relocation |
| Whether father’s 90‑day abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C) applied | Father: disputes abandonment finding | Agency: father failed to visit or maintain contact for >90 days | Affirmed — court found abandonment by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to convey father from jail | Father: counsel should have moved to convey him to appear | State: incarcerated parents may participate via counsel; no prejudice shown | Affirmed — no deficient prejudice; result would not likely change |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing objections to magistrate | Father: failure to object denied effective assistance | State: mother’s objections were considered; father offers no showing objections would change outcome | Affirmed — no prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (statutory standards and clear‑and‑convincing proof required before terminating parental rights)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable‑efforts requirement and when court must make findings)
- In re Sprague, 113 Ohio App.3d 274 (12th Dist. 1996) (discussing appearance rights of incarcerated parents)
- In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (12th Dist. 2000) (appellate review standard for clear‑and‑convincing permanent‑custody findings)