2018 Ohio 1672
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Father Kenneth Wiley is biological father of S.W. (b. 2009); child taken into ACCSB custody April 2016 after neglect allegations directed at mother and household conditions.
- Wiley had a prior child-endangering conviction related to S.W.’s sibling; he was incarcerated and subject to post-release control that included a no-contact restriction with S.W.; he last saw S.W. in January 2012.
- Wiley was placed on a reunification case plan (parenting classes, counseling, parole/post-release compliance, supervised visitation); he completed many plan items and was discharged from parole in early 2017 but had limited or no contact with S.W.
- ACCSB moved for permanent custody February 2017; guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended permanent custody to preserve the sibling bond and because foster parents were adoptive prospects.
- At the permanent-custody hearing the magistrate found abandonment and multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors, and the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision (adding an additional E-factor), terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to ACCSB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACCSB) | Defendant's Argument (Wiley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACCSB made reasonable efforts to reunify Wiley and S.W. | Agency provided case plan, services, supervised-visitation opportunities and reasonably tried to reunify despite parole/no-contact and child fear | Wiley: parole restrictions and incarceration prevented visits; agency did not sufficiently facilitate reunification or investigate relatives | Held for ACCSB: reasonable efforts were shown; limitations were largely due to Wiley’s conduct, parole no‑contact, and child’s fear |
| Whether child could be placed with Wiley within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E) | Multiple E-factors applied (lack of commitment, abandonment, unwillingness to provide necessities/other relevant factors) justified finding child could not be placed with father in reasonable time | Wiley: incarceration and parole prevented contact; he completed case plan and thus placement was possible | Held for ACCSB: court relied on multiple valid E-factors (even excluding one erroneously applied factor) to find placement within a reasonable time was not possible |
| Whether counsel was ineffective (failure to call therapist, objection causing additional adverse finding, insufficient rebuttal of abandonment) | Agency: record contains reasons for rulings; other factors independently support termination | Wiley: counsel failed to call therapist, made objection that led court to apply an extra E‑factor, and did not rebut abandonment presumption | Held for ACCSB: tactical decisions presumed reasonable; no prejudice shown because other independent grounds supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parents have paramount custody right but welfare of child controls)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (best interests/welfare paramount at dispositional phase)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (agency must show reasonable reunification efforts; court may require demonstration at permanent-custody hearing)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no duty to prove absence of suitable relatives by clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (applying Strickland standard)