2020 Ohio 383
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- CCDCFS filed a neglect/temporary custody complaint on Oct. 5, 2017; parents stipulated to an amended complaint and the child was adjudicated dependent on Jan. 8, 2018.
- Father initially incarcerated (state prison conviction), later in federal prison; he established paternity during proceedings but had not supported, visited, or communicated with the child since birth.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody on July 24, 2018; by the dispositional hearing (June 3, 2019) the child had been in agency custody for over a year and a half.
- Father was absent from the permanent-custody hearing because he was in a segregated unit in federal prison and could not appear; defense counsel moved for a continuance which the trial court denied.
- The social worker testified neither parent substantially completed case-plan services; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- On June 21, 2019 the trial court terminated both parents’ rights and awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS; father appealed raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceeding without incarcerated father violated due process | Father: denial of opportunity to be present/meaningfully heard | Agency/CT: father incarcerated, had counsel who fully participated; alternative participation sufficed; Mathews balancing favors finality | No due process violation; presence not absolute; counsel and record protected rights |
| Whether denying continuance was an abuse of discretion | Father: continuance needed because he was incarcerated and could not attend | Agency/CT: case delayed >200 days, child’s need for permanency, father not due for release soon, counsel ready; no good cause | Denial not an abuse of discretion; continuance not warranted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective | Father: counsel failed to secure meaningful participation, resulting in adverse decision | Agency/CT: counsel attempted contact, sought continuance, cross-examined witness, filed proposed findings | No ineffective assistance; father shows no prejudice or reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing test for procedural protections)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (applying Strickland framework in Ohio)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio articulation of ineffective-assistance test)