Appellants Charles and Beverly Heston appeal from the decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court awarding permanent custody of their children, Elizabeth and Sarah Heston, to the appellee, Hamilton County Department of Human Services (“DHS”).
Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that, following removal of the children and notwithstanding the efforts of DHS to remedy the sexual and physical abuse inflicted by two older brothers and by an uncle, the Hestons had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions and had failed to demonstrate an ability to protect the children from further harm. The trial court, therefore, granted permanent custody to DHS.
In re William S.
(1996),
The right to counsel, guaranteed in these proceedings by R.C. 2151.352 and Juv.R. 4, includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel.
McMann v. Richardson
(1970),
To prevail, the Hestons must show that their counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced them as to deny them a proceeding whose result was reliable and fundamentally fair.
Lockhart v. Fretwell
(1993),
After reviewing all the proceedings in the trial court, including the Hestons’ March 21, 1995 stipulation to the truthfulness of the allegations that the children were victims of sexual and physical abuse, the continuing reports by the children of abuse, the cross-examination of the caseworkers by the children’s guardian
ad litem,
the largely unrebutted testimony of a child psychiatrist and licensed psychologists concerning continuing harm to the children, the admission of the children’s hospital records, as exceptions to the hearsay rule pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) and 803(6), and the calling of at least three defense witnesses, we hold that the record does not demonstrate any deprivation of a substantial or procedural right which rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
Lockhart v. Fretwell,
A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case or defense will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Myers v. Garson
(1993),
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
