Background
CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that children C.M. and H.B. were neglected and obtained temporary custody. The children were adjudicated dependent and placed in agency custody, which was extended twice. In January 2025, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. The juvenile court set trial for September 22, 2025.
On the morning of trial, Mother’s attorney requested a continuance, citing Mother’s inability to attend due to an unspecified conflict. CCDCFS objected, noting that Mother had failed to appear for four of the last five hearings. The trial court denied the continuance and proceeded. Mother’s counsel participated and cross-examined witnesses. The juvenile court granted permanent custody. Mother appealed, claiming due process violations.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. On the continuance issue, the court applied the Ungar v. Sarafite factors and found the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion given Mother’s extensive history of nonappearance, the impact on the children who had been in agency custody for over two years, and the lack of any specific reason for the absence.
The court also found no error in the failure to appoint a GAL for Mother because there was no evidence in the record warranting such an appointment. The court found the juvenile court’s judgment was supported by clear and convincing evidence that neither parent remedied the conditions causing removal.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance when the parent has a pattern of nonappearance and offers no specific reason for the absence.
- There is no automatic right to a guardian ad litem for a parent in permanent-custody proceedings; appointment requires evidence of mental health or cognitive concerns.
- A juvenile court may enter a same-day judgment after a permanent-custody hearing without violating due process.
Why It Matters
This case provides important guidance for Ohio juvenile court practitioners on the limits of continuance requests when a parent has a documented pattern of nonappearance. Defense counsel representing parents in permanent custody matters should advise their clients that repeated failure to attend hearings creates a record that significantly weakens continuance requests and may result in trial proceeding in the parent’s absence.