In re M.L.

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a juvenile court judgment granting Licking County Job and Family Services permanent custody of two minor children. The court rejected the parents’ challenges concerning reliance on exhibits, ineffective assistance of counsel, access to agency records, reasonable reunification efforts, and the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting permanent custody. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory findings and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.

Holdings

1. The exhibits were treated as admitted without objection, and, even assuming an evidentiary error, any error was harmless because substantial independent evidence supported the permanent-custody judgment.
2. The parents failed to establish ineffective assistance because they did not show objectively unreasonable performance or a reasonable probability that counsel's alleged errors affected the outcome.
3. The parents failed to demonstrate reversible error or prejudice from the juvenile court's denial of their request for Agency records.
4. Competent, credible evidence supported the finding that the Agency made reasonable case-planning and diligent reunification efforts and that the parents failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.
5. The parents forfeited any challenge to the juvenile court's findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (E)(16), and the record independently supported those findings.
6. Competent, credible evidence supported the finding that permanent custody was in the children's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court improperly relied on State's Exhibits A through K because the exhibits allegedly were not formally admitted.
2. Whether Mother and Father's attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel in the permanent-custody proceedings.
3. Whether the juvenile court violated the parents' due-process rights by denying their request for SACWIS and Traverse records and proceeding to trial.
4. Whether the Agency made reasonable case-planning and diligent reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and whether the parents substantially remedied the conditions leading to removal.
5. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds for permanent custody and the determination that permanent custody was in the children's best interests.

Disposition

affirmed