In re S.L.

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Licking County Juvenile Division’s judgment granting permanent custody of two children to Licking County Job and Family Services. The court rejected the parents’ challenges concerning the admission of exhibits, ineffective assistance of counsel, discovery and due process, 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. Exhibits that were marked, introduced, treated by the trial court and counsel as admitted, and addressed through witness testimony were deemed admitted without objection; in any event, 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 demonstrate objectively unreasonable performance or a reasonable probability that counsel's alleged errors affected the outcome.
3. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by proceeding without ordering production of the requested SACWIS and Traverse records because the parents failed to demonstrate resulting prejudice from matters in the appellate record.
4. Competent, credible evidence supported the findings that the Agency made reasonable case-planning and diligent efforts and that the parents continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E)(1).
5. The parents forfeited challenges to the juvenile court's findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (E)(16), and the record independently contained significant evidence supporting both findings.
6. Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that permanent custody to the Agency was in the children's best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D), and the juvenile court properly granted permanent custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court improperly relied on State's Exhibits A through K because the exhibits were allegedly not admitted into evidence.
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 JFS 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 finding that the children could not or should not be returned to the parents was supported by the evidence.
5. Whether the grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was in the children's best interests under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (D).

Disposition

affirmed