In re X.P.

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals reviews an appeal from a juvenile court judgment granting Scioto County Children Services permanent custody of a child. The biological father challenged the timing of the adjudicatory and permanent-custody hearings, the recording of proceedings, the best-interest determination, reunification efforts, guardian ad litem performance, and effectiveness of counsel. The opinion addresses the first several assignments of error, including forfeiture and the statutory consequences of missed hearing deadlines.

Holdings

1. A parent's failure to object in the juvenile court to the alleged violation of the adjudicatory-hearing deadline forfeits the issue on appeal; in any event, R.C. 2151.28(K) provides that failure to meet the deadline does not invalidate the court's orders or jurisdiction.
2. The alleged failure to meet the 120-day hearing deadline and 200-day decision deadline did not warrant reversal because D.T. forfeited the issue, did not establish plain error or prejudice, and R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) states that noncompliance does not invalidate the court's authority, jurisdiction, or orders.
3. D.T. forfeited his claim that the juvenile court failed to record the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, and he failed to show that the alleged recording violation required reversal.
4. The juvenile court's determination that permanent custody served the child's best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. When the juvenile court relies on the 12-of-22-month ground in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), it need not also determine that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.
6. The juvenile court was not required to make a new reasonable-efforts finding at the permanent-custody hearing because the agency had made reasonable-efforts findings at earlier stages of the proceeding; D.T. also failed to support his argument with authority.
7. Alleged violations of Sup.R. 48.03(D) do not constitute reversible error, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by considering the GAL's report and recommendation.
8. D.T. failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the alleged deficiencies affected the outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court's failure to hold the adjudicatory hearing within the statutory period required reversal.
2. Whether the juvenile court's failure to hold the permanent-custody hearing within 120 days or journalize its decision within 200 days required reversal.
3. Whether the juvenile court's failure to record the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings required reversal.
4. Whether the juvenile court's determination that permanent custody served the child's best interest was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the juvenile court was required to determine that the child could not be placed with D.T. within a reasonable time or should not be placed with him when it relied on the 12-of-22-month ground.
6. Whether the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
7. Whether the guardian ad litem's alleged failure to comply with Superintendence Rule 48 warranted reversal or prevented the court from considering the GAL's recommendation.
8. Whether D.T. received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

affirmed