[Cite as In re R.F., 2023-Ohio-297.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: R.F. C.A. No. 30400

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

ENTERED IN THE

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO

CASE No. DN 21 03 0168

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: February 1, 2023

HENSAL, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights and placed her child in the permanent 

custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of R.F., born March 10, 2021.1 CSB removed the 

child from Mother’s care two days after her birth and filed a complaint alleging that R.F. was 

abused (endangered) and dependent. The agency premised its complaint on allegations of the 

parents’ drug use, mental health issues, and inability to meet the child’s basic needs. Mother and 

Father stipulated to probable cause for the child’s removal and agreed to an emergency order of 

temporary custody to CSB.

1 The child’s paternity was established by genetic testing. Although Father appeared for 

the first three hearings in the case, his whereabouts thereafter were unknown. He has not appealed 

the juvenile court’s award of permanent custody.
2

 

{¶3} Both parents attended the adjudication, waived their hearing rights, and stipulated 

to a finding of the child’s dependency. CSB withdrew its allegation of abuse. Both parents also 

attended the disposition, waived their hearing rights, and stipulated to a finding that CSB had used 

reasonable efforts to prevent the child’s removal, to the adoption of the agency’s proposed case 

plan, and to an order placing R.F. in the temporary custody of CSB. The case plan required Mother 

and Father to maintain a source of income to provide for the child’s basic needs, obtain chemical 

dependency and mental health assessments, and follow all recommendations. The parents were 

allowed supervised visitation in the discretion of CSB and the guardian ad litem.

{¶4} During the next six months, the juvenile court held two review hearings. Neither 

parent appeared for either hearing, although both were represented by counsel.2 Two months later, 

CSB filed a motion for permanent custody of R.F. The agency alleged that the child could not or 

should not be returned to either parent based on their (1) failures to remedy the concerns that 

necessitated the child’s removal, (2) chronic mental health issues and chemical dependencies, 

and/or (3) lack of commitment to the child. CSB further alleged that an award of permanent 

custody was in the child’s best interest. Mother and Father each filed motions for temporary 

custody or, alternatively, a six-month extension of the agency’s temporary custody.

{¶5} Despite having been properly served, neither parent appeared for the Monday 

morning permanent custody hearing. Immediately prior to the hearing, Mother’s attorney orally 

moved for a continuance or, alternatively, for permission for Mother to appear remotely. As 

2 Neither Mother nor Father appeared for a later sunset hearing before a magistrate 

approximately one year after CSB filed its complaint.
3

 

grounds, Mother’s attorney asserted that Mother had informed her the prior evening that she had 

been exposed to the Covid virus on Friday, and experienced symptoms during the weekend. The 

juvenile court judge directed Mother’s counsel to place a phone call to Mother on the record. 

Mother did not answer the call. Her attorney left a voicemail message directing Mother to return 

the call. The juvenile court then inquired of the other parties. After consideration, the juvenile 

court noted that Mother’s remote appearance was not possible as she did not answer her attorney’s 

phone call. The court moreover denied Mother’s motion for a continuance after citing and 

weighing relevant factors it asserted were commonly relied upon by Ohio case law.

{¶6} After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court denied Mother’s and Father’s 

alternative motions for temporary custody or a six-month extension of temporary custody to the 

agency. The court granted CSB’s motion for permanent custody and terminated Mother’s and 

Father’s parental rights. Mother filed a timely appeal and raises one assignment of error for this 

Court’s review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR IN 

DENYING MOTHER’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE 

PERMANENT CUSTODY TRIAL.

{¶7} Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her oral 

motion to continue the permanent custody hearing. This Court disagrees.

{¶8} The Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure state that “[c]ontinuances shall be granted 

only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Juv.R. 23. Summit County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, has also promulgated Local Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

one of which addresses motions for continuances as follows:
4

 

(A) A continuance will not be granted unless the party requesting the continuance 

demonstrates to the [Court] that there is an emergency or other unanticipated 

circumstance necessitating the continuance[.] * * * The decision to grant or deny a 

continuance is discretionary * * *.

(B) All requests for continuances must be made in writing and filed seven days 

before the scheduled hearing date. However, the Court may consider a Motion for 

Continuance that is filed less than seven days before the scheduled hearing date 

upon demonstration of emergency or for other unforeseen circumstances.

Loc.R. 5.03.

{¶9} This Court recognizes the juvenile court’s discretion in determining whether to 

grant or deny a continuance, even where a parent is facing a termination of parental rights. See, 

e.g., In re L.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29687, 2020-Ohio-4451, ¶ 5; and In re J.J., 9th Dist. Medina 

No. 19CA0008-M, 2019-Ohio-2152, ¶ 7. That discretion contemplates “a balancing of any 

potential prejudice to a [party against] concerns such as a court’s right to control its own docket 

and the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice.” (Internal quotations 

omitted) In re L.M. at ¶ 5, quoting State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). The juvenile court 

should balance various factors when considering a motion for a continuance, including “the length 

of the continuance sought; whether the hearing has already been continued; [ ] the inconvenience 

to other parties and/or counsel, witnesses, and the trial court[;] * * * whether the requested delay 

is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the [party] 

contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; as well as any 

other relevant issues arising from the unique facts of the case.” (Internal quotations omitted) In 

re L.M. at ¶ 5, quoting Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d at 67-68. A trial court has abused its discretion only 

if its decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 

217, 219 (1983). 
5

 

{¶10} Here, Mother’s attorney informed the juvenile court that Mother called her the prior 

evening to report that she had been exposed to the Covid virus that weekend and was experiencing 

symptoms. Counsel requested that Mother be permitted to appear at the permanent custody 

hearing remotely via Zoom or, alternatively, that the court continue the hearing. When counsel 

called Mother on the record at the court’s direction, Mother did not answer the call. Neither did 

Mother return counsel’s phone call despite counsel’s voicemail message to Mother to do so. 

{¶11} Father’s attorney did not oppose a continuance, particularly because Father was 

also not present for the hearing despite having been properly notified. The assistant prosecutor 

opposed a continuance based on Mother’s failure to attend the last three hearings, as well as in the 

interest of timely permanence for the child. The guardian ad litem agreed with the assistant 

prosecutor and further reported that Mother had not been visiting with the child or participating in 

case plan requirements, had not provided any evidence that she had tested positive for Covid, and 

that she currently had an outstanding warrant. 

{¶12} The juvenile court noted that Mother’s request to participate in the permanent 

custody hearing remotely could not be accommodated only because Mother failed to answer her 

attorney’s phone call placed during the time scheduled for the hearing. The court then denied 

Mother’s motion for a continuance based on (1) Mother’s failure to attend the prior three court 

hearings, (2) her ongoing failure to visit with the child or participate in reunification services, (3) 

her failure to answer her attorney’s phone call or return that call so that she might appear remotely 

for the hearing, (4) the inconvenience to the attorneys, CSB caseworker, volunteer guardian ad 

litem, and the visiting judge presiding over the case, (5) the acknowledgement by those present 

that schedules would prevent rescheduling the hearing for at least another three months, (6) 

consideration for the child’s caretaker, (7) the child’s need for permanence, and (8) its “strong 
6

 

suspicion * * * that this is a contrived excuse to not appear and to cause delay in the proceedings.” 

Based on this Court’s review, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying Mother’s motion for a continuance.

{¶13} Mother had not requested any prior continuances of the permanent custody hearing. 

She had failed for some time, however, to appear for any hearings or participate in the case in any 

meaningful way. She had not begun to engage in any case plan services, as evidenced by the 

orders issued out of the prior review hearings. The agency caseworker reported that Mother had 

not visited with R.F. at all during the seven weeks prior to the scheduled permanent custody 

hearing.

{¶14} Mother’s attorney could not specify the length of the delay requested or indicate 

when Mother might be available to attend a rescheduled hearing. Mother did not follow through 

in good faith on her alternative request to appear remotely for the hearing when she failed to answer 

or return her attorney’s phone call during the time Mother was aware had been scheduled for the 

hearing. See Juv.R. 23.

{¶15} Mother’s interests were represented at the hearing. Her attorney cross-examined 

the agency’s sole witness. All other parties (with the exception of Father, whose absence could 

not be accounted for by his attorney), attorneys, and witnesses were present and prepared to 

proceed with the permanent custody hearing. The visiting judge noted that the current hearing 

date had to be scheduled six months after the most recent prior hearing to accommodate everyone’s 

schedules. Everyone present agreed that they would be unavailable for another hearing date for at 

least three months. 
7

 

{¶16} The child had been removed from Mother’s care when two days old and in custodial 

limbo her entire 14-month life and required timely permanence. R.F.’s lifelong caregiver was 

willing to provide a permanent home for the child.

{¶17} After the guardian ad litem had earlier informed the juvenile court that there was 

an outstanding warrant for Mother, the agency caseworker testified regarding some details. 

Mother had been charged six months earlier with telephone harassment against Father. That 

criminal charge gave rise to the currently pending warrant. While she may have been motivated 

to avoid subjecting herself to the possibility of arrest if she appeared in court, Mother declined to 

make herself available to participate remotely in the hearing.

{¶18} Under the circumstances, this Court concludes that the juvenile court did not abuse 

its discretion by denying Mother’s oral motion to continue the permanent custody hearing. Mother 

might have appeared remotely for the hearing as she requested in the alternative, but she failed to 

take advantage of that opportunity. Delaying the proceedings would have inconvenienced the 

other parties, attorneys, guardian ad litem, agency caseworker, and visiting judge, all of whom 

were prepared to proceed with the hearing. Mother’s attorney could not provide the juvenile court 

with any estimate as to the length of delay Mother was requesting. The alleged cause of Mother’s 

request for a continuance could not be attributed to any other party involved in the case. It was

not unreasonable for the visiting judge to suspect that Mother’s proffered reason for her inability 

to appear in person was contrived, given the outstanding warrant for her arrest, coupled with her 

failures to attend any hearings after the initial disposition, participate in reunification services, and 

visit recently with the child. Although she was not present, Mother’s counsel continued to 

represent Mother’s interests, as she had in prior hearings. The juvenile court’s denial of Mother’s 
8

 

request to continue the permanent custody hearing in this case was not unreasonable. Mother’s 

assignment of error is overruled.

III.

{¶19} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period 

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the 

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

JENNIFER HENSAL

FOR THE COURT
9

 

SUTTON, P. J.

CARR, J.

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

SHUBHRA AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

PAUL GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

JOSEPH KERNAN, Guardian ad Litem.