Court Opinion

ID: 9393788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 14:06:13.305039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.241532
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re C.B., 2023-Ohio-1578.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE C.B., ET AL.                            :

Minor Children                                :          No. 112112

[Appeal by A.M., Mother]                      :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2023

           Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                  Juvenile Division
          Case Nos. AD21902930, AD21902932, AD21902933, AD21902934,
                                  and AD21902935

                                        Appearances:

                 Gregory T. Stralka, for appellant.

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorneys, for appellee.
ON RECONSIDERATION1

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

               Appellant-mother A.M. (“Mother”) appeals the judgment of the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (the “juvenile court”),

that terminated her parental rights and granted permanent custody of five of her

minor children, C.B. (d.o.b. 12/28/11), C.D. (d.o.b. 9/11/16), A.D. (d.o.b. 1/20/18),

K.W. (d.o.b. 12/16/19) and J.W., Jr. (d.o.b. 3/20/21) to appellee, the Cuyahoga

County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or the “agency”). She

contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a

continuance of the permanent custody hearing. For the reasons that follow, we

reverse the juvenile court and remand for further proceedings.

Procedural and Factual Background

               On April 13, 2021, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and

temporary custody with respect to C.B., C.D., A.D. and K.W. and for abuse, neglect

and temporary custody with respect to J.W., Jr. As it relates to Mother,2 the

complaint alleged that Mother and J.W., Jr. had tested positive for oxycodone and

benzodiazepines at the time of his birth, that Mother has substance abuse issues that

interfere with her ability to provide adequate care for her children and that, although

      1 The original announcement of decision, In re C.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112112,

2023-Ohio-620, released March 2, 2023, is hereby vacated. This opinion, issued upon
reconsideration, is the court’s journalized decision in this appeal. See App.R. 22(C); see
also S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01.

      2 The children’s fathers are not parties to this appeal. Accordingly, we do not
address the allegations relating to the fathers here.
Mother has engaged in treatment, she has been unable to maintain sobriety. The

complaint further alleged that Mother has an untreated mental health diagnosis that

interferes with her ability to provide adequate care for the children and that Mother

has failed to engage C.D. in services to address his special needs.

                   On May 6, 2021, attorneys E.C. (“Attorney E.C.”) and D.B. (“Attorney

D.B.”) filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel for Mother. A case plan was

developed for Mother and the children with the goal of reunification. Mother

attended hearings on May 6, 2021, May 27, 2021 and July 8, 2021. Mother

stipulated to the allegations of an amended complaint,3 and on July 25, 2021, J.W.,

Jr. was adjudicated to be abused and neglected, C.B., C.D., A.D. and K.W. were

adjudicated to be neglected and all five children were committed to the temporary

custody of the agency. Mother attended a dispositional review hearing on August 17,

2021.

                   On February 1, 2022, Attorney E.C. filed a motion to withdraw as

Mother’s counsel on the ground that Mother had “failed to fulfill contractual

        3   As amended, the complaint alleged, as it relates to Mother:

        1. On March 20, 2021, Mother and J.W.[, Jr.] tested positive of Oxycodone and
           Benzodiazepines at the time of the child’s birth.
        2. Mother has substance abuse issues, * * * which she needs to engage in
           treatment to address. Mother must engage in case plan services in order to
           ensure her adequate parental care for the children.
        3. Mother has a mental health diagnosis, specifically post-traumatic stress
           disorder, which interferes with her ability to provide adequate parental care for
           the children. Mother is not engaging in treatment for her mental health.
        4. Mother fails to ensure that C.D.’s special needs are met. The child is diagnosed
           with a developmental disability, and Mother has failed to engage him in
           services.
financial obligations.” On February 7, 2022, the juvenile court granted the motion

to withdraw.4

                On February 13, 2022, the agency filed a motion to modify temporary

custody to permanent custody as to all five children. A hearing on the motion was

then scheduled for June 14, 2022.

                On February 28, 2022, the juvenile court entered an order appointing

attorney J.K. (“Attorney J.K.”) to serve as counsel for Mother. On April 6, 2022, the

juvenile court entered an order appointing attorney P.D. (“Attorney P.D.”) to serve

as new counsel for Mother.5 The record reflects that a copy of the order appointing

Attorney P.D. was mailed to Mother at a Parma address, from which she had

recently been evicted. Beginning on or about April 18, 2022, the orders mailed to

Mother in each of the five cases were returned to the juvenile court with the notation,

“not deliverable as addressed[;] unable to forward.”

                The record reflects that Mother signed an amended case plan on

April 6, 2022, which was filed with the court on April 13, 2022. Mother failed to

appear at arraignment/pretrial hearings held on April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and

May 17, 2022.

       4 Attorney D.B. was not referenced in the motion to withdraw. The dockets for
several of the children’s cases reflect that Attorney D.B. was “excluded” as a “case party”
on May 27, 2021.

       5It is unclear from the record what led to the reappointment of new counsel for
Mother in April 2022. It does not appear from the record that Attorney J.K. appeared for
or otherwise took any action on Mother’s behalf in this case.
              Counsel for CCDCFS, Attorney P.D., counsel for P.B. (C.B.’s father),

counsel for J.W., Sr. (father of A.W. and J.W., Jr.) and the guardian ad litem

appeared for the permanent custody hearing on June 14, 2022. Also present were

Terri Fulton, a CCDCFS child protection specialist and Stacy Huddleston, a CCDCFS

sobriety, treatment and recovery teams family advocate, both of whom testified

during the permanent custody hearing.

              Prior to the commencement of the hearing, counsel for P.B. requested

that he be “excused” from the proceedings because he had not been successful in his

attempts to communicate with P.B. regarding the case and, therefore, did not know

“what his wishes are” or “if he has any concerns about this case” and could not

“represent any wish that he might have.”        P.B.’s counsel explained that, in

attempting to contact P.B., he had “used the addresses provided by [the agency]”

and had attempted to call “the telephone numbers related to [P.B.]” that he had been

given but that he had “never been able to make any contact with [P.B.] despite

sending him letters and attempting to call him.” No one objected, and the juvenile

court granted counsel’s request to withdraw from the representation of P.B.

              Mother’s counsel, Attorney P.D., then requested a continuance of the

permanent custody hearing on Mother’s behalf, indicating that Mother was not

present and stating, “I have not been able to have any contact with her either. I do

not know her position.” The agency objected to the continuance, setting forth its

position as follows:
            We have good service on the mother. The testimony elicited by
      my worker of record will be that the mother has not visited these
      children in the past two months and has not contacted the Agency.

            And also additionally, the Agency hasn’t been provided any
      information.

              Mr. [P.D.] just said that he hasn’t had any communication with
      his client, so we don’t know if there are any exigent circumstances that
      led to her not being here today.

             She certainly has never reached out to Children and Family
      Services, so on the basis of that we don’t have any information that
      there’s anything that would prevent the mother from showing up at
      Court today, so we would ask to go forward, your Honor.

            Certainly this case has been pending for over a year.

              As to her position on the request for continuance, the children’s

guardian ad litem stated:

             The only thing that I would ask is that this is the first time that
      we’ve appeared for trial. There haven’t been any continuances that
      were prior requested, and that the case itself is pretty (inaudible), but
      other than that, I don’t have anything further to say regarding support
      for a continuance.

              Without conducting any further inquiry or explaining the reasons for

its decision, the juvenile court denied the motion for continuance, and the hearing

proceeded on the agency’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent

custody.

              The two CCDCFS witnesses were the only witnesses to testify at the

permanent custody hearing. The children’s guardian ad litem also set forth her

recommendation on the record at the hearing.
              Attorney P.D. waived opening statement.         He did not ask any

questions of the agency’s witnesses or the guardian ad litem and did not present any

witness testimony or other evidence on Mother’s behalf.

              In his closing, Attorney P.D. argued that the agency’s request for

permanent custody was “premature,” that there was “still time on this case,” that

Mother had made “some case plan progress,” that “she is seeing her kids” and “has

participated in the case plan services” and that there is “still [an] opportunity for

mom to turn the ship around and be more consistent.” He requested that the

juvenile court grant an extension of temporary custody.

              At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered that the

parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by June 22, 2022.

The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered.

On October 5, 2022, the juvenile court granted the agency’s motion for permanent

custody and terminated Mother’s parental rights, incorporating the findings of fact

submitted by the agency.

              Mother appealed, raising the following sole assignment of error for

review:

      The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for a continuance was an
      abuse of discretion since no opportunity was made to contact the
      Appellant.

Law and Analysis

              The right to raise one’s own child is ‘“an essential and basic civil

right.’” In re N.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101390, 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67, quoting In
re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997); see also In re Murray, 52

Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990) (a parent has a ‘“fundamental liberty

interest’ in the care, custody, and management” of his or her child), quoting

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

However, this right is not absolute. It is ‘“always subject to the ultimate welfare of

the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D.,

2017-Ohio-1037, 86 N.E.3d 1012, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59

Ohio St.2d 100, 106, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979).

               Nevertheless, because termination of parental rights is ‘“the family

law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case,’” In re J.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66, quoting In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 2002-

Ohio-5368, 776 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 14, it is “an alternative of last resort,” In re Gill, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79640, 2002-Ohio-3242, ¶ 21. “[G]reat care must be taken to

ensure that due process is used in parental termination proceedings,” In re Q.G., 170

Ohio App.3d 609, 2007-Ohio-1312, 868 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), and “parents

‘must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.”’ In

re Hayes at 48, quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th

Dist.1991); see also In re Q.G. at ¶ 10-11 (‘“Even when blood relationships are

strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of

their family life. If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental

rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting

state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to destroy
weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair

procedures.”’), quoting Santosky at 753-754.

               Juv.R. 23 governs continuances in juvenile court. It states that

“[c]ontinuances shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for

the parties.” Loc.R. 35(C) of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division (“Juv.Loc.R. 35(C)”), further provides:

      No case will be continued on the day of trial or hearing except for good
      cause shown, which cause was not known to the party or counsel prior
      to the date of trial or hearing, and provided that the party and/or
      counsel have used diligence to be ready for trial and have notified or
      made diligent efforts to notify the opposing party or counsel as soon as
      he/she became aware of the necessity to request a postponement. This
      rule may not be waived by consent of counsel.

               The grant or denial of a motion to continue is a matter that is

generally ‘“entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.’” In re Ka.C.,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102000, 102002, 102005, and 102006, 2015-Ohio-1158,

¶ 13, quoting State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981). A court

abuses its discretion when its decision is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983); In re Ka.C.

at ¶ 13. A decision is unreasonable if ‘“no sound reasoning process * * * would

support that decision.’” In re C.D.Y., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108355, 2019-Ohio-

4987, ¶ 8, quoting Baxter v. Thomas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101186, 2015-Ohio-

2148, ¶ 21. A decision is arbitrary if it is made ‘“without consideration of or regard

for facts [or] circumstances.’” In re C.D.Y. at ¶ 8, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary

125 (10th Ed.2014).
               Where the granting of a continuance is necessary to allow a party a

reasonable opportunity to prepare his or her case, the denial of a request for a

continuance may violate a party’s right to due process. See, e.g., In re K.H., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 111287, 2022-Ohio-2588, ¶ 67; State v. Sowders, 4 Ohio St.3d 143,

144, 447 N.E.2d 118 (1983); see also In re R.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99562, 2013-

Ohio-5576, ¶ 17, citing In re A.C., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1025, 2010-Ohio-4933,

¶ 128. However, not every denial of a motion for continuance is a denial of due

process. In re C.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109219, 2020-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16.

               As the Ohio Supreme Court explained in Unger: ‘“There are no

mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to

violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every

case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request

is denied.”’ Unger at 67, quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841,

11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); see also In re I.N., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110067, 2021-

Ohio-1406, ¶ 17; In re A.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109239, 2020-Ohio-3373, ¶ 26.

“Weighed against any potential prejudice to a [party] are 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.” Unger at 67.

               When evaluating a request for a continuance, a court should consider

all relevant factors, including the following:

      the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have
      been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses,
      opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for
      legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived;
      whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise
      to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending
      on the unique facts of each case.

Id. at 67-68; see also In re I.N. at ¶ 17; In re A.W. at ¶ 27. However, a court is not

required to give particular weight to any one of these factors. In re K.H. at ¶ 69. In

permanent custody cases, courts must also “be mindful of the best interests of the

children and their need for stability and permanency” in considering a request for a

continuance. In re I.N. at ¶ 16.

               ‘“A parent facing termination of parental rights must exhibit

cooperation and must communicate with counsel and with the court in order to have

standing to argue that due process was not followed in a termination proceeding.”’

In re A.W. at ¶ 29, quoting In re Q.G., 170 Ohio App.3d 609, 2007-Ohio-1312, 868

N.E.2d 713, at ¶ 12. This is not a case in which Mother has never cooperated or

communicated with the agency, counsel or the court. To the contrary, although

Mother did not appear for the permanent custody hearing on June 14, 2022 or for

arraignment hearings held on April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and May 17, 2022, prior

to that time, she had regularly appeared for court proceedings, including hearings

on May 6, 2021, May 27, 2021, July 8, 2021 and August 17, 2021. The record further

reflects that Mother signed an amended case plan on April 6, 2022.6

      6 The amended case plan, which was filed with the juvenile court on April 13, 2022,

states that Mother was evicted from her home on March 27, 2022 and “is now in need of
housing.”

      At the hearing — after the juvenile court had denied Mother’s motion for
continuance — the CCDCFS child protection specialist testified that the agency had last
               As detailed above, the juvenile court entered an order appointing

Attorney P.D. to serve as Mother’s new counsel on April 6, 2022. It is unclear from

the limited record before us whether Mother was aware that Attorney P.D. had been

assigned to serve as her new counsel following the withdrawal of Attorney E.C. The

record reflects that Mother was evicted from her Parma home in late March 2022.

Copies of the orders assigning Attorney P.D. to serve as Mother’s counsel in each of

these cases were mailed to Mother at her Parma address after her eviction.

Beginning on or about April 18, 2022, copies of these orders were returned to the

juvenile court in each case as undeliverable. Although the record reflects that other

documents were mailed to Mother, beginning on or about April 11, 2022, to a

“made contact” with Mother “at her mother’s house, which is where she is reporting to
live” at “the beginning of April.” She stated that Mother then had a pending warrant for
her arrest issued by the Parma Municipal Court on charges of attempted drug possession
and theft. She further testified that Mother had attended a monthly sibling visit in April
2022. She stated that Mother was “given the information for the May visit” and that
Mother had texted that she was going to attend the visit, but “never showed up.”

       The CCDCFS family advocate testified that she last spoke at length with Mother on
April 12, 2022 at a sibling visit and that she last saw Mother on April 19, 2022 when
Mother appeared for DNA testing of another child, who is not a part of this appeal. The
family advocate stated that she usually communicated with Mother by text. In response
to the question, “[W]hen was the last time that you requested mother to go do a drug
screen,” she responded, “[t]his morning.” No inquiry was made as to the means by which
the family advocate communicated this request to Mother (e.g., whether she called or
texted Mother), at what time the family advocate made this request of Mother (the
permanent custody hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m.) or whether Mother responded. No
inquiry was made, and no explanation was provided, as to why the agency was requesting
that Mother submit to a drug test on the date of the permanent custody hearing.
Cleveland address, it does not appear from the docket that the order appointing

Attorney P.D. to serve as Mother’s counsel was resent to Mother at another address.7

               Attorney P.D. moved for a continuance based on the fact that Mother

had not appeared for the hearing and he had “not been able to have any contact”

with Mother. No information was provided and no inquiry was made as to when, if

at all, Attorney P.D. had attempted to contact Mother, the number of times he had

attempted to contact Mother, the means by which he had attempted to contact

Mother or what contact information he had for Mother. There is nothing in the

record to suggest that anyone attempted to contact Mother the morning of the

hearing, after she did not appear, to attempt to determine why Mother had failed to

appear.

               No prior continuances of the hearing date had been requested. The

juvenile court made no inquiry as to the length of continuance requested. Only two

witnesses testified at the hearing, both of whom were agency employees. Besides

counsel for the agency and Attorney P.D., the only other persons who appeared for

the hearing were the guardian ad litem, counsel for P.B. (who then withdrew as

counsel) and counsel for J.W., Sr. (who asked no questions, presented no evidence

and, in closing argument, simply stated that he “would go along with the GAL’s

recommendation for temporary custody — for permanent custody”). Accordingly,

      7  Notices of the April 6, 2022 and April 26, 2022 arraignment hearings were also
sent to Mother at the Parma address. Attorney P.D. was identified as counsel for Mother
in entries summarizing the proceedings held on April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and May 17,
2022, which were sent to Mother at the Cleveland address.
it appears there would have been limited inconvenience to the parties and witnesses

had a brief continuance been granted. Although there are some issues with the

transcription of her statements, the guardian ad litem did not appear to oppose

Mother’s request for continuance.

              In this case, there are facts and circumstances in the record that

suggest that granting a brief continuance may have been “imperative to secure fair

treatment for the parties,” Juv.R. 23, and supported by “good cause,” Juv.Loc.R.

35(C). This is not a case in which it can be said that Mother was not prejudiced by

the denial of her motion for continuance. Not only was Mother not present for the

hearing, Attorney P.D. did not ask a single question of the agency’s witnesses or the

guardian ad litem and did not present any evidence on Mother’s behalf. Further, it

does not appear that the juvenile court considered timeliness in resolving the

agency’s motion to be a critical factor here. Although the permanent custody

hearing was held on June 14, 2022, it was not until October 5, 2022 — more than

three-and-one-half months later — that the juvenile court entered its ruling on the

agency’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody.

              Based on the “unique” facts and circumstances here — of which

Unger requires consideration — we find that the juvenile court abused its discretion

in denying Mother’s motion for continuance without conducting even a minimal

inquiry to determine the facts necessary to evaluate the Unger factors prior to ruling

on Mother’s motion for continuance. See Unger at 67-68; cf. In re Q.G., 170 Ohio

App.3d 609, 2007-Ohio-1312, 868 N.E.2d 713, at ¶ 16-17 (juvenile court erred in
“simply proceed[ing]” with adjudicatory hearing in mother’s absence, without

making “additional inquiries” and taking “extra care to ensure [mother’s] presence,”

where mother appeared at preliminary hearings and told her counsel that she did

not have the financial resources to get to the adjudicatory hearing). We sustain

Mother’s assignment of error.

                 Judgment reversed. Case remanded to the juvenile court for further

proceedings.

         It is ordered that the appellant recover from the appellee the costs herein

taxed.

         The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

         It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to carry this judgment into execution.

         A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

___________________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURS;
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., DISSENTING:

                 Respectfully, I dissent.
              Applying the factors set forth in State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423

N.E.2d 1078 (1981), I find the trial court acted within its discretion in denying

appellant counsel’s request to continue the permanent custody trial.

              When a request to continue a trial is made, the court is to consider the

following factors:

      [T]he length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have
      been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses,
      opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for
      legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived;
      whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise
      to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending
      on the unique facts of each case.

Unger at 67-68. The Supreme Court of Ohio instructed further that “’[t]here are no

mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to

violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every

case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request

is denied.’” (Emphasis sic.) Unger at 67, quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575,

589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964).

              Here, the record indicates appellant was served with notice of the

permanent custody trial held on June 14, 2022. Two months before the trial, she

stopped visiting with the children and failed to attend three pretrial hearings

conducted on April 6, April 26, and May 17, 2022. On the day of trial, her counsel

requested a continuance after trial had commenced, without asking for a specific

length for the continuance. Counsel could not explain appellant’s absence, stating

merely that he had been unable to have any contact with her and did not know her
position on the permanent custody matter. Because the circumstance giving rise to

appellant’s absence and the request of continuance was unknown, and remains

unknown, it is impossible to determine, as part of the Unger analysis, whether

appellant contributed to the circumstance and whether the reason for the request

was legitimate.

              Further consideration of the Unger factors, including the limited

statutory time (120 days) given to the agency to resolve the custody matter — the

permanent custody motion had been pending for 116 days — as well as the resulting

inconvenience to the witnesses, the opposing counsel, the GAL, and the court,

indicates that the trial court justifiably denied the request for a continuance

pursuant to Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078. See, e.g., In re A.W., 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109239, 2020-Ohio-3373; In re C.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 109219, 2020-Ohio-3189; and In re S.R., 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-09-024,

2010-Ohio-3073. Appellant similarly fails to demonstrate she was entitled to a

continuance under Juv.R. 23, which provides that “[c]ontinuances shall be granted

only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.”

              Furthermore, regarding a request for a continuance on the day of

trial, Loc.R. 35(C) of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division, provides:

      No case will be continued on the day of trial or hearing except for good
      cause shown, which cause was not known to the party or counsel prior
      to the date of trial or hearing, and provided that the party and/or
      counsel have used diligence to be ready for trial and have notified or
      made diligent efforts to notify the opposing party or counsel as soon as
      he/she became aware of the necessity to request a postponement. This
      rule may not be waived by consent of counsel.

              Appellant fails to show “good cause” required by Loc.R. 35(C).

“Generally, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a

continuance when a party fails to appear at trial without explanation and when there

is no indication that the party would attend a later trial if the continuance was

granted.” In re Kutcher, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 02 BE 58, 2003-Ohio-1235, ¶ 29,

citing Heard v. Sharp, 50 Ohio App.3d 34, 552 N.E.2d 665 (8th Dist.1988), syllabus.

Without any explanations, the trial court was justified in assuming that appellant’s

absence was voluntary. Id. See also In re T.B., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27334, 2014-

Ohio-4040, ¶ 17 (the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying a continuance

when the request was made orally on the day of trial and without demonstration of

emergency or unforeseen circumstances).

              Furthermore, the court has rejected the claim that a denial of the

request for a continuance violates a parent’s due process right to participate in the

hearing which, by itself, warrants a reversal.       In re C.M., 4th Dist. Athens

Nos. 17CA16 and 17CA17, 2017-Ohio-9037, ¶ 44.              Rather, appellant must

demonstrate how she was prejudiced by the denial of the continuance before a

prejudicial error can be found. Id. at ¶ 42, citing State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277,

288, 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988) (“not every denial of a continuance constitutes a denial

of due process”). See also In re E.H., 4th Dist. Hocking No. 21CA6, 2022-Ohio-2417,

¶ 13. Appellant’s brief lacks any demonstration of prejudice resulting from the trial
court’s denial of her request for a continuance of the trial: she does not argue she

would have presented certain evidence in her favor or questioned the witnesses

differently, or otherwise explain how her presence at the trial would have changed

the outcome of the case.

               While I recognize that biological parents have a constitutionally

protected right to be present at a permanent custody hearing, In re Sears, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 01AP-715, 2002-Ohio-368, ¶ 11, “a parent facing termination of

parental rights must exhibit cooperation and must communicate with counsel and

with the court in order to have standing to argue that due process was not followed

in a termination proceeding.” In re Q.G., 170 Ohio App.3d 609, 2007-Ohio-1312,

868 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). While biological parents have certain rights

concerning their children, “‘the focus of a permanent custody hearing and decision

is not the parent’s rights but rather the child’s best interests.’” In re J.H., 11th Dist.

Lake No. 2012-L-126, 2013-Ohio-1293, ¶ 87, quoting In re West, 4th Dist. Athens

No. 05CA4, 2005 Ohio 2977, ¶49. The trial court's decision here comports with “the

Ohio General Assembly’s intent to ensure the timely placement of children into a

permanent home.” In re J.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 116.

               “The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter that is entrusted to

the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.” Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d at syllabus, 423

N.E.2d 1078. An abuse of discretion implies that court’s attitude is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450

N.E.2d 1140 (1983). Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court acted
within its discretion in denying appellant’s same-day request to continue the trial.

Pursuant to the juvenile court’s local rules, appellant had the burden to demonstrate

good cause for a continuance on the day of trial and failed to do so. The court had

no affirmative duty regarding appellant’s burden to comply with the rules of the

court.   Furthermore, appellant fails to demonstrate the denial of the request

prejudiced her case and warrants a reversal. For these reasons, I dissent.