In re L.D.
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2892
Syllabus
An incarcerated parent's due process rights are adequately protected, even if he does not attend a permanent custody hearing pertaining to his children, where he was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, his counsel adequately conveyed the parent's interest in reunifying with his children in the future and proffered the parent's expected testimony on the record. Counsel is not ineffective where there is no evidence to demonstrate that counsel's performance created an unjust result or that the proceeding would have been different. A children's services agency engages in reasonable case planning where it creates a case plan that, if completed along with the necessary behavioral changes, could reunify the family. The juvenile court's decision awarding permanent custody of Mother's children to a children's services agency is supported by sufficient evidence and the greater weight of the evidence where the agency established that Mother had not remedied the concerns that led to the children's removal and that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time period. The juvenile court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a six-month extension of temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D) where there is no evidence to support that the children could be reunified with Mother within a reasonable time. WITH DISSENT IN PART AND CONCURRENCE IN PART.
Judges: Hendrickson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court· 1982-02-22· cited 9,761×
- Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 6,943×
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court· 1984-04-18· cited 4,990×
- Eastley v. VolkmanOhio Supreme Court· 2012-05-22· cited 2,407×
- Davis v. FlickingerOhio Supreme Court· 1997-02-12· cited 1,567×
- In re MurrayOhio Supreme Court· 1990-07-03· cited 1,148×
- In re HayesOhio Supreme Court· 1997-06-18· cited 613×
- Perales v. NinoOhio Supreme Court· 1977-11-30· cited 446×
- In re Z.C.Ohio Supreme Court· 2023-12-27· cited 335×
- In Re B.C.Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-10-16· cited 193×
- In re C.B.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2015-09-14· cited 81×
- In re D.K.W.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2014-06-30· cited 80×
- In re G.F.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2014-06-16· cited 72×
- In re K.W.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2015-10-19· cited 63×
- In re S.M.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2019-01-22· cited 57×
- Williams v. DollisonOhio Supreme Court· 1980-06-11· cited 49×
- In re A.W.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2014-07-21· cited 43×
- In re D.E.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2018-08-20· cited 43×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.