In re K.B. , 2014 Ohio 3490 ( 2014 )

[Cite as In re K.B., 2014-Ohio-3490.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: K.B. : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
:
: Case No. 14-CA-29
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, Case No. AB-2013-51
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 12, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant-D.C.
BRITTANY J. KAROCKI JESSICA L. MONGOLD
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 123 S. Broad Street, Ste. 206
239 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 Lancaster, OH 43130
Lancaster, OH 43130
Guardian Ad Litem
Jacob P. Ort
13297 Rustic Drive NW
Pickerington, OH 43147
Fairfield County, Case No.14-CA-29 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant D.C. appeals a judgment of the Fairfield County Common Pleas
Court, Juvenile Division, awarding permanent custody of her daughter K.B. to appellee
Fairfield County Child Protective Services.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} K.B. was born on February 14, 2013. She was found to be dependent and
placed in the temporary custody of appellee on May 30, 2013. Appellant did not comply
with her case plan, which addressed concerns with substance abuse, parenting skills,
stable employment, and stable housing. Appellant only visited K.B. once during the
pendency of the case.
{¶3} Appellee filed a motion for permanent custody on October 1, 2013. The
permanent custody hearing was originally scheduled for November 13, 2013, and
continued to February 6, 2014 because service was not effectuated upon appellant. On
February 4, 2014, appellant filed a motion to continue, stating that a family member had
stepped forward seeking placement but appellee had refused to investigate the family
member because she stepped forward too late. Appellant argued that the hearing
should be continued to allow for consideration of a less restrictive placement option.
The court overruled the motion.
{¶4} The case proceeded to a permanent custody hearing on February 6,
2014. Appellant did not appear at the hearing. Counsel for appellant renewed the
motion to continue, arguing that the maternal grandmother sought placement of the
child and appellee had not investigated this placement. The maternal grandmother did
Fairfield County, Case No.14-CA-29 3
not appear at the hearing. The court again overruled the motion to continue, finding that
the maternal grandmother was given the option to be a possible placement for K.B.
when the case began, but she chose not to be considered. The court further noted that
neither appellant nor the maternal grandmother were present for trial. The court found
that the need for permanency for K.B. was the priority of the court, and overruled the
motion to continue. Following the hearing at which neither parent appeared, the court
granted the motion for permanent custody.
{¶5} Appellant assigns a single error on appeal:
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
PLACING THE MINOR CHILD IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF FAIRFIELD
COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION OF A FAMILY MEMBER WHO MAY HAVE PROVIDED A LESS
RESTRICTIVE PLACEMENT.”
{¶7} Appellant argues that the court erred in overruling her motion to continue
so that appellee could investigate the maternal grandmother as a potential placement
for K.B.
{¶8} “The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter which is entrusted to the
broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.” State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67, 423
N.E.2d 1078 (1981). Therefore, an appellate court must not reverse a trial court's
decision to deny a motion for continuance unless it finds that the trial court abused its
discretion. Id. The term “abuse of discretion” implies that the court's attitude is
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,
219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
Fairfield County, Case No.14-CA-29 4
{¶9} The agency does not have a statutory duty to investigate a relative for
placement before seeking permanent custody. In re K.M.D., 4th Dist. Ross App. No.
11CA3289, 2012-Ohio-755, ¶1. In the instant case, the agency did contact the maternal
grandmother at the start of the case, but she was not willing to be considered for
placement at that time. Appellant filed her motion to continue just two days before the
permanent custody hearing was scheduled. Further, neither appellant nor her mother
appeared for the hearing. Appellee represented to the court that grandmother
contacted the agency two weeks before the hearing regarding the possibility of
placement, and appellee informed her that if the motion for permanent custody was
granted, she could apply for consideration for adoption. The court did not abuse its
discretion in overruling the motion to continue.
{¶10} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Fairfield
County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to appellant.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.