In Re Roberts, Unpublished Decision (6-8-2005)
In Re Roberts, Unpublished Decision (6-8-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} On March 19, 2003, Appellee GCCSB filed a complaint alleging Damien Roberts, age thirteen, was dependent and neglected. GCCSB was thereupon granted temporary custody. An adjudication hearing took place on June 16, 2003, at which time Damien's parents both entered an admission to the allegation of dependency. A judgment entry of dependency, with continued temporary custody to GCCSB, was issued on June 23, 2003.
{¶ 3} Subsequently, GCCSB filed a motion for permanent custody. Following an evidentiary hearing on June 22, 2004, the trial court issued a judgment entry filed July 16, 2004, which granted permanent custody of Damien to GCCSB.
{¶ 4} On August 13, 2004, appellant filed a notice of appeal, and herein raises the following sole Assignment of Error:1
{¶ 5} "I. Appellant-father was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel to his prejudice.
{¶ 7} "Where the proceeding contemplates the loss of parents' `essential' and `basic' civil rights to raise their children, * * * the test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases is equally applicable to actions seeking to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental custody." In re Wingo (2001),
{¶ 8} Our standard of review for an ineffective assistance claim is thus set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984),
{¶ 9} In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that at the time of the permanent custody hearing, appellant was in jail in Oklahoma and was not due for release until July 4, 2004. Appellant essentially argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking the provision of an opportunity for appellant to participate in the dispositional aspect of the permanent custody hearing, which went forward in appellant's absence. Appellant further proposes that his trial counsel's only comments on his behalf were "damaging."
{¶ 10} Upon review of the record, we are unpersuaded that appellant has met the second prong of the Strickland test, supra. The trial transcript indicates appellant did little or nothing to take advantage of his opportunity to visit or otherwise reunify with Damien during the periods of non-incarceration, nor did he comply with the case plan provisions for domestic violence counseling, professional counseling, and a drug and alcohol assessment. See Tr. at 40-41, 95. Thus, even if trial counsel was ineffective for not further pursuing a continuance or taking some other measure due to appellant's incarcerated status, appellant has failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had such hypothetical steps been taken. We are thus left with the unacceptable option of speculating as to evidence dehors the record, which we will not herein pursue. See, e.g.,State v. Lawless, Muskingum App. No. CT2000-0037, 2002-Ohio-3686, citingState v. Cooperrider (1983),
{¶ 11} Appellant's sole Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Guernsey County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
Wise, J. Boggins, P.J., and Edwards, J., concur.
Costs to appellant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.