[Cite as In re A.G., 2026-Ohio-268.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE A.G., ET AL. :
Minor Children : No. 115558
[Appeal by A.H., Father] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD23902129, AD23902130 and AD23902131
Appearances:
Gregory T. Stralka, for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
A.H., who is the father of the three children (the “Children”) involved
in this child custody case, appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his request for a
continuance. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. I. Facts and Procedural History
On February 16, 2023, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and
Family Services (“CCDCFS” or the “agency”) filed a complaint alleging that the
Children were neglected by their mother and requesting temporary custody to A.H.
On April 25, 2023, A.H. filed a motion for legal custody of the Children. On May 22,
2023, the Children were adjudicated neglected and placed in the temporary custody
of CCDCFS. A.H.’s motion for legal custody was denied.
On January 18, 2024, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary
custody to permanent custody. The court held a dispositional review hearing on
January 30, 2024, on CCDCFS’ motion. A.H. and his counsel were present at this
hearing.
On February 1, 2024, A.H. filed a motion for legal custody of the
Children to be granted to his mother. On March 1, 2024, CCDCFS amended its
permanent custody motion to “legal custody of [the Children] to paternal
grandmother.” On December 24, 2024, CCDCFS modified its custody motion again,
requesting that permanent custody of the Children be granted to the agency.
The court held a hearing on this permanent custody motion on
March 13, 2025. A.H. and his attorney were present at this hearing, which was
continued to April 8, 2025. On March 21, 2025, notice of the April 8, 2025 hearing
on CCDCFS’ motion for permanent custody of the Children was served on A.H. A.H.
was present at the April 8, 2025 hearing. Thereafter, the court granted several continuances of the dispositional
On August 6, 2025, the juvenile court held another dispositional
hearing on CCDCFS’ motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody of
the Children. A.H. did not appear at this hearing, although his attorney was present.
A.H.’s attorney requested a continuance. The court found that A.H. had notice of
the hearing and the case had “been continued numerous times.” The court denied
the continuance and the hearing proceeded. The hearing reconvened two days later,
on August 8, 2025. A.H. was present for this second day of the hearing. On
August 28, 2025, the court issued a journal entry terminating A.H.’s parental rights
and granting permanent custody of the Children to CCDCFS.
A.H. appeals raising one assignment of error for our review.
I. The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for a continuance was an abuse of discretion since Appellant was not arraigned on the subsequent motion modification seeking permanent custody after he had agreed to legal custody.
II. Law and Argument
Appellate courts review a trial court’s denial of a motion for a
continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re Z.J., 2020-Ohio-383, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).
An abuse of discretion is “a court exercising its judgment, in an unwarranted way,
in regard to a matter over which is has discretionary authority.” Johnson v.
Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[s]everal factors can be
considered” when reviewing the denial of a continuance, including “the length of delay requested, prior continuances, inconvenience, the reasons for the delay,
whether the [requesting party] contributed to the delay, and other relevant factors.”
State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 115 (1990). See also State v. Unger, 67 Ohio
St.2d 65, 67-68 (1981).
Pursuant to Juv.R. 23, “[c]ontinuances shall be granted only when
imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Additionally, pursuant to
Cuyahoga Loc.Juv.R. 35(C):
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.
Our review of the record in this case shows that A.H.’s counsel
requested a continuance in open court on the day of the hearing. The request did
not include a specific time frame. As the court noted, the case had been continued
multiple times. A.H.’s counsel’s reason for requesting the continuance was A.H.’s
unexplained absence from the hearing. The hearing proceeded on August 6, 2025.
Present at this hearing were A.H.’s counsel, the mother of the Children, the mother’s
counsel, the mother’s guardian ad litem, a representative from CCDCFS, the
Children’s guardian ad litem, the juvenile court judge and juvenile court staff.
Witnesses testified and evidence was presented at this hearing.
In applying these facts to the Landrum test, Juv.R. 23 and Cuyahoga
Loc.Juv.R. 35(C), we find that it would have been a significant inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, attorneys and court if a continuance was granted. See In re
A.M.N., 2022-Ohio-2048 (8th Dist.). We further find that A.H. was the sole
contributor to the request for a continuance. The record reflects that A.H. had notice
of the August 6, 2025 hearing and, pursuant to Juv.R. 23, we cannot say that a
continuance was “imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Additionally,
pursuant to Cuyahoga Loc.Juv.R. 35(C), no good cause was shown, which is required
to grant a continuance of a court proceeding on the day of that proceeding. We also
find that there was no showing of “diligence” on behalf of A.H. or his counsel to
ensure he was present and ready for the hearing.
Upon review, we find that the court acted within its discretion by
denying A.H.’s last-minute and unjustified request for a continuance of the
dispositional hearing. Accordingly, his sole assignment of error is overruled.
We are aware that, as part of his assignment of error, A.H. alleged that
he was not arraigned on CCDCFS’ motion to modify temporary custody to
permanent custody. This allegation was not assigned as a separate error on appeal;
nonetheless, we note that A.H.’s position is not supported by the law. In In re J.D.,
2018-Ohio-4118, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), this court held that Juv.R. 29(B), which governs
arraignments in juvenile court, does not apply to dispositional hearings in child
custody cases. “Juv.R. 29(B) only applies to adjudicatory hearings; it does not apply
to the hearing at issue here, which . . . was a dispositional hearing.” Id.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re A.G., 2026-Ohio-268.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE A.G., ET AL. :
Minor Children : No. 115558
[Appeal by A.H., Father] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD23902129, AD23902130 and AD23902131
Appearances:
Gregory T. Stralka, for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
A.H., who is the father of the three children (the “Children”) involved
in this child custody case, appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his request for a
continuance. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. I. Facts and Procedural History
On February 16, 2023, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and
Family Services (“CCDCFS” or the “agency”) filed a complaint alleging that the
Children were neglected by their mother and requesting temporary custody to A.H.
On April 25, 2023, A.H. filed a motion for legal custody of the Children. On May 22,
2023, the Children were adjudicated neglected and placed in the temporary custody
of CCDCFS. A.H.’s motion for legal custody was denied.
On January 18, 2024, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary
custody to permanent custody. The court held a dispositional review hearing on
January 30, 2024, on CCDCFS’ motion. A.H. and his counsel were present at this
hearing.
On February 1, 2024, A.H. filed a motion for legal custody of the
Children to be granted to his mother. On March 1, 2024, CCDCFS amended its
permanent custody motion to “legal custody of [the Children] to paternal
grandmother.” On December 24, 2024, CCDCFS modified its custody motion again,
requesting that permanent custody of the Children be granted to the agency.
The court held a hearing on this permanent custody motion on
March 13, 2025. A.H. and his attorney were present at this hearing, which was
continued to April 8, 2025. On March 21, 2025, notice of the April 8, 2025 hearing
on CCDCFS’ motion for permanent custody of the Children was served on A.H. A.H.
was present at the April 8, 2025 hearing. Thereafter, the court granted several continuances of the dispositional
On August 6, 2025, the juvenile court held another dispositional
hearing on CCDCFS’ motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody of
the Children. A.H. did not appear at this hearing, although his attorney was present.
A.H.’s attorney requested a continuance. The court found that A.H. had notice of
the hearing and the case had “been continued numerous times.” The court denied
the continuance and the hearing proceeded. The hearing reconvened two days later,
on August 8, 2025. A.H. was present for this second day of the hearing. On
August 28, 2025, the court issued a journal entry terminating A.H.’s parental rights
and granting permanent custody of the Children to CCDCFS.
A.H. appeals raising one assignment of error for our review.
I. The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for a continuance was an abuse of discretion since Appellant was not arraigned on the subsequent motion modification seeking permanent custody after he had agreed to legal custody.
II. Law and Argument
Appellate courts review a trial court’s denial of a motion for a
continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re Z.J., 2020-Ohio-383, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).
An abuse of discretion is “a court exercising its judgment, in an unwarranted way,
in regard to a matter over which is has discretionary authority.” Johnson v.
Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[s]everal factors can be
considered” when reviewing the denial of a continuance, including “the length of delay requested, prior continuances, inconvenience, the reasons for the delay,
whether the [requesting party] contributed to the delay, and other relevant factors.”
State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 115 (1990). See also State v. Unger, 67 Ohio
St.2d 65, 67-68 (1981).
Pursuant to Juv.R. 23, “[c]ontinuances shall be granted only when
imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Additionally, pursuant to
Cuyahoga Loc.Juv.R. 35(C):
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.
Our review of the record in this case shows that A.H.’s counsel
requested a continuance in open court on the day of the hearing. The request did
not include a specific time frame. As the court noted, the case had been continued
multiple times. A.H.’s counsel’s reason for requesting the continuance was A.H.’s
unexplained absence from the hearing. The hearing proceeded on August 6, 2025.
Present at this hearing were A.H.’s counsel, the mother of the Children, the mother’s
counsel, the mother’s guardian ad litem, a representative from CCDCFS, the
Children’s guardian ad litem, the juvenile court judge and juvenile court staff.
Witnesses testified and evidence was presented at this hearing.
In applying these facts to the Landrum test, Juv.R. 23 and Cuyahoga
Loc.Juv.R. 35(C), we find that it would have been a significant inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, attorneys and court if a continuance was granted. See In re
A.M.N., 2022-Ohio-2048 (8th Dist.). We further find that A.H. was the sole
contributor to the request for a continuance. The record reflects that A.H. had notice
of the August 6, 2025 hearing and, pursuant to Juv.R. 23, we cannot say that a
continuance was “imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” Additionally,
pursuant to Cuyahoga Loc.Juv.R. 35(C), no good cause was shown, which is required
to grant a continuance of a court proceeding on the day of that proceeding. We also
find that there was no showing of “diligence” on behalf of A.H. or his counsel to
ensure he was present and ready for the hearing.
Upon review, we find that the court acted within its discretion by
denying A.H.’s last-minute and unjustified request for a continuance of the
dispositional hearing. Accordingly, his sole assignment of error is overruled.
We are aware that, as part of his assignment of error, A.H. alleged that
he was not arraigned on CCDCFS’ motion to modify temporary custody to
permanent custody. This allegation was not assigned as a separate error on appeal;
nonetheless, we note that A.H.’s position is not supported by the law. In In re J.D.,
2018-Ohio-4118, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), this court held that Juv.R. 29(B), which governs
arraignments in juvenile court, does not apply to dispositional hearings in child
custody cases. “Juv.R. 29(B) only applies to adjudicatory hearings; it does not apply
to the hearing at issue here, which . . . was a dispositional hearing.” Id.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing 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, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR