In re F.L.H

2024 Ohio 5169

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 28, 2024
• Docket: 2024 CA 00056
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re F.L.H, 2024-Ohio-5169.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: F.L.H. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

Case No. 2024 CA 00056

OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. F2023-0169

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 28, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Father, C.H.

JENNY WELLS JERMAINE L. COLQUITT Licking County Prosecuting Attorney Colquitt Law Office 14 N. Park Place KENNETH W. OSWALT Newark, Ohio 43055 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 20 S. Second Street, 4th Floor Guardian ad Litem Newark, Ohio 43055 JODY RICHTER 35 S. Park Place Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case No. 2024 CA 00056 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Appellant C.H. (“Father”) appeals the June 27, 2024 Opinion/Judgment

Entry entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which

overruled Father's objections to the magistrate's September 25, 2023 decision, adopted

said decision as order of the court, terminated Father's parental rights with respect to his

minor child (“the Child”), and granted permanent custody of the Child to appellee Licking

County Job and Family Services (“LCJFS”).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} Father and M.M. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of the Child.2 On May

12, 2023, the magistrate issued an emergency ex-parte order of removal, authorizing

LCJFS to take the Child into its custody. LCJFS requested the order after receiving a

report Father had arrived at a pretrial supervision drug screen and tested positive for

methamphetamine and fentanyl. The Child, who was with Father at the time, was filthy,

had a foul odor, and the Child’s hair was matted. The trial court conducted an emergency

shelter care hearing on May 15, 2023, and placed the Child in the temporary custody of

LCJFS. On May 15, 2023, LCJFS filed a complaint, alleging the Child was neglected and

dependent and requesting permanent custody of the Child. The trial court appointed

Attorney Jody Richter as Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for the Child.

{¶3} The magistrate conducted an adjudicatory hearing on July 18, 2023. Father

appeared without counsel, acknowledged his right to be represented by an attorney,

verbally waived that right, and requested to proceed without counsel. Mother failed to

appear at the hearing. Based upon the evidence and statements presented, the

1 A Statement of the Facts is not necessary to our disposition of this appeal. 2 Mother is not a party to this appeal. Licking County, Case No. 2024 CA 00056 3

magistrate found the Child to be dependent and neglected. The magistrate held a

dispositional hearing on August 30, 2023. LCJFS confirmed its intent to proceed on the

dispositional prayer contained in the complaint, to wit: permanent custody. Mother failed

to appear at the hearing. Father appeared without counsel, verbally withdrew his prior

waiver, and requested to proceed with counsel for purposes of disposition. The magistrate

appointed Attorney Jermaine Colquitt to represent Father and continued the matter to

allow Father to consult with Attorney Colquitt.

{¶4} The magistrate conducted a dispositional hearing on September 18, 2023.

Father appeared with Attorney Colquitt. Mother appeared 45 minutes late, without

counsel, and requested a continuance in order to have counsel appointed to represent

her. The trial court denied Mother’s request for a continuance, noting she had been

properly served with notice of the hearing, had been advised numerous times, verbally

and in writing, of her right to counsel, had failed to avail herself to the court, LCJFS, or

the GAL, and had not visited the Child since May 22, 2023. Thereafter, LCJFS presented

testimony from Mother, Father, and the LCJFS caseworker assigned to the family. Father

testified in opposition to LCJFS’s dispositional request. The GAL filed a written report and

recommendations on July 12, 2023. The GAL testified as a court’s witness. Via

Magistrate’s Decision filed September 25, 2023, the magistrate recommended Mother

and Father’s parental rights be terminated and permanent custody of the Child be granted

to LCJFS.

{¶5} Father filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on October 9, 2023.

Therein, Father raised objections to the magistrate’s denial of Mother’s request for a

continuance to have counsel appointed to represent her during the dispositional hearing, Licking County, Case No. 2024 CA 00056 4

and the magistrate’s decision to grant permanent custody of the Child to LCJFS. Father

filed supplemental objections on December 1, 2023. Father specifically asserted the

magistrate violated Mother’s constitutional and statutory rights to counsel.

{¶6} Via Opinion/Judgment Entry filed June 27, 2024, the trial court denied

Father’s objections and supplemental objections, and approved and adopted the

magistrate’s September 25, 2023, with one modification regarding visitation, as order of

the court. With respect to Father’s objections to the magistrate’s denial of Mother’s

request to continue the dispositional hearing and appoint counsel to represent her during

the proceedings, the trial court found Father lacked standing to raise the issue on behalf

of Mother.

{¶7} It is from this judgment entry Father appeals, raising as his sole assignment

of error:

THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR AN

ATTORNEY VIOLATED HER FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 AND 6

OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, R.C. 2151.352 AND JUV.R. 4(A) RIGHT

TO COUNSEL.

{¶8} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered

in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C). Licking County, Case No. 2024 CA 00056 5

I

{¶9} “[I]t is well-established that an appeal lies only on behalf of a party aggrieved

by the final order appealed from.” Matter of G.T., 2022-Ohio-654, ¶ 34 (5th Dist.), citing

Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. P.U.C.O., 140 Ohio St. 160 (1942). “One party can

neither object or [sic] appeal by raising arguments on behalf of another person's rights.”

(Citations omitted.) Id. However, “[a]n appealing party may complain of an error

committed against a nonappealing party when the error is prejudicial to the rights of the

appellant.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 13 (6th Dist. 1991). In E. Liverpool v.

Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm., 2007–Ohio–3759, the Ohio Supreme Court, following

the United States Supreme Court, recognized an exception to the general rule “when a

claimant (i) suffers its own injury in fact, (ii) possesses a sufficiently ‘ “close” relationship

with the person who possesses the right,’ and (iii) shows some ‘hindrance’ that stands in

the way of the claimant seeking relief.” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S.

125, 129–130 (2004).

{¶10} In ruling on Father’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, the trial court

found Father lacked standing to raise the issue on behalf of Mother. The trial court

explained:

Third party standing is generally prohibited and [Father] failed to

show that this claim meets the narrow exceptions. [Father] was not injured

by [Mother’s] denial of a continuance to seek counsel and he did not assert

as such.

June 27, 2024 Opinion/Judgment Entry at p. 4. Licking County, Case No. 2024 CA 00056 6

{¶11} We agree with the trial court, Father cannot raise this issue on behalf of

Mother, when Mother could have appealed the issue to protect her own interests. In re

T.W., 2013-Ohio- 1754, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). Furthermore, Father has failed to establish he was

prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of Mother’s request for a continuance to secure

counsel.

{¶12} Father’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶13} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Wise, J. and Baldwin, J. concur