COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 78381 IN THE MATTER Of: : KYLE HLAVSA, a minor : : [Appeal by Michelle Clark, : JOURNAL ENTRY a/k/a Michelle Hlavsa] : and : OPINION : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 3, 2001 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Juvenile Division, : Case No. 98-94301 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For appellant Michelle Clark: ANTHONY A. GEDOS Clark: Attorney at Law 815 Superior Avenue, N.E. Suite 2010 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For appellee Cuyahoga County WILLIAM D. MASON Department of Children Cuyahoga County Prosecutor and Family Services : LYNN STEWART, Assistant 3955 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: Michelle Clark, also known as Michelle Hlavsa, appeals from an order of the juvenile division of the common pleas court awarding -2- permanent custody of her son, Kyle Hlavsa, to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services ( CCDCFS ). She argues that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRE- TION IN REFUSING TO GRANT A MINIMAL AND REA- SONABLE CONTINUANCE OF APPELLANT'S PERMANENT CUSTODY HEARING WHERE THE APPELLANT'S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN UNQUESTIONABLY AND SIGNIFI- CANTLY COMPROMISED BY THE MEDICATIONS INVOLV- ING TRANQUILIZERS AND PSYCHOTROPICS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES SHE HAD BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF ON THE SAME DAY AS AND ON THE PREVIOUS DAY OF THE HEARING. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to continue the hearing. Accordingly, we affirm. Kyle Hlavsa and his half-sister, Andrea Hlavsa, were placed in the emergency custody of the CCDCFS in November 1998 after police took custody of their mother and her husband and parents in con- nection with the death of a two-month-old infant. The children were subsequently placed in the temporary custody of CCDCFS. Legal custody of Andrea was awarded to her father. On September 13, 1999, the CCDCFS moved the court to modify the temporary custody order regarding Kyle and award permanent custody to the CCDCFS. The court held a hearing on this motion on June 29, 2000. Appellant was present, having been transported to the hearing from the women's correctional facility at Marysville, Ohio, where she was incarcerated for various criminal offenses in connection with the death of the infant and the endangerment of Andrea and Kyle. Appellant's attorneys requested a continuance of the hearing on the ground that appellant had been injected with a medication at -3- the county jail where she was held before the hearing. Counsel argued that this medication rendered appellant unable to assist counsel in representing her interests. A sheriff's deputy reported that appellant had been given a tranquilizer so she would not have to be physically restrained. The court denied the motion for con- tinuance, noting that appellant was alert and responsive. The court also denied her attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel. After the hearing, the court entered an order awarding permanent custody of Kyle to the CCDCFS. The decision to grant a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. In re Zhang (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 350, 354. In Zhang, this court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed an attorney to withdraw on the day of a hearing and denied that party a continu- ance to obtain new counsel. The circumstances of this case are even less compelling than those in Zhang and, therefore, do not demonstrate that the trial court here abused its discretion. The trial court found that the medication appellant was given did not prevent her from participating at the hearing in a mean- ingful way. As appellant actively participated and responded appropriately and coherently to inquiries, her behavior at the hearing supported this conclusion,. Appellant's ability to under- stand and participate in the proceedings was the sole basis for the request for a continuance. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying that request. Therefore, we overrule the single assign- ment of error and affirm the court's judgment. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Divi- sion, 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. DIANE KARPINSKI, A.J. and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). .