In re I.R.M., 2025 Ohio 4900 (Ohio 2025)

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, held that the trial court erred in accepting I.R.M.’s plea because she did not validly waive her right to counsel, proceeded to disposition without a parent, guardian or custodian present, and abused its discretion by placing I.R.M. in a facility for six months.

The court stated in relevant part: “{¶17} Here when we review the totality of the circumstances, we find that I.R.M. did not validly waive her right to counsel because the record does not contain sufficient evidence indicating that she was advised or counseled by her mother before waiving her right to counsel. First, I.R.M. had recently turned 15 years old at the time of the hearing, had never had any charges against her previously, and her appearance at the March 19, 2025 hearing was her first appearance in court. Thus, she was young and had had no previous experience with the legal process or court proceedings. While the juvenile court informed her of her right to counsel, it did not clearly explain that if she “qualified financially” meant that if she could not afford one, the court would appoint one for her.2 In re L.A.B., 2009-Ohio-354, ¶ 15-18, ¶ 62 (court failed to adequately advise juvenile of his right to counsel when it when it only told him of his right to an attorney and that one would be appointed for him if he could not afford one, but “gave no specific information about what this right entailed.”). The trial court also failed to inform I.R.M. that she had the continuing right to obtain counsel at any stage of the proceeding. Juv.R. 29(B)(5). The fact that she was told this a month later is not relevant to her understanding at the time of this hearing, a month earlier.”