Court Cases by OhioIn re Adoption of Charles B.
552 N.E. 2d 884, 50 Ohio St. 3d 88 (1990)
Charles B., age 8, suffered from a number of serious problems: leukemia (then in remission), low I.Q., a speech disorder, deficits in fine and gross motor skills, and "possible brain damage (fetal alcohol syndrome.)" (552 N.E. 2d at 884).
The court noted that these problems "make Charles less adoptable than other children his age." (552 N.E. 2d at 885).
There was expert testimony that Charles had "special needs" and "requires an adoptive parent with stability and flexibility, and the willingness to seek needed services." (552 N.E. 2d at 889).
The primary controversy in this case was whether Ohio law permitted the adoption of a child by a homosexual adult. The court held that it did.
State v. Murphy
91 Ohio St. 3d 516, 747 N.E. 2d 765 (2001)
Murphy was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal he argued that his attorney had failed to fully investigate possible mitigating factors. He specifically objected that the attorney should have called an expert witness on FAS and should have obtained a neuropsychological assessment to investigate possible organic brain damage. 747 N.E. 2d at 797.
The appellate court rejected this argument because "the record does not show that defense counsel failed to investigate these possibilities." 747 N.E. 2d at 797. That sort of showing would ordinarily be easy to make in a post-conviction proceeding.