Background
Licking County Job and Family Services became involved after receiving reports that P.M.’s mother was violating probation, testing positive for methamphetamine, and experiencing domestic violence in the home. After Mother was arrested and P.M.’s maternal grandmother proved unable to protect him from Mother, the juvenile court adjudicated P.M. dependent and placed him in the agency’s temporary custody.
Mother’s case plan required substance-abuse treatment, drug screening, stable housing and employment, parenting education, and establishment of paternity. The evidence showed that Mother continued using methamphetamine, refused numerous drug screens, failed to verify stable housing or income, and stopped visiting P.M. after March 20, 2025. At the permanent-custody hearing, Mother did not appear, but her appointed attorney requested a continuance based on her unverified claims that she had entered inpatient treatment and retained new counsel. The juvenile court denied the request and later terminated Mother’s parental rights, granting permanent custody to the agency.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or deny Mother due process by refusing another continuance. The permanent-custody hearing had already been continued twice, Mother did not specify the length of the requested delay, and she supplied no documentation of inpatient treatment or the identity of newly retained counsel. Her appointed attorney remained and actively represented her at the hearing.
The appellate court also held that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that P.M. could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time and that Mother had abandoned him by maintaining no contact for more than 90 days. Her outstanding arrest warrant, which resulted from her own conduct, did not rebut the statutory abandonment presumption. Evidence of continued substance abuse, unresolved mental-health concerns, unstable housing and income, and failure to complete case-plan services supported the remaining statutory findings.
Finally, the court upheld the best-interest determination. P.M. was doing well and was bonded with his foster mother, understood that he could not return to Mother, and wanted to remain in his placement. The juvenile court was not required to find that no suitable relative placement existed, and the possible availability of the maternal grandmother was not controlling.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court may deny a day-of-hearing continuance when the asserted grounds—such as new counsel or inpatient treatment—are undocumented and the case has already been delayed.
- A parent’s lack of contact for more than 90 days creates a statutory presumption of abandonment, and an arrest warrant caused by the parent’s own conduct does not rebut it.
- Continued drug use, failure to complete case-plan services, and lack of stable housing or income may support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.
- In the best-interest analysis, the availability of a relative placement is relevant but does not control or require proof that no suitable relative exists.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a parent’s fundamental custody interest does not entitle the parent to additional delay based on unsupported, last-minute representations. Courts may weigh the child’s need for permanency, prior continuances, and the parent’s role in creating the circumstances behind the request.
It also reinforces that Ohio’s permanent-custody analysis focuses on the child’s best option. A potential relative placement does not outweigh all other statutory considerations, particularly when the child is thriving in foster care and the parent has not remedied the conditions that caused removal.