Background
Licking County Jobs and Family Services removed I.C. from her mother’s care in August 2023 after finding the infant living in unstable and unsanitary conditions. The juvenile court adjudicated I.C. dependent and placed her in the Agency’s temporary custody. She then lived with foster caregivers alongside her half-brother.
During the case, Mother obtained housing and employment, participated in counseling, consistently visited I.C., and progressed for a time to unsupervised visitation. Witnesses described Mother as attentive and acknowledged that she and I.C. shared a loving bond. But Mother did not complete required parenting classes, continued using marijuana, and remained in a relationship marked by recurring domestic violence. After nearly two years of temporary custody, the juvenile court granted the Agency permanent custody and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed, holding that the permanent-custody judgment was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that I.C. had been in the Agency’s temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Mother did not challenge that finding, which independently satisfied the first statutory requirement for permanent custody when combined with a proper best-interest determination.
The court also upheld the finding that I.C. could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. Although Mother made meaningful progress, evidence of unresolved domestic violence, marijuana use, and incomplete case-plan objectives supported the juvenile court’s decision. The best-interest finding was likewise supported by I.C.’s stable foster placement, her bond with her foster family and half-sibling, the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, and her need for a legally secure permanent home.
Key Takeaways
- An unchallenged finding that a child was in agency custody for 12 of 22 consecutive months can independently satisfy the first prong of Ohio’s permanent-custody test.
- Meaningful progress on employment, housing, counseling, and visitation does not bar permanent custody when the conditions preventing safe reunification remain unresolved.
- A strong parent-child bond is relevant but does not control the best-interest analysis, which considers all statutory factors and the child’s need for permanence and stability.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of challenging every independent statutory basis supporting permanent custody. Because Mother did not contest the 12-of-22-month finding, reversal of the separate reasonable-time finding would not by itself have defeated the permanent-custody award.
It also illustrates that Ohio courts assess case-plan compliance by whether it remedies the problems that caused removal, not merely whether a parent completed some services. Persistent safety concerns may outweigh substantial progress and a positive relationship between parent and child.