Background
Franklin County Children Services removed three children from their parents’ care in December 2019 after the youngest child was born with oxycodone in her system and mother failed to follow a safety plan. The children remained continuously with the same foster family, which was interested in adoption, for more than five years.
Mother completed several case-plan components, including parenting education, assessments, housing, and some treatment services. But she repeatedly relapsed, missed drug screens and treatment, and was terminated unsuccessfully from Recovery Court in March 2025. The juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody. Mother appealed; father filed a brief but no notice of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed the permanent-custody judgment as to mother. The children had been in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, satisfying R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). That undisputed ground independently supported the first statutory requirement, so the court did not need to review the juvenile court’s alternative findings that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.
Competent, credible evidence supported the best-interest determination. The children were bonded with both mother and the foster family, but they needed stable, legally secure placement. Mother’s recurrent substance use, missed screens, inconsistent treatment participation, and inability to sustain sobriety remained the principal barrier to reunification. The court dismissed father’s assignments of error for lack of appellate jurisdiction because he never filed a notice of appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The “12 of 22 months” custody ground independently supports permanent custody when best interests are also proved.
- Completing many case-plan services does not defeat permanent custody where a parent cannot consistently address the central safety concern.
- A party who does not file a timely notice of appeal cannot obtain appellate review by filing only a brief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a child’s need for durable safety and stability may outweigh a parent’s meaningful but unsuccessful recovery efforts. The court emphasized that legally secure placement requires more than suitable housing; it requires dependable adults able to provide a stable environment.