Background
Franklin County Children Services obtained emergency custody of Lu.M.-R. and Lo.M.-R. in March 2019, after allegations that their father abused children in the household. The children remained continuously in agency custody and with their foster family from May 2019. Their father’s whereabouts later became unknown; he had been convicted of domestic violence against two other children.
The mother completed several case-plan requirements, including parenting classes, mental-health services, counseling, and assessments. But the children’s therapists diagnosed both with PTSD and dissociative symptoms. The agency caseworker and the CASA guardian ad litem testified that mother had for years denied, minimized, or rationalized the abuse and its effects, leaving her unable to meet the children’s trauma-related needs. In October 2024, the juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody for adoption.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory threshold because the children had been in FCCS temporary custody for well over 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, a point mother did not dispute.
The permanent-custody decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although mother made meaningful progress on her case plan and maintained visits, case-plan compliance was not dispositive of best interests. The record supported the trial court’s findings that the children were strongly bonded to their foster family, needed a legally secure placement, and that mother had not adequately recognized or addressed the trauma inflicted in her home. The court also rejected mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge because the juvenile court had made that required finding in its 2021 dependency and temporary-custody decision, which mother did not challenge in her prior appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Completion of case-plan services is relevant but does not control a permanent-custody best-interests determination.
- The uncontested “12 of 22 months” custody ground independently satisfied the first part of Ohio’s permanent-custody test.
- A parent cannot use an appeal from a permanent-custody judgment to challenge an earlier reasonable-efforts finding that was not appealed when entered.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a court may prioritize a child’s trauma-related needs and stability over a parent’s substantial technical compliance with reunification services. It also reinforces the need to timely appeal reasonable-efforts determinations made during earlier dependency and temporary-custody proceedings.