Background
K.G., a seven-year-old, was removed from his mother’s custody in February 2023 and adjudicated neglected and dependent. A case plan requiring Mother to complete parenting, housing, and mental-health services was established, with the goal of reunification. By September 2025, Mother had completed parenting education and mental-health counseling, was employed, and had obtained stable housing.
CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. A hearing was set for October 21, 2025. On October 15, just six days before the hearing, the agency filed an amended case plan with new objectives not previously required. Mother’s counsel moved for a continuance, arguing she had not had an opportunity to comply with the new objectives. The juvenile court denied the continuance and granted permanent custody. Mother appealed.
The Court’s Holding
In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District reversed and remanded. The majority found that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s continuance request. The court emphasized that Mother was making demonstrable progress on her case plan and that the agency had changed its objectives just days before the hearing without giving Mother adequate time to respond.
Judge Gallagher dissented, arguing that the juvenile court was bound by the two-year statutory limitation under R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) and had discretion to deny the continuance on that basis. The dissent cited prior case law holding that juvenile courts do not abuse their discretion in applying this statutory deadline to deny continuances.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court may abuse its discretion by denying a continuance when the agency files an amended case plan with new objectives shortly before a permanent-custody hearing.
- The statutory two-year limitation under R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) does not automatically justify denying every continuance request; courts must still balance the parent’s right to a meaningful hearing.
- Evidence of a parent’s substantial compliance with an original case plan weighs against granting permanent custody without allowing the parent to address newly imposed requirements.
Why It Matters
This split decision highlights the tension between Ohio’s statutory time limits for temporary custody cases and a parent’s due-process right to a meaningful hearing. Practitioners representing parents in juvenile court should be alert to late-filed amended case plans and immediately move for continuances with specificity about what additional time would allow. The dissent provides useful authority for agencies and guardians ad litem arguing that statutory deadlines must take priority.