Background
Stark County Department of Jobs & Family Services became involved with A.H. and L.H. after reports that their parents were using drugs. The agency obtained temporary custody in July 2024 after the parents stipulated that the children were dependent. Their mother later stipulated to permanent custody and did not participate in the father’s appeal.
The father’s reunification plan required substance-abuse and mental-health assessments, compliance with treatment recommendations, parenting education, employment, and safe housing. Although he completed some services, he continued testing positive for drugs, completed only 16 of 65 required screenings, lost his home to foreclosure, struggled to maintain employment, and could not enter a parenting program because he had not maintained sobriety. The juvenile court awarded permanent custody to the agency after finding that the children had been in agency custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months, could not or should not be placed with either parent, and would benefit from permanence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings that the father continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children’s removal despite the agency’s reasonable case planning and diligent reunification efforts. The evidence also supported the finding that the children could not be placed with him within a reasonable time and should not be placed with him.
The appellate court further upheld the best-interests determination. Both children were bonded with and thriving in the foster home where they had lived together since July 2024, and the foster family wanted to adopt them. The court rejected the father’s request for another six-month extension because the record did not indicate that he would achieve sobriety or complete his case-plan objectives, and it agreed that the benefits of permanence outweighed the potential harm from severing the parental bond.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s partial participation in reunification services does not preclude permanent custody when the parent fails to remedy the conditions that caused removal.
- The father’s continued drug use, missed screenings, housing instability, and incomplete parenting services supported the finding that the children could not or should not be placed with him.
- The children’s stability, progress, and adoptive placement supported the conclusion that permanent custody served their best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio courts focus on demonstrated progress, not merely enrollment in treatment or partial completion of a case plan. A parent’s recent participation in recovery services may not justify extending temporary custody when longstanding substance use and instability remain unresolved.
It also confirms that an appellate court will defer to a supported juvenile-court judgment when the record shows both unresolved parental conditions and a stable, adoptive placement meeting the children’s need for permanence.