Background
E.V. was adjudicated dependent in November 2023 after Greene County Children Services removed her from her paternal aunt’s home following a sex-abuse complaint involving an older cousin. E.V. subsequently lived in a Dayton group home and then secure residential treatment facilities in Ohio and Arkansas because of ongoing emotional, behavioral, and psychological needs.
Father sought reunification but had been homeless or unstably housed since 2021. His case plan required housing and employment, mental-health and substance-use assessments and treatment, agency meetings, and supervised visitation. Greene County Children Services sought permanent custody in September 2025 after receiving two extensions of temporary custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to Greene County Children Services. Clear and convincing evidence established the statutory timing condition because E.V. had been in the agency’s temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
The court held that the best-interest finding was supported by competent, credible evidence. Although E.V. and Father were bonded and E.V. wanted to return to him, Father remained housing- and financially unstable, had only recently obtained temporary employment, and tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and alcohol shortly before the hearing. The court also upheld the finding that the agency made reasonable reunification efforts.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s wish to reunify does not control the best-interest analysis when the parent cannot provide a safe, stable, structured placement.
- The juvenile court could not extend temporary custody beyond the statutory limit of two extensions.
- Proposed relatives and non-relatives could not receive legal custody without filing timely custody motions; a planned permanent living arrangement was unavailable because E.V. was under 16.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that permanent custody may be affirmed despite uncertain adoption prospects or a child’s preference for reunification. The controlling inquiry is whether the record supports a legally secure permanent placement and the child’s best interests under Ohio’s statutory factors.