Background
S.L. was born prematurely in November 2023 after prenatal exposure to several controlled substances. He also had Hepatitis C and a club foot requiring specialized care. Because his mother and father, Damien Lake, were incarcerated, the child was placed in agency custody and later adjudicated dependent and abused. He remained with a foster family from approximately four months of age.
After his release from prison, Father received a case plan requiring mental-health treatment, intensive parenting education, stable housing and employment, compliance with post-release control, attention to S.L.’s medical needs, and meaningful cooperation with the agency. Father regularly visited S.L., attended many medical appointments, and completed some services. But he lacked stable, verifiable employment, incurred additional traffic offenses, lived in a home that raised safety concerns, and repeatedly tested positive for cocaine and THC. He also failed to disclose his positive drug screens during a substance-use assessment.
The juvenile court granted Richland County Children Services permanent custody after finding that Father had failed to substantially remedy the conditions preventing placement with him and that permanent custody served S.L.’s best interests. Father appealed, arguing that the decision was contrary to law, an abuse of discretion, and against the manifest weight of the evidence. He also contended that the agency had not made reasonable reunification efforts and that longtime family friend Mona Williams should have received legal custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, Father continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that kept S.L. from being placed with him. The agency supplied referrals, facilitated supervised visitation, conducted home visits and drug screens, monitored Father’s progress, and explored relative and kinship placements.
The court emphasized Father’s persistent drug use, including positive cocaine and THC tests while the permanent-custody proceedings were pending, and his failure to report that use honestly to his counselor. Although Father completed portions of the case plan and had positive visits with S.L., the evidence showed that he had not made the meaningful changes necessary to provide a safe and stable home. Because the finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) was sufficient, the appellate court did not address the juvenile court’s additional findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (E)(16).
The court also upheld the best-interest determination. S.L. was thriving and strongly bonded with foster parents who understood his medical needs and wished to adopt him. The availability of Williams as a possible custodian did not control the analysis, Father lacked standing to assert that she should have received custody, and his custody motion did not include the documentation required by R.C. 2151.353(A)(3).
Key Takeaways
- Completing some case-plan services does not preclude permanent custody when the parent has not made meaningful changes needed to provide a safe and stable home.
- A single supported finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a determination that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.
- The availability of a relative or fictive-kin placement is not controlling when permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio courts assess substantive progress, not merely formal participation in reunification services. Continued drug use, dishonesty with service providers, unstable employment, and unsafe living conditions may support permanent custody even when a parent consistently visits the child and completes portions of a case plan.
It also reinforces that the best-interest inquiry centers on the child’s need for permanence, stability, and security. A proposed alternative custodian does not defeat permanent custody when the statutory findings are otherwise supported by clear and convincing evidence.