Background
Stark County Department of Job and Family Services filed a complaint concerning D.L. in July 2024, alleging neglect and dependency based on the family’s child-protection history, the mother’s mental-health and substance-abuse concerns, and the father’s criminal and substance-abuse history. The parents stipulated that D.L. was dependent, and the neglect allegations were dismissed.
In September 2024, the juvenile court placed D.L. in the agency’s temporary custody after the child suffered a skull fracture and broken femur while in the care of the parents and a third person. The agency moved for permanent custody in October 2025. Following a two-day trial, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights and granted permanent custody to the agency. The father appealed, arguing that the best-interest finding lacked clear and convincing evidentiary support and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that D.L. satisfied the statutory “12 of 22 months” ground because the child was deemed to have entered agency custody on the earlier of the dependency adjudication or 60 days after removal. The dependency adjudication occurred on September 24, 2024, more than 12 months before the agency filed its permanent-custody motion on October 28, 2025. The juvenile court also found that the father had abandoned D.L., a finding he did not challenge on appeal.
The court further held that competent, credible evidence supported the conclusion that permanent custody was in D.L.’s best interest. The father failed to complete drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, parenting classes, or requirements concerning housing and employment, and he remained incarcerated after an arrest for transporting cocaine. Evidence also showed that D.L. was bonded with the foster family, whose members were willing to consider adoption, and that returning the child home would create a risk of further harm. The juvenile court could consider the guardian ad litem’s filed recommendation because the father had not objected to judicial notice of the court file.
The appellate court rejected the father’s remaining arguments. The juvenile court’s reference to D.L.’s race addressed the required inquiry into whether the Indian Child Welfare Act applied; the court was not required to make express findings on every statutory best-interest factor; and the availability of maternal relatives did not override a supported determination that permanent custody served the child’s best interest.
Key Takeaways
- For Ohio’s “12 of 22 months” rule, agency custody is calculated from the earlier of the child’s adjudication or 60 days after removal.
- A juvenile court must consider all relevant best-interest factors but need not expressly discuss every statutory factor in its judgment entry.
- A relative’s willingness to care for a child does not preclude permanent custody when the evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that satisfying the “12 of 22 months” ground can independently establish the threshold statutory basis for permanent custody, leaving the child’s best interest as the central remaining inquiry. It also confirms the deference appellate courts give juvenile courts when competent, credible evidence supports their factual findings.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of calculating the statutory custody period from the correct deemed-entry date, preserving objections to materials in the juvenile-court file, and addressing the parent’s own case-plan performance rather than relying on another parent’s compliance or the possible availability of relatives.