Background
CCDCFS took emergency custody of A.G.-M. shortly after her December 2022 birth, citing Mother’s marijuana use during pregnancy, domestic violence, and unaddressed mental-health concerns. The child was adjudicated dependent. Mother later gave birth to A.G.-B., who was likewise placed in agency custody and adjudicated dependent.
Mother’s reunification plan required work on domestic violence, parenting, mental health, substance abuse, and housing. Although Mother completed some services and had stable housing by trial, evidence showed continued contact with A.G.-B.’s father despite a no-contact order, a positive and diluted January 2025 drug screen, no subsequent testing, discontinued mental-health treatment, and continued supervised-only visitation. CCDCFS sought permanent custody; Mother sought legal custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of both children to CCDCFS and the resulting termination of Mother’s parental rights. Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.
The court held that Mother had continuously failed to substantially remedy the conditions leading to removal and had demonstrated a lack of commitment by failing to engage with the agency about the case plan and failing to resolve those conditions. The evidence also supported the children’s best interests: they had been in agency custody their entire lives, were too young to state wishes and their GAL recommended permanent custody, and they needed a legally secure placement that could not be achieved through reunification.
Key Takeaways
- Completion of some case-plan services did not outweigh evidence that Mother had not benefited from services or resolved the underlying safety concerns.
- The appellate court applied manifest-weight review and deferred to the juvenile court’s credibility and factual determinations.
- Evidence supporting permanent custody included continued domestic-violence concerns, marijuana-related concerns, untreated mental-health issues, and the absence of progress beyond supervised visitation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that in Ohio permanent-custody cases, partial case-plan compliance is not dispositive. The central question is whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that led to removal and can provide a safe, permanent home within a reasonable time.
It also confirms that a GAL’s recommendation may supply evidence of the wishes factor when very young children cannot express a custody preference.