Background
Stark County Department of Jobs & Family Services became involved with A.H. and L.H. after receiving reports in July 2024 that their parents were using drugs. The children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the agency’s temporary custody. Their father, J.H., received a reunification case plan requiring substance-abuse and mental-health assessments, compliance with treatment recommendations, parenting services, employment, and safe, stable housing.
At the February 2026 permanent-custody hearing, evidence showed that J.H. continued to test positive for marijuana, tested positive for methamphetamine in December 2025, completed only 16 of 65 required drug screenings, and had not completed his case-plan services. He had lost his home to foreclosure, struggled to maintain employment, and remained in substance-abuse treatment scheduled to continue through May 2026. Meanwhile, the siblings had lived together with a foster family since July 2024, were bonded with that family and thriving, and the foster parents wished to adopt them. The juvenile court awarded permanent custody to the agency, and J.H. appealed only the best-interests determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings and that the permanent-custody judgment was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The children had been in agency custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and J.H. had continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to their removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent reunification efforts.
The court also upheld the finding that permanent custody served the children’s best interests. J.H. had not made substantial progress on his substance-abuse and parenting issues and lacked stable housing, while the children were thriving together in a stable, prospective adoptive home. The record did not support his request for another six-month extension, and the benefits of permanence outweighed the potential harm from severing the parental bond.
Key Takeaways
- A permanent-custody award may be affirmed when clear and convincing evidence shows both a statutory ground under Ohio law and that permanent custody serves the children’s best interests.
- Partial participation in services did not overcome J.H.’s continued drug use, missed screenings, incomplete parenting services, and lack of stable housing.
- The children’s stability, bond with their foster family, placement together, and opportunity for adoption supported the best-interests finding.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio courts focus on demonstrated progress—not merely enrollment in treatment—when deciding whether a parent has remedied the conditions causing removal. A request for additional time may be rejected when the record does not indicate that the parent is likely to complete the case plan within the proposed extension.
It also underscores the weight given to a child’s need for a legally secure and stable placement, particularly when siblings are thriving together in a foster home willing to adopt them.