Background
Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services obtained temporary custody of A.M. and K.L. in May 2023 after reports of unsanitary living conditions and concerns about their mother’s substance use, including a positive methamphetamine and amphetamine screen. N.D., born in January 2024 with neonatal abstinence syndrome, entered the agency’s temporary custody shortly after birth. All three children were adjudicated dependent.
The mother’s case plan addressed mental health, substance use, parenting skills, and housing. She completed parenting programs, maintained appropriate housing, consistently attended visits, and participated in treatment, but the agency remained concerned about unresolved substance use. Evidence included repeated screens negative for prescribed Suboxone, positive methamphetamine screens in August 2025, and a November 2025 test positive for methadone without a reported prescription. The juvenile court granted the agency permanent custody, denied the mother’s legal-custody motion, and terminated her parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the statutory “12 of 22 months” ground independently supported permanent custody because A.M. and K.L. had been in temporary custody since July 2023 for statutory-calculation purposes, and N.D. had been in temporary custody for 12 months and 27 days when the agency moved for permanent custody. The juvenile court’s omission of K.L. when stating that finding was a scrivener’s error.
The court also held that competent, credible evidence supported findings that the children could not or should not be placed with their mother within a reasonable time and that permanent custody served their best interests. Her case-plan progress did not eliminate continuing substance-use concerns, and the children needed stable, legally secure placement. The juvenile court was not required to give any preference expressed by the children controlling weight. Because it had made reasonable-efforts findings at multiple earlier hearings and those findings were not challenged, it did not need to make another such finding at the permanent-custody hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s presence in agency custody for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period independently satisfies the first statutory prong for permanent custody when the best-interest requirement is also met.
- Completing significant portions of a case plan does not bar permanent custody when the evidence shows that the conditions preventing safe reunification remain unresolved.
- A child’s wishes are one best-interest factor and need not be given controlling or heightened weight over stability, custodial history, and the need for legally secure placement.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Ohio courts calculate the “12 of 22 months” period and confirms that an unchallenged finding under that provision can independently support permanent custody. It also reinforces the distinction between completing case-plan tasks and actually remedying the conditions that caused removal.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of timely challenging reasonable-efforts findings entered during earlier juvenile-court proceedings. When those findings have already been made, the court generally need not revisit reasonable efforts at the permanent-custody hearing.