Background
Three of four children were taken into emergency custody in February 2024 after law enforcement encountered them at a gas station with their father, who appeared confused and unable to provide basic information about the children. The children bore honeycomb-shaped burn marks on their bodies in various stages of healing, prompting the Agency’s investigation into suspected abuse. The youngest child, A.W., remained in Florida with their mother, Eboni G., at that time. The three older children were placed in foster care after being adjudicated as abused.
The mother was provided a case plan to reunify with her three older children requiring her to complete a parenting evaluation, obtain stable employment, secure housing, and participate in counseling. She failed to maintain contact with the Agency and case-plan services were terminated in July 2024. When the mother moved back to Ohio in August 2024 with A.W., she placed the child in the same unsafe home on Freedom Avenue from which the three older children had been removed—a residence where a registered sex offender lived. A.W. was taken into custody in October 2024.
The mother resumed case-plan participation in September 2024 but repeatedly failed to complete the mandatory parenting evaluation despite multiple court orders. Even after the trial court granted an extension of temporary custody in April 2025 to provide additional time for compliance, the mother had not completed the evaluation by the September 2025 hearing. The Agency filed for permanent custody of all four children in July 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights and award of permanent custody of all four children to Stark County Job & Family Services. Under O.R.C. §2151.414(B)(1), permanent custody requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of a statutory condition plus a finding that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. For the three older children, the court found the statutory “12-of-22-months” factor satisfied—they had been in temporary custody for more than 12 months during a consecutive 22-month period. For the youngest child A.W., the court found clear and convincing evidence under O.R.C. §2151.414(E)(1) that she could not be returned to the mother within a reasonable time: despite reasonable case planning and diligent Agency efforts, the mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the conditions causing removal.
The appellate court emphasized that the mother’s critical failure was her repeated non-completion of the parenting evaluation—the foundational requirement of the case plan—despite multiple court orders, an extension of time, and offers of Agency support for all required services. The mother was also found to have been dishonest with the case worker regarding counseling participation. On the second prong, the court found clear and convincing evidence that permanent Agency custody served the children’s best interests: the children had only a “small bond” with their mother, did not struggle with separation at visit endings, and were bonded to each other and to their current foster families who were providing necessary medical and behavioral services. The court rejected the mother’s argument for placement with her brother, holding that availability of alternative family placement is not an “all-controlling factor” when permanent Agency custody better serves the children’s interests.
Key Takeaways
- Recent case-plan progress cannot override months of abandonment and non-compliance; courts may affirm permanent custody despite a parent’s last-minute efforts to comply.
- Repeated failure to complete basic, court-ordered case-plan requirements—particularly when preceded by extended non-contact with children—establishes clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot be returned within a reasonable time.
- Parental dishonesty with case workers about participation in required services weighs heavily against reunification and supports permanent custody determinations.
- A parent’s failure to remedy conditions causing removal (here, placing a child in a home with a known sex offender) demonstrates the parent’s inability to provide safe care.
- Kinship placement availability does not compel courts to reject Agency permanent custody when Agency placement provides the stable, legally-secure home children need.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance on Ohio’s standards for terminating parental rights. Courts will not reverse permanent custody awards based on a parent’s marginal recent progress when preceded by substantial non-compliance. A parent who loses contact with children for eight months, repeatedly fails to complete basic case-plan tasks despite multiple court orders, is dishonest with case workers, and places children in demonstrably unsafe environments cannot overcome those failures through partial compliance immediately before the permanency hearing. The decision makes clear that timing matters: the court will consider not just current efforts but the parent’s pattern of conduct and the full timeline of the case.
For child-protective-services agencies, the opinion affirms they will prevail in permanent-custody proceedings when they demonstrate not only that removal was justified, but that the underlying conditions remain substantially unchanged or worse despite diligent reunification efforts. The court’s emphasis on the mother’s repeated failure to complete even one foundational requirement—despite generous extensions and Agency support—provides agencies with a clear framework for establishing the “failed to remedy” prong under O.R.C. §2151.414(E)(1).