Background
Stark County Job and Family Services became involved with the family in spring 2024 after two domestic violence incidents: one in which a teenage daughter (E.F.) was charged after trying to defend herself from Mother, and a second in which Mother was charged for holding down another daughter (C.F.) and attempting to cut her shirt off. The Agency filed dependency complaints in May 2024, and the trial court placed the three older children — twins C.F. and E.F. (born October 17, 2009) and D.F. (born December 17, 2010) — in temporary custody. A fourth child, K.G. (born August 5, 2024), was placed in Agency custody days after birth due to additional concerns: K.G.’s father was a registered sex offender convicted of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in 2021 and had been living in the home.
The Agency established a case plan requiring Mother to complete a drug screen, parenting evaluation, mental health treatment, anger management, and the Goodwill Parenting Program. A parenting evaluator concluded that Mother lacked insight into her unhealthy relationships, had severe anger management deficits, and consistently prioritized her romantic relationships over her children’s safety. The evaluator also documented that two of the older children had disclosed prior sexual abuse by a former boyfriend Mother had allowed to live in the home. The evaluator recommended against reunification if Mother continued her relationship with K.G.’s father.
The Agency filed motions for permanent custody of all four children in April 2025. A hearing was held in June 2025. Multiple service providers — including the Agency caseworker, the Goodwill Parenting Program supervisor, and the parenting evaluator — testified that Mother had attended required services but failed to engage meaningfully, refused to accept responsibility for the children’s removal, and continued her relationship with K.G.’s father while giving inconsistent and dishonest accounts of that contact to the Agency and every service provider. The trial court denied Mother’s competing motions to extend temporary custody and, on August 11, 2025, granted permanent custody to the Agency and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court on both assignments of error. On the threshold statutory finding — whether the children could be placed with Mother within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) — the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting three independent R.C. 2151.414(E) factors: (E)(1) failure to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent Agency efforts; (E)(4) demonstrated lack of commitment by actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home; and (E)(14) unwillingness to prevent children from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. The court rejected Mother’s argument that her attendance at case plan services compelled reunification, holding that Ohio law distinguishes between mere attendance and the behavioral and attitudinal change the plan is designed to produce.
The court also rejected Mother’s argument that the Agency had filed for permanent custody too soon. It clarified that no minimum custody period is required before a motion under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a); the twelve-month threshold Mother relied upon applies only to the separate pathway under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), which was not at issue here. The relevant inquiry is whether the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors are established by clear and convincing evidence — and on this record, they were.
On best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), the court found that the trial court’s determination was supported by competent and credible evidence. The bonds between Mother and the older children were described as fragile or nonexistent by multiple witnesses; K.G. had never lived with Mother outside a facility. Each child was thriving in their respective placement. The children’s expressed wishes to return home were conditioned on Mother ending her relationship with K.G.’s father — a circumstance the record established was not likely to occur. The Guardian ad Litem independently recommended permanent custody. No abuse of discretion was found.
Key Takeaways
- Attendance at case plan services is not enough: Ohio courts may grant permanent custody even when a parent completes most or all case plan requirements if the parent has not substantially remedied the underlying conditions — particularly where service providers find a consistent pattern of dishonesty and refusal to accept responsibility.
- No minimum custody period is required before filing for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a); the twelve-month threshold applies only to the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) pathway.
- A parent’s continued intimate relationship with a known sex offender — combined with sustained deception about that relationship across all service providers — can independently satisfy multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors and support termination of parental rights.
- Children’s ambivalent or conditioned wishes to return home do not defeat a best-interest finding when those wishes depend on a change (removal of a dangerous partner) that the record shows is not realistically forthcoming.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Ohio’s permanent custody framework focuses on substantive parental change, not procedural compliance. Attorneys representing parents in dependency proceedings should advise clients that logging appointments and completing program hours — without genuine behavioral engagement — will not satisfy the statutory standard. Courts will scrutinize the quality and candor of a parent’s participation, not merely its quantity.
The ruling also serves as a practical reminder for agency attorneys and GALs: the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) pathway permits early permanent custody motions where the evidence of failed remediation is clear, without waiting for the twelve-month benchmark associated with the (B)(1)(d) pathway. Where a parent’s pattern of deception and continued dangerous relationships is well-documented before twelve months of temporary custody elapse, counsel need not delay filing.