Background
Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services became involved with S.H. and her children, Z.B. and D.M., after concerns arose about truancy, housing conditions, and substance abuse. The children were removed in November 2023 and adjudicated dependent. Mother’s case plan required her to address mental health, substance abuse, parenting skills, and housing.
The agency later sought permanent custody. Evidence showed that Mother had unresolved substance-use and housing issues, failed to obtain intensive parenting services recommended because of her cognitive limitations, and had extended gaps in visitation. Z.B. asked to stop visits and wanted to be adopted, while D.M. also said he did not want to return to Mother. The juvenile court granted permanent custody and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. The children had been in the agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period before the permanent-custody motion was filed, independently satisfying the first statutory requirement. Although Mother did not challenge that finding, the record also supported the alternative determination that the children could not or should not be placed with her within a reasonable time.
Clear and convincing evidence also supported the finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. Mother had not substantially remedied the substance-abuse, parenting, visitation, and housing problems that led to removal, while the children needed secure and stable placements and were receiving appropriate care in foster homes.
The court further held that the juvenile court was not required to make another reasonable-efforts finding at the permanent-custody hearing because it had made such findings during earlier proceedings and Mother had not challenged them. Applying plain-error review, the court rejected Mother’s due-process claim because the record did not show that the juvenile court limited her evidence or imposed an arbitrary time restriction; her counsel expressly declined to present witnesses or other evidence.
Key Takeaways
- An unchallenged finding that children were in agency custody for 12 of 22 consecutive months independently satisfied the first prong of Ohio’s permanent-custody analysis.
- Partial case-plan completion did not outweigh Mother’s unresolved substance abuse, parenting deficiencies, inconsistent visitation, and housing concerns.
- A reference to scheduling “time constraints” did not establish a due-process violation where the court conducted a full hearing and counsel declined the opportunity to present evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Ohio courts focus on whether a parent has remedied the conditions causing removal, not merely whether the parent completed portions of a case plan. It also illustrates how the 12-of-22-month ground can independently support permanent custody when coupled with clear and convincing evidence that custody serves the children’s best interests.
The ruling also underscores the importance of preserving procedural objections. Without an objection, request for additional time, or attempt to present excluded evidence, a parent challenging the conduct of a permanent-custody hearing faces Ohio’s demanding civil plain-error standard.