Background
Stark County Job & Family Services obtained emergency temporary custody of J.A. and L.B. in October 2024 after concerns arose about sexual abuse, unsafe adults in the home, the mother’s mental health and substance use, violent relationships, possible physical discipline, school absences, and unmet health needs. The children remained in the agency’s temporary custody through the permanent-custody hearing in March 2026.
The mother’s case plan called for counseling, prescribed medication, parenting classes, sobriety support, and sustained sobriety before reunification. During the case, however, she tested positive for cocaine six times, stopped taking mental-health medication, did not attend parenting classes, entered another abusive relationship, and went through two periods exceeding 90 days without visiting or contacting the children. The family court granted the agency permanent custody, and the mother appealed only the determination that permanent custody served the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. The mother conceded that the children had been in the agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, satisfying the first prong of Ohio’s permanent-custody test. The record also supported the family court’s finding of abandonment because the mother failed to visit or maintain contact with the children for more than 90 days.
Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. The children were bonded to each other and their foster parents, were receiving educational, medical, and dental services, and had experienced developmental and emotional progress in a stable foster home. By contrast, the mother had not resolved the substance-use, mental-health, parenting, and relationship concerns that prevented her from providing a safe and stable home. Although possible placement with L.B.’s father arose shortly before the hearing and had not been explored, the availability of an alternative placement was not controlling and did not outweigh the other best-interest factors.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s placement in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period independently satisfies the threshold prong of Ohio’s permanent-custody analysis.
- Failing to visit or maintain contact with a child for more than 90 days creates a statutory presumption of abandonment.
- A parent’s bond with the children and partial progress on a case plan did not outweigh evidence of continued safety risks and the children’s need for a legally secure, permanent placement.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence Ohio courts consider when evaluating a child’s best interests, including custodial history, family relationships, unmet needs, parental progress, and the stability offered by a foster placement. It also confirms that a late-arising possible placement with another parent does not automatically defeat permanent custody or require that factor to receive greater weight than the rest of the statutory analysis.