Background
Greene County Children Services removed Mother’s three children in April 2024 after receiving reports that she was struggling with methamphetamine addiction, exposed the children to drug use, and allowed unsafe people around them. One child also disclosed sexual touching by two men. The children were adjudicated neglected and dependent and, after placements with family members proved unsustainable, entered a foster home together in August 2024.
Mother substantially completed parts of her reunification case plan, including assessments and substance-abuse programs, and she maintained housing and employment. But she continued to test positive for methamphetamine, including on seven tests between February and April 2026; one test also showed ecstasy. Her supervised visitation was initially inconsistent. After two temporary-custody extensions, the juvenile court granted the agency permanent custody in April 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported both the statutory 12-in-22-month custody condition and the finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. The juvenile court did not rely on positive drug screens alone: it considered Mother’s continuing drug use, the unsafe conditions that led to removal, inconsistent visits, the children’s counseling needs, their wishes, their bonds with Mother and the foster family, and their need for a legally secure placement.
The court also rejected Mother’s claims that the agency inadequately pursued relative placements and that the court should have granted another extension. The agency sent 80 relative-notification letters, only two people responded, and no relative or other person filed a timely legal-custody motion. Moreover, the court had already granted the maximum two temporary-custody extensions and could not continue temporary custody beyond two years after the complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Completing portions of a case plan does not preclude permanent custody when the evidence still shows that permanent custody serves the children’s best interests.
- Continuing substance use may support permanent custody when it is tied to the conditions causing removal and the children’s need for stability and safety.
- A juvenile court cannot grant temporary custody beyond the statutory two-year limit or more than two extensions.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that, after the statutory custody period has elapsed, the analysis centers on the children’s growth, stability, and security rather than a parent’s case-plan progress alone. It also confirms that an agency’s reasonable-efforts duty does not require exhausting every possible relative-placement lead, particularly where no prospective custodian seeks legal custody.