Background
Stark County Job and Family Services obtained temporary custody of J.H. shortly after her November 2023 birth. The agency cited Father’s criminal and drug history and its earlier case involving Mother’s older child, J.J., who had been sexually abused and later placed in the agency’s permanent custody. Mother and Father stipulated that J.H. was dependent, and the juvenile court repeatedly found that the agency had made reasonable efforts to prevent or end her removal.
Although both parents completed many case-plan services, evaluators and agency personnel concluded that neither had demonstrated the ability to protect or safely parent J.H. Both received certificates of attendance, rather than completion, from an intensive parenting program. Witnesses testified that Father did not recognize the circumstances that led to J.J.’s removal, continued to support Mother’s denial that J.J. had been abused, and could not serve as J.H.’s protective primary caregiver. The juvenile court terminated parental rights and awarded permanent custody to the agency, and Father appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Competent and credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s determination that permanent custody was in J.H.’s best interest. J.H. was strongly bonded to her foster mother and to J.J., who lived in the same foster home, and she needed a legally secure and permanent placement. Although J.H. had a bond with Father and Father substantially completed his case plan, case-plan completion was not dispositive because the evidence showed that he had not remedied the parenting and protective-capacity concerns underlying the agency’s involvement.
The court also rejected Father’s challenge to the agency’s reunification efforts. The juvenile court had made reasonable-efforts findings at multiple earlier hearings, and Father had not objected to those findings, so the agency was not required to prove reasonable efforts again at the permanent-custody hearing. In any event, the hearing evidence showed that the agency’s efforts were reasonable and diligent. The intensive parenting program reasonably declined to let Father repeat the course because he was not close to mastering its requirements, and less-intensive programs did not address the evaluators’ concerns.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial completion of a case plan does not require reunification when a parent has not remedied the safety and parenting problems that prompted agency involvement.
- A best-interest determination may rest on the child’s need for permanence, relationships with siblings and foster caregivers, and the parents’ demonstrated ability to provide a safe placement.
- When reasonable-efforts findings were entered during earlier juvenile proceedings and went unchallenged, the agency need not establish reasonable efforts anew at the permanent-custody hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Ohio permanent-custody cases focus on whether services produced the parental capacity needed to protect the child, not merely whether a parent attended or completed programs. Courts may credit testimony that a parent participated in services yet remained unable to recognize risks or act as a safe primary caregiver.
It also highlights the importance of timely challenging reasonable-efforts findings. A parent who does not object when those findings are made during earlier stages of the case may be unable to demand that the agency relitigate the issue at the permanent-custody hearing.