Background
Coshocton County Job and Family Services obtained emergency custody of J.L., a child born in June 2021, after filing a neglect-and-dependency complaint in July 2024. The juvenile court later adjudicated the child dependent. The father was incarcerated on drug-related convictions from April 2024 until March 2025 and was also subject to protection and no-contact orders arising from domestic violence against the mother in the child’s presence.
After the father’s release, he sought visitation and removal of the juvenile court’s no-contact order. Meanwhile, the guardian ad litem moved for permanent custody, and the mother did not contest that motion. Following hearings, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights and awarded permanent custody to the agency. The father appealed, challenging the findings of abandonment, reasonable reunification efforts, and the child’s best interests, as well as the continuation of the no-contact order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the child had been in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period under Ohio Revised Code § 2151.414(B)(1)(d), independently satisfying the first part of the permanent-custody analysis. The evidence also supported abandonment: the father had no contact with the child for 33 months, and his incarceration did not rebut the statutory presumption arising from more than 90 days without visitation or contact.
The court further upheld the finding that the agency made reasonable reunification efforts. Although the no-contact orders prevented visitation, they did not prevent the father from completing other case-plan requirements, which he failed to do. Clear and convincing evidence also supported the best-interest determination because the child was thriving and bonded in the foster home, lived there with a half-sibling, and needed a legally secure placement that could not be achieved without permanent custody.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s presence in agency custody for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period can satisfy the first statutory prong for permanent custody without a separate abandonment finding.
- Incarceration does not rebut Ohio’s statutory presumption of abandonment based on more than 90 days without visitation or contact.
- A no-contact order barring visitation does not excuse a parent’s failure to complete unrelated case-plan services or otherwise pursue reunification.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Ohio permanent-custody cases may rest on the 12-of-22-month custody ground even when abandonment is disputed. It also illustrates how a parent’s conduct leading to incarceration and protective orders may affect both the abandonment analysis and the assessment of reunification efforts.
For practitioners, the opinion emphasizes the importance of timely challenges to reasonable-efforts findings and documented compliance with every feasible case-plan requirement, even when visitation is legally prohibited.