Background
Stark County Job and Family Services obtained emergency temporary custody of L.B. in October 2024 after allegations of abuse, neglect, and dependency. Although the agency initially placed L.B. with her father while retaining temporary custody, it later moved her to a foster home with her sibling amid concerns that the father permitted unsafe contact, failed to attend to her medical needs, left her inadequately supervised, and did not cooperate with case-plan services.
The agency sought permanent custody in January 2026. The father moved instead to place L.B. in the legal custody of a paternal aunt, but he did not submit the aunt’s required statement of understanding or an affidavit establishing her willingness and suitability, and she did not attend the hearing. The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights and awarded permanent custody to the agency, finding multiple statutory grounds and concluding that permanent custody served L.B.’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. The father challenged the finding that L.B. could not or should not be placed with him within a reasonable time, but he did not dispute that she had been in the agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. Because that statutory condition independently supported permanent custody when combined with a best-interest finding, the appellate court declined to decide whether L.B. could or should be placed with the father within a reasonable time.
The court also held that competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s best-interest determination. L.B. was thriving with her sibling in a foster home whose caregivers wished to adopt them, had made substantial academic, social, and emotional progress, and wanted to remain there. By contrast, the father refused recommended services, failed to address mental-health and parenting concerns, missed visitation for extended periods, and offered no adequately supported relative-placement alternative.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s presence in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period independently satisfies the statutory-grounds component of Ohio’s permanent-custody test.
- Once the 12-of-22-month condition was established, the court did not need to review the separate finding that the child could not or should not be placed with the father within a reasonable time.
- A relative’s asserted availability does not defeat permanent custody when permanent custody is in the child’s best interests, particularly when the proposed custodian supplies no required documentation and does not appear at the hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Ohio’s permanent-custody grounds are alternatives: an undisputed 12-of-22-month finding, together with clear and convincing evidence of the child’s best interests, is sufficient without appellate review of additional placement findings. It also illustrates the importance of properly documenting and presenting a proposed relative placement rather than relying on a parent’s unsupported assertion that the relative is willing to assume custody.