Background
M.S. was removed from her mother in September 2024 amid concerns about the mother’s mental health, unstable housing, and parental judgment. The child was adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary custody of the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services. She ultimately lived with a foster-to-adopt caregiver in Georgia, where she was thriving and had formed close family and sibling bonds.
Father was incarcerated until February 2025 and later suffered serious leg injuries in an accident. He did not seek visitation until August 2025, however, and had only three brief virtual visits with M.S. before the permanent-custody trial. He had not established paternity, completed case-plan services, verified housing or income, or provided support for the child. The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights, awarded permanent custody to the agency, and denied Father’s oral request for an extension of temporary custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings that M.S. had been abandoned and could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. Father’s failure to visit or maintain contact with M.S. for more than 90 days triggered Ohio’s statutory presumption of abandonment, independently satisfying the first permanent-custody prong.
The court also upheld the best-interest finding. M.S. had virtually no relationship with Father, was too young to express her wishes, had remained in agency custody for more than a year, and was thriving with caregivers who sought to adopt her. Father waived his challenge to the denial of a temporary-custody extension by failing to object to that issue after the magistrate’s decision; in any event, the evidence supported the conclusion that he had not made significant case-plan progress and that reunification or other permanent placement was not reasonably likely within an extension period.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s failure to visit or maintain contact for more than 90 days can establish statutory abandonment, even if contact later resumes.
- Evidence of incarceration, injury, communication problems, and travel restrictions did not require the court to discount Father’s prolonged lack of contact, support, and case-plan progress.
- A party generally must object to a magistrate’s relevant factual findings or legal conclusions to preserve the issue for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that permanent-custody determinations turn on the child’s need for a secure, timely placement, not simply a parent’s asserted future progress. A parent’s difficult circumstances may be relevant, but they do not displace evidence of abandonment, lack of engagement, and the child’s established stability in a prospective adoptive home.