Background
Stark County’s child-services agency filed a complaint alleging that S.S. was dependent and neglected after concerns arose about poor home conditions, parental drug use, drug use by others in the child’s presence, and inappropriate people living in the home. The child was removed after her mother repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine during a safety plan. Father, a registered sex offender previously convicted of raping his seven-year-old niece, was required to complete a sex-offender risk assessment but refused to do so.
The agency repeatedly tried to engage Father, including sending eight letters and speaking with him by telephone, but he did not meet with the caseworker or work on his case plan. He also did not visit S.S. and attended no hearing after the October 2024 emergency shelter-care hearing. Following a February 2026 hearing that Father did not attend, the family court found that he had abandoned S.S., that she could not be placed with him within a reasonable time, and that permanent custody to the agency was in her best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Father’s failure to visit S.S. for more than 90 days supported the statutory presumption of abandonment. Although Father argued that the agency failed to prove he had not maintained contact through other means, the record contained no evidence of any such contact, and his lack of participation in the case, case plan, and hearings supported the trial court’s finding.
The court also held that sufficient evidence showed S.S. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time. Father failed to complete the required risk assessment, maintain contact with the caseworker, visit the child, or attend later hearings. Permanent custody was also supported by S.S.’s best interests: she had substantial mental-health, behavioral, and educational needs, had experienced six placements, was improving in a residential psychiatric treatment facility, and had no demonstrated bond with Father because he never visited during the case.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s failure to visit a child for more than 90 days triggers Ohio’s statutory presumption of abandonment.
- An unsupported suggestion that other contact may have occurred does not defeat abandonment when the record contains no evidence of such contact.
- Failure to engage with the agency, complete a required assessment, visit the child, or attend hearings supported both the reasonable-time and best-interest findings.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio courts may rely on a sustained absence from visitation, services, and court proceedings when determining abandonment and whether reunification is possible within a reasonable time. A parent challenging abandonment must identify record evidence of maintained contact rather than merely assert that non-visitation contact might have occurred.
It also underscores that the best-interest analysis centers on the child’s actual needs and prospects for a legally secure placement. Here, S.S.’s significant treatment needs, repeated placement changes, improvement in residential care, and lack of an observed relationship with Father supported permanent custody.