Background
Stark County Job and Family Services sought emergency temporary custody of five-year-old T.K. in December 2024, alleging that he arrived at school smelling of urine and might have been living in a home where domestic violence had recently occurred. The juvenile court adjudicated T.K. dependent and continued the agency’s temporary custody. T.K.’s father, Joshua B., rejected appointed counsel and chose to represent himself after the court explained that replacement counsel was available and that he would be required to follow the rules governing attorneys.
Father did not participate in recommended individual counseling or domestic-violence-offender treatment and repeatedly missed scheduled visits. He also had two periods exceeding 90 days during which he neither visited nor communicated with T.K. After a January 2026 hearing at which Father represented himself and eventually left the courtroom, the juvenile court found that he had abandoned T.K., had failed to remedy the conditions leading to removal, and could not provide care within a reasonable time. Finding permanent custody to be in T.K.’s best interest, the court awarded custody to the agency.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Father knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel under the totality of the circumstances. Father understood the right, expressly chose self-representation, declined the court’s offer of replacement counsel, and never later indicated that he wanted an attorney. The juvenile court therefore did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint new counsel.
The appellate court also rejected Father’s evidentiary and cross-examination arguments because he failed to proffer the excluded testimony, include the excluded recordings and emails in the appellate record, or timely object when the court ended part of his cross-examination. Clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that Father failed to remedy the domestic-violence concerns and abandoned T.K. by having no contact with him for two periods longer than 90 days. The record also supported the best-interest finding based on T.K.’s complex needs, behavioral problems following visits, Father’s hostility and lack of case-plan progress, and the availability of Father’s sister as a potential adoptive parent.
Key Takeaways
- A parent may waive the statutory right to counsel in permanent-custody proceedings when the totality of the circumstances shows a knowing and voluntary choice, including rejection of offered replacement counsel.
- A challenge to excluded evidence generally is not preserved without a proffer or another means of placing the evidence in the appellate record, and an unpreserved objection to limits on cross-examination ordinarily cannot be raised on appeal.
- Two periods exceeding 90 days without visitation or contact supported the statutory presumption of abandonment, and partial incarceration during one period did not rebut that presumption.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that self-represented parents in permanent-custody cases remain responsible for preserving objections and creating an appellate record. It also illustrates how prolonged lapses in parent-child contact, failure to complete recommended services, and conduct undermining the child’s stability can collectively support permanent custody despite the fundamental interests at stake.