Background
Cuyahoga County’s child-welfare agency obtained temporary custody of X.R. after an August 2024 domestic-violence incident involving the child’s mother and her then-husband. Father A.W., who lived in Michigan, expressed interest in becoming involved but had not established paternity when the case began. His case-plan objectives ultimately included establishing paternity and developing a relationship with X.R.
Father established paternity in October 2025, shortly before the permanent-custody hearing. He never visited X.R., however. Although one visit was arranged and later changed to a virtual visit at Father’s request, he did not attend it and did not maintain contact with the agency. The juvenile court granted the agency permanent custody, terminated both parents’ rights, and found that Father lacked commitment to X.R. and had abandoned him. Father appealed, challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. It rejected Father’s assertion that X.R. had lived with him in Michigan during the case. The record showed that Mother’s two middle children were living with Father, but X.R. returned to Ohio near the outset of the proceedings and remained in foster placements throughout the case.
The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (10). Father’s failure to support, visit, or communicate regularly with X.R. demonstrated a lack of commitment, and his failure to visit or maintain contact for more than 90 days triggered the statutory presumption of abandonment, which he did not rebut.
Although Father established paternity, expressed some interest in developing a relationship, and had the benefit of a guardian ad litem’s recommendation favoring an extension of temporary custody, he did not complete his relationship-building objective. The guardian ad litem’s recommendation was not binding. Because Father did not separately challenge the juvenile court’s best-interest determination, the appellate court did not address that finding.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s failure to visit or maintain contact with a child for more than 90 days creates a rebuttable statutory presumption of abandonment.
- Completing a paternity objective did not overcome Father’s failure to establish a relationship with or maintain contact with X.R.
- A juvenile court is not required to follow a guardian ad litem’s recommendation concerning permanent custody.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an expressed desire to parent and partial case-plan compliance do not substitute for actual, sustained contact with the child. Once clear and convincing evidence establishes any applicable R.C. 2151.414(E) factor, the juvenile court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.
It also illustrates the importance of preserving distinct appellate challenges. Because Father did not specifically contest the statutory best-interest determination, the appellate court confined its analysis to his arguments concerning placement, commitment, and abandonment.