A recent decision by the Seventh Appellate District Court in Ohio has upheld a lower court’s ruling to grant permanent custody of a young child, L.M., to the Belmont County Department of Job and Family Services (the Agency). The case, *In re L.M.*, involved an appeal from the child’s mother, K.M. (Mother), who contested the decision. The court’s ruling, issued on October 7, 2025, affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment, finding that permanent custody with the Agency was in the child’s best interest.
Background of the Case
The Agency’s involvement began shortly after L.M.’s birth in March 2024. Mother and her sister, E.M. (Sister), arrived at the hospital in Cambridge, Ohio, in poor condition. They were living in a shed without utilities with L.M.’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother), and two other women. The shed was located on property owned by L.M.’s maternal great-grandmother (Great-Grandmother).
During an investigation, the Agency learned that Mother and Grandmother had been indicted in October 2023 on multiple counts of animal cruelty and misdemeanor child endangerment. The charges stemmed from the discovery of deceased animals in the shed. Mother had been incarcerated during part of her pregnancy.
The Agency attempted to place L.M. with relatives, but those arrangements fell through. Consequently, the Agency filed a complaint alleging L.M. was a dependent child, and the juvenile court placed L.M. in the Agency’s temporary emergency custody. A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) was appointed to represent L.M.’s interests.
The case plan for Mother included resolving the criminal matter, undergoing psychological evaluations, completing parenting classes, securing safe housing, and obtaining employment.
Key Arguments and Findings
Mother raised three main arguments in her appeal. First, she claimed the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that she would be unable to provide an adequate home for L.M. within a year. Second, she argued that permanent custody with the Agency was not in L.M.’s best interest. Finally, she contended that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not seeking a second continuance of the merits hearing.
The appellate court addressed each of these arguments.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
Mother argued the lower court’s decision was against the “manifest weight of the evidence,” meaning the court’s decision was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including testimony from various witnesses, psychological evaluations, and reports from the GAL.
The court found that the evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision. The court cited Mother’s borderline intellectual functioning, anxiety, and difficulties in accepting feedback as factors that would make it difficult for her to provide a stable home for L.M. within the specified timeframe. The court also highlighted concerns about Mother’s ability to recognize her own mistakes and her tendency to blame others.
The appellate court emphasized that the juvenile court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, was in the best position to weigh the evidence.
Best Interest of the Child
Mother also argued that the juvenile court’s decision was not in L.M.’s best interest. The appellate court considered factors such as the child’s relationships, the need for a stable placement, and the parents’ circumstances.
The court agreed with the lower court’s determination that permanent custody with the Agency was in L.M.’s best interest. The court noted that L.M. was thriving in foster care and that Mother had not demonstrated the necessary behavioral changes to ensure a safe and stable environment.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Mother’s third argument was that her trial counsel was ineffective because he did not request a second continuance of the merits hearing. The appellate court addressed this argument by determining that the second psychological evaluations would not have changed the outcome of the case. The court found that the evidence already supported the juvenile court’s conclusions.
Dissenting Opinion
One of the three judges, Judge Hanni, dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the evidence did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard required to terminate parental rights. Judge Hanni pointed to the progress Mother had made in improving her life and argued that the case had not yet reached the stage where termination of parental rights was the only option. Judge Hanni noted that Dr. Thomas, the psychologist, did not testify that Mother was incapable of caring for her child.
Conclusion
The Seventh Appellate District Court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision, finding that permanent custody with the Agency was in L.M.’s best interest. The court’s decision underscores the importance of parental responsibility and the need for parents to demonstrate the ability to provide a safe and stable home for their children.