A recent decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to grant permanent custody of five children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS). The case, *In re J.H., Jr., et al.*, involved an appeal by the mother, D.W., who challenged the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. The appellate court found that the juvenile court’s decision was supported by the evidence and that the mother’s arguments were without merit.
Background of the Case
The case has a lengthy history, with the agency involved with the family since 2016. The five children, Na.H., Ni.H., Joe.H., S.H., and Jos.H., had previously been placed in the agency’s custody on multiple occasions due to issues related to their care and well-being. The older three children had been removed from the mother’s care twice before, and the younger two had been removed once before.
In November 2024, the agency filed a complaint alleging that the children were neglected and dependent, requesting permanent custody. The children were removed from the home in December 2024 and placed in the agency’s emergency custody. The mother admitted to the allegations, including failing to meet the children’s nutritional and hygienic needs, maintain a clean home, and provide for their educational and medical needs.
The Dispositional Trial and the Mother’s Arguments
A dispositional trial was scheduled for February 2025 to determine the children’s permanent custody. The mother requested a continuance and the appointment of separate counsel for the children, which the court granted. The trial was rescheduled for March 2025.
The agency presented evidence at the dispositional trial, including testimony from a caseworker, Devany Wilson. Wilson testified about the mother’s failure to comply with the case plan, including limited access to the home and the children’s lack of school attendance and medical care. The caseworker also described the children wandering the neighborhood asking strangers for food and money.
The mother did not present any witnesses. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), who initially recommended permanent custody, amended their recommendation to allow the mother more time to complete the case plan. However, the juvenile court denied the agency’s motion to amend the dispositional prayer and granted permanent custody to the agency.
The mother appealed, raising four assignments of error:
1. The trial court’s award of permanent custody and termination of the mother’s parental rights was against the weight of the evidence.
2. The trial court erred by not conducting the dispositional hearing within the 90-day statutory period.
3. The trial court erred by not allowing the mother more time to complete her case plan.
4. The trial court erred by ruling on the substance of the disposition when the prosecutor only requested to be heard on whether the Agency could be granted leave to amend the dispositional prayer.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
The appellate court addressed each of the mother’s arguments, ultimately rejecting them all.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
The court found that the juvenile court’s decision to grant permanent custody was not against the weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that it must defer to the trial court’s findings, which are based on observing witnesses and assessing their credibility. The court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that the mother had failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal and had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the children.
The court cited the testimony of the caseworker and the GAL’s report, which described the home as “deplorable,” “unsanitary,” and “not fit for human habitation.” The court also noted the mother’s failure to allow the caseworker access to the home and the parents’ failure to engage with case-plan services, including domestic violence and substance abuse issues.
Timeliness of the Dispositional Trial
The court rejected the mother’s argument that the trial was not held within the required 90-day period. The court explained that the trial was initially scheduled within the timeframe and that the continuance granted at the mother’s request did not violate the statutory limits.
The Case Plan
The court found no merit in the mother’s argument that she should have been given more time to complete her case plan. The court noted that the agency filed the case plan only a day late and that the mother did not raise this issue in the trial court. The court also stated that the mother had not shown any prejudice from the late filing.
Proceeding to Trial on Disposition
The court rejected the mother’s claim that the juvenile court erred by ruling on the permanent custody rather than the agency’s motion to amend the dispositional prayer. The court found that the record showed the mother was aware of the nature of the proceedings and that she and her counsel had ample opportunity to object or seek clarification. The court noted that the mother’s counsel acknowledged that the case was a permanent custody complaint and argued against the permanent custody.
Dissenting Opinion
Judge Emanuella D. Groves dissented from the majority opinion, disagreeing with the finding that the evidence supported the termination of the mother’s parental rights. Judge Groves argued that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the mother had continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal. She noted the mother’s participation in case-plan objectives and that the agency and GAL initially requested to forgo a disposition of permanent custody. Judge Groves also found that the mother had demonstrated a commitment to her children.
The Outcome
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision, granting permanent custody of the five children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services. The court found that the juvenile court’s decision was supported by the evidence and that the mother’s arguments lacked merit.