In re A.B., 2026-Ohio-2691

Background

LCCS filed dependency and neglect complaints after A.B. was born with maternal THC exposure, later obtained temporary custody, and the parties stipulated to A.B.’s dependency and neglect adjudications. 1
After repeated domestic-violence and substance-use incidents, LCCS also filed a dependency complaint for newborn S.B. and obtained protective supervision, later modifying A.B. back to mother’s legal custody. 2
Within weeks of A.B.’s return, mother left the children with a sober-living resident, drank at a bar, and later admitted the incident, prompting LCCS to regain interim temporary custody of both children. 3
At the permanent-custody hearing, LCCS presented evidence that mother repeatedly failed treatment, continued using marijuana and sometimes alcohol/cocaine, lacked stable housing and employment, and resumed living with father despite domestic-violence concerns. 4
The guardian ad litem and caseworker testified that the children were thriving together in foster care, bonded to the caregiver, and adoptable, while no appropriate relative placement was available. 5
The trial court granted LCCS permanent custody, finding R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) for A.B., R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4) as to mother, and best interests for both children. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was permanent custody against the manifest weight of the evidence? 7	Mother argued the evidence did not support terminating her parental rights.	LCCS argued the record supported permanent custody and best interests.	The judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 8
Did mother’s challenge to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) affect A.B.’s custody award? 9	Mother attacked only the (E)(1) finding.	LCCS argued the unchallenged (B)(1)(d) finding independently supported A.B.’s award.	No; the unchallenged 12-of-22 finding independently supported permanent custody for A.B. 10
Did the court need to reverse because of any error on S.B.’s (E)(1) finding? 11	Mother argued the evidence did not support (E)(1).	LCCS argued the unchallenged (E)(2) and (E)(4) findings were enough.	No; the unchallenged (E)(2) and (E)(4) findings independently supported S.B.’s award. 12

Key Cases Cited

In re Dor B., 2018-Ohio-2666 (6th Dist. 2018) (when R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, best-interest analysis is required 13)
In re B.K., 2010-Ohio-3329 (6th Dist. 2010) (under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the court considers best interest and R.C. 2151.414(E) factors 14)
In re S.J., 2024-Ohio-5137 (6th Dist. 2024) (any single R.C. 2151.414(E) factor can support the no-reunification finding 15)
In re Carlos R., 2007-Ohio-6358 (6th Dist. 2007) (one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor is enough to support the no-reunification finding 16)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence 17)
In re Tashayla S., 2004-Ohio-896 (6th Dist. 2004) (applies the clear-and-convincing-evidence definition in custody cases 18)
In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703 (Ohio 2023) (manifest-weight and sufficiency review govern permanent-custody appeals 19)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight review asks whether the trial court clearly lost its way 20)
In re P.W., 2012-Ohio-3556 (6th Dist. 2012) (trial court is best positioned to assess credibility and weigh evidence 21)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (when evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, appellate courts defer to the trial court 22)
In re C.P., 2009-Ohio-2760 (10th Dist. 2009) (best-interest determinations in permanent-custody cases receive great deference 23)
In re I.H., 2020-Ohio-4853 (6th Dist. 2020) (permanent custody will be upheld if supported by competent, credible evidence 24)
In re A.M., 2015-Ohio-2740 (3d Dist. 2015) (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (d) are alternative, independently sufficient grounds 25)
In re M.R., 2013-Ohio-1302 (3d Dist. 2013) (alternative statutory grounds independently support permanent custody 26)
In re L.G., 2024-Ohio-4554 (6th Dist. 2024) (one R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) condition is enough to satisfy the first prong 27)
In re R.A., 2022-Ohio-1748 (6th Dist. 2022) (one R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) condition suffices for the first statutory requirement 28)
In re Destiny C., 2008-Ohio-5292 (6th Dist. 2008) (one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor is sufficient to show the child cannot be reunified within a reasonable time 29)