In Re A.J., 69 N.E.3d 733

Mother Brittany J. gave birth while incarcerated; Crawford County JFS filed neglect complaint and obtained temporary custody of infant A.J., later seeking permanent custody.
Maternal great-aunt Jody J. sought placement; agency denied placement citing a long-closed child-endangering charge and that Jody had no income at the time of her home study.
Trial court granted temporary custody to the agency, later awarded permanent custody to the agency and terminated parental rights; appellate court affirmed.
Brittany appealed only the agency’s refusal to place A.J. with relative Jody, arguing the agency acted contrary to Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-42-05 and 5101:2-42-18 by relying on >10-year-old allegations without proof of conviction and not acting in good faith.
The Supreme Court limited review to whether the agency complied with the cited administrative rules in denying substitute-care placement with Jody; it did not revisit the court’s permanent-custody findings regarding the parents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency may deny placement based on an allegation of child endangering absent proof of conviction or guilty plea	Brittany: Rules require proof of conviction/guilty plea; an allegation >10 years old cannot alone disqualify a relative	Agency: The alleged charge was not the sole basis for denial; rules require broader assessment	Held: Agency may not exclude a relative solely on an unproven charge; here agency did not rely only on the allegation and denial was permissible
Whether agency breached duties (e.g., good-faith efforts, assisting financially) before denying a relative placement for lack of income	Brittany: Agency must act in good faith and assist relatives (e.g., inform about financial supports); lack of income alone is insufficient to show unsuitability	Agency: Administrative rules give agency discretion to assess suitability (safety, least-restrictive setting); income can bear on ability to provide safe placement	Held: The administrative code does not impose a separate "good-faith" term; agency discretion to assess best interest applies and record supported denial based on Jody’s lack of income and other factors

McFee v. Nursing Care Mgmt. of Am., Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 183 (treat administrative rules like statutes; give plain and ordinary meaning)
State ex rel. Brilliant Elec. Sign Co. v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.2d 51 (give words of administrative rules their ordinary meaning)
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (trial-court custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)