Background - Mother had three children at issue (A.W., I.W., O.W.); all were removed after concerns about homelessness, exposure to domestic violence, inadequate supervision/medical care, mental-health and substance issues, and unstable housing and income. - A.W. and I.W. were adjudicated neglected/dependent in Feb. 2015; they were placed in third-party legal custody in July 2015, which later disrupted and they returned to agency temporary custody in June 2016. O.W. (premature infant) was adjudicated dependent and placed in LCCS custody in Oct. 2016. - LCCS maintained court-ordered case plans for Mother (parenting, domestic-violence counseling, mental-health treatment, stable housing, income, visitation). Mother’s compliance was sporadic: inconsistent visitation, transient housing, unstable employment, incomplete mental-health/treatment engagement until shortly before the permanent-custody hearing. - Agency moved for permanent custody in Dec. 2016. The juvenile court found multiple statutory grounds under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) satisfied and concluded permanent custody to LCCS was in the children’s best interest. Mother appealed. - The court of appeals affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence that (1) at least one statutory first-prong ground applied (failure to remedy conditions; lack of commitment/visitation), and (2) permanent custody was in the children’s best interest given their bonding with foster parents, lack of viable kinship placement, and Mother’s ongoing instability and lack of insight regarding domestic violence and mental health. ### Issues | Issue | Mother’s Argument | LCCS / State’s Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether the trial court abused discretion or the judgment was against the manifest weight by granting permanent custody instead of a 6‑month extension | Mother contended the agency failed to provide reasonable case planning/diligent efforts and she had substantially complied such that extension was warranted | Agency argued Mother repeatedly failed to remedy conditions, lacked commitment, and children needed permanency; extension would not serve children’s best interest | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; clear‑and‑convincing evidence supported permanent custody rather than extension | | Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12 of 22 months in temporary custody) was met for A.W. and I.W. | Mother argued the children were in temporary custody 11 months, 27 days — short of 12 months | Agency/county argued alternative statutory grounds applied and first‑prong satisfied regardless | Court noted time fell short but alternative (E)(1) and (E)(4) grounds supported the first prong; decision sustained on other proper grounds | | Whether the first prong (cannot/should not be placed with parent under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)) was supported by evidence | Mother argued she had engaged in services and the agency’s efforts were insufficient | Agency showed repeated failure to remedy conditions despite reasonable case planning and assistance; inconsistent visitation and lack of stability | Held: clear‑and‑convincing evidence that Mother failed continuously/repeatedly to substantially remedy conditions (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) and demonstrated lack of commitment (E)(4) | | Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother argued children could be reunified and she loved them | Agency/guardian ad litem highlighted children’s strong bond with foster family, lack of viable alternatives, Mother’s instability, and safety risks from ongoing ties to abusive individuals | Held: permanent custody was in best interest — children thriving in foster home, foster parents willing to adopt, Mother lacked insight and stability | ### Key Cases Cited Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for appellate review of manifest‑weight challenges) In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody requires proof of both statutory prongs) In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence defined) Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear‑and‑convincing standard)