In re J.G., 2022 Ohio 827

Background

CCDCFS filed dependency complaints in Aug. 2018 after positive maternal marijuana tests at two births, reported domestic violence, and ongoing maternal mental-health and treatment noncompliance; children were removed and placed in agency custody in Nov. 2018.
Mother (T.G.) admitted to an amended complaint (marijuana use, untreated mental-health issues, continued contact with an abusive father); children adjudicated dependent in Mar. 2019.
Trial court awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS in Nov. 2019; this court reversed in Sept. 2020 and remanded, reinstating temporary custody and giving Mother more time.
On remand the agency again moved for modification; at an April 2021 trial the agency’s social worker testified Mother remained inconsistently engaged in services, continued marijuana use, maintained contact with an abusive father, and had spotty visitation; two older children (J.G., J.L.) have trauma/PTSD-related diagnoses.
Juvenile court (magistrate) awarded permanent custody of the two younger children (H.B., N.G.) to CCDCFS and legal custody of the two older children (J.G., J.L.) to paternal grandmother M.L.; court adopted magistrate’s decision and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (T.G.)	Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS)	Held
1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody to the agency	T.G.: She made substantial progress on case plan and could parent; retaining custody of youngest shows capacity	Agency: Mother failed to fully engage or complete objectives, continued substance use, mental-health issues, domestic-violence involvement, inconsistent visitation	Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody (R.C. 2151.414(B)/(D))
2. Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12-of-22-months) was satisfied	T.G.: Completed significant services; argues children could be returned within reasonable time	Agency: Children were in agency custody since Nov. 2018 (>12 of 22 months); Mother did not remedy conditions nor show reliable compliance	Affirmed — statutory 12-of-22-month threshold met and placement with parent not likely within reasonable time
3. Whether juvenile court had to find parental unsuitability before awarding legal custody to a nonparent	T.G.: Cites Perales — claims a separate unsuitability finding was required	Agency: No separate unsuitability finding required once child adjudicated dependent; legal-custody statute and precedent control	Held — no separate unsuitability finding required (In re C.R. controlling); legal custody to M.L. was appropriate
4. Whether the juvenile court abused discretion in best-interest analysis (legal-custody and permanent-custody determinations)	T.G.: Best interests weigh toward reunification; argues trial evidence did not show danger or inability to parent	Agency: Children are bonded to caregivers, need stable, legally secure placements, GAL recommended custody outcomes; long custodial history favors permanence	Held — court did not abuse discretion; best-interest factors support permanent custody for H.B./N.G. and legal custody to M.L. for J.G./J.L.

Key Cases Cited

In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (recognizing the fundamental parental-right interest at stake in termination proceedings)
In re Hoffman, 776 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio 2002) (describing termination of parental rights as the family-law equivalent of the death penalty)
In re Schaefer, 857 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio 2006) (setting out best-interest framework and noting no single factor is dispositive)
Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (deference to trial court’s custody determinations)
In re C.R., 843 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio 2006) (holding no separate parental-unsuitability finding required before awarding legal custody to a nonparent after adjudication)
Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 512 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio 1987) (defining the clear-and-convincing standard)
In re Perales, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1977) (discussed by appellant regarding parental-unsuitability requirement)