In re L.M., 2017 Ohio 610

L.M., born July 2015, was removed from parents' care on October 20–21, 2015 after agency reports of parental substance abuse, criminal activity, and unsafe home conditions; no appropriate relatives were available and the child was placed in foster care.
Appellant (T.M.), the father, had prior involvement with Lucas County Children Services and underwent some pre-birth assessment and referrals; after birth he failed multiple requested drug screens and had limited cooperation with the agency.
After removal, appellant did not visit or maintain contact with L.M.; he had a November 2015 mental-health hospitalization and was later incarcerated (sentenced February 2016), and he contacted the caseworker from CTF in May 2016.
The agency sought permanent custody on April 5, 2016; the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services in September 2016, finding statutory grounds and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
The court found (1) the child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, (2) parents failed to substantially remedy removal conditions despite reasonable efforts, (3) parents demonstrated lack of commitment by failing to visit/support, and (4) the parents legally abandoned the child by 90+ days of no contact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father rebutted statutory presumption of abandonment (R.C. 2151.011(C))	Father: his lack of contact was due to hospitalization, incarceration, and substance-abuse issues; he contacted the agency once at CTF while improving sobriety.	Agency/Court: father had not visited or maintained contact for ~10 months and made only minimal attempts; statutory presumption stands.	Presumption of abandonment not rebutted; clear and convincing evidence supported legal abandonment for 90+ days.
Whether the agency was required to prove "reasonable efforts" to reunify given father’s circumstances	Father: agency failed to offer case-plan services after child’s birth despite his sobriety progress.	Agency/Court: because father abandoned the child, statutory exceptions excused reasonable-efforts requirement.	Finding of abandonment made reasonable-efforts duty inapplicable; trial court’s reasonable-efforts finding was irrelevant to outcome.

In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337 (3d Dist.) (trial-court factual findings are presumed correct; appellate review deferential)
Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the trial-court judgment)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence is not against the manifest weight)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-efforts requirement and statutory exceptions in termination/permanent custody context)