2025 Ohio 2625
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Mother appealed the juvenile court’s order granting permanent custody of her two children to the Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services, following allegations of child trafficking and substance abuse.
- The children were removed after Mother and her boyfriend were accused of attempting to sell the children and admitted to using methamphetamine.
- Despite being given a reunification case plan (requiring drug cessation, mental health treatment, safe housing), Mother lied to the Agency about ending her relationship with Boyfriend, who was barred from the case due to his refusal to participate and alleged sexual abuse of one child.
- Supervised and eventually unsupervised visits recommenced, but visitation was suspended again after it was discovered Boyfriend was secretly living with Mother and allegations of sexual abuse arose.
- The court found continued trauma to the children and lack of safety and stability from Mother, contrasted with progress and security in foster care, and granted the Agency’s motion for permanent custody after a hearing.
- On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and claimed inadmissible hearsay from various agency reports tainted the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency & manifest weight of evidence on permanent custody | Evidence didn’t show failure to complete plan; court over-relied on reports | Caseworker testimony and record show ongoing risk, non-compliance, children's trauma | Court found sufficient, credible evidence supported decision, not against manifest weight |
| Whether best interest of child test under R.C. 2151.414(D) met | Mother prioritized children, had completed most of plan | Children's trauma, continued deceit, unsafe home, foster improvements | Factors weighed for Agency—Mother's choices endangered children, foster care safer |
| Admissibility of CASA and GAL reports | Reports were inadmissible hearsay, should be excluded | Court didn’t rely on inadmissible hearsay, based on direct testimony | No error—trial court did not consider hearsay from reports |
| Application of "12 of 22" custody standard | Not specifically challenged on appeal | Satisfied—children in agency care over 12 months | Record supported that threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.G., 2023-Ohio-1316 (12th Dist.) (permanent custody requires state's proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (manifest weight of the evidence review standard for appellate courts)
- In re S.M., 2019-Ohio-198 (12th Dist.) (appellate courts presume credibility findings favor fact-finder in custody cases)
- In re F.S., 2021-Ohio-345 (12th Dist.) (case plan completion is not dispositive of best interest)