In re B.R.F.

2025 Ohio 2061

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 11, 2025
• Docket: C-250143
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re B.R.F., 2025-Ohio-2061.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: B.R.F. : APPEAL NO. C-250143 TRIAL NO. F/18/1620 X :

: JUDGMENT ENTRY :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 6/11/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re B.R.F., 2025-Ohio-2061.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

: OPINION :

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 11, 2025

Kimberly V. Thomas, for Appellant Grandmother,

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,

Pro Kids and Elizabeth Hutson, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem for the child. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

KINSLEY, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Appellant maternal grandmother appeals the judgment of the Hamilton

County Juvenile Court denying her petition for legal custody and granting permanent

custody of her grandchild, B.R.F., to the Hamilton County Department of Job and

Family Services (“HCJFS”). Grandmother argues that the juvenile court erred in

determining that B.R.F.’s best interest would be served by denying her legal custody

of B.R.F. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} B.R.F.’s involvement with HCJFS began in November 2021 when he was

eight months old. Mother reported B.R.F. missing, and a police investigation

uncovered that father had taken B.R.F. while mother was unconscious. Police believed

that mother had been under the influence of heroin at the time. Mother also had two

pending domestic-violence charges against her for allegedly assaulting grandmother

and father. In HCJFS’s motion for emergency custody, HCJFS alleged that mother

also had a lengthy history of substance abuse dating back to 2012 when police found a

“meth lab” in her vehicle. Furthermore, because of mother’s substance abuse,

grandmother had retained physical custody of mother’s son, N.L., under a power of

attorney since 2018.

{¶3} Following HCJFS’s initial complaint, in January 2022, the juvenile

court adjudicated B.R.F. a dependent child and placed him in the temporary custody

of HCJFS. HCJFS then implemented a case plan seeking reunification of B.R.F. with

his parents. The case plan noted that father and mother admitted to using drugs and

that their relationship was domestically violent and that the parents lacked access to

housing. The case plan recommended that father and mother undergo random drug

screens, domestic-violence assessments, and secure stable income and housing. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶4} Despite parents’ initial agreement with the case plan, parents did not

make progress with the plan. Neither mother nor father had engaged in an initial

diagnostic assessment, mother had been incarcerated for a period of time, and father

had not secured housing. In September 2022, HCJFS moved to continue temporary

custody.

{¶5} Given parents’ lack of progress, grandmother appeared before the

juvenile court at a semi-annual review hearing and requested custody of B.R.F. HCJFS

conducted a study of grandmother’s home, which the assessor approved. Shortly

thereafter, grandmother tested positive for illicit substances, including

methamphetamine, and as a result, HCJFS did not support placing B.R.F. with

grandmother.

{¶6} HCJFS eventually moved to modify temporary custody to permanent

custody in May 2023. Grandmother then filed a petition for legal custody. The matter

proceeded to a trial before the magistrate in March and August 2024.

{¶7} At trial, HCJFS presented testimony from the family’s ongoing

caseworker. The caseworker testified that B.R.F. had been in the care of the same

foster family since HCJFS had obtained temporary custody of him in November 2021.

The caseworker further testified about the circumstances of HCJFS’s initial removal

of B.R.F. from his home over concerns for domestic violence and substance abuse.

According to the caseworker, parents had not made case-plan progress, and their

participation in the case had been sporadic. Although father appeared for some court

proceedings, the caseworker had not heard from him since March 2022. Father had

visited B.R.F., but those visits stopped in April or May 2022. HCJFS could not verify

father’s income or housing. Mother was likewise inconsistent in her case

participation. Mother was incarcerated periodically throughout the case, and she did

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

not visit B.R.F. HCJFS continued to have concerns regarding mother’s housing,

substance abuse, and domestic violence.

{¶8} The caseworker also testified about grandmother’s relationship with

B.R.F. According to the caseworker, grandmother had not been involved in B.R.F.’s

life until January or February of 2023 when she began weekly supervised visits with

B.R.F. Although HCJFS had obtained an approved home study for grandmother, and

grandmother had successfully raised mother’s 17-year-old son, N.L., HCJFS did not

support grandmother having unsupervised visits with B.R.F., because of

grandmother’s positive toxicology screens. Grandmother tested positive for

methamphetamine in January 2023; marijuana in May 2023; and marijuana,

amphetamine, and methamphetamine in February 2024. The caseworker testified

that grandmother’s drug use gave her particular concern given B.R.F.’s young age and

mother’s history of drug use. Ultimately, the caseworker supported an award of

permanent custody.

{¶9} B.R.F.’s court-appointed special advocate also testified in support of

HCJFS’s permanent-custody motion. B.R.F.’s advocate testified that B.R.F. had been

diagnosed with a speech disorder and had social and emotional delays. Although

B.R.F. no longer received special education or therapy at the time of trial, the advocate

had concerns with B.R.F.’s potential needs as he progressed through school. The

advocate also expressed concern with the possibility of B.R.F. living with grandmother

because of grandmother’s substance use.

{¶10} Grandmother testified in support of her custody petition. Grandmother

testified that she worked full-time at a pet resort and lived in a four-bedroom home,

which she rented. Grandmother testified that she felt bonded to B.R.F. and that she

wanted B.R.F. to remain with relatives like his siblings. As to the positive drug screens,

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

grandmother admitted that she had smoked methamphetamine in October of 2023,

and she also admitted to taking an unknown pill from her cousin that she believed to

be Adderall. Grandmother denied consistent drug use and claimed to use drugs

recreationally or to relieve pain caused by a connective-tissue disorder.

{¶11} Mother and her 17-year-old son, N.L., also testified in support of

grandmother’s custody petition. Mother testified that grandmother had raised N.L.

for the past six years. Mother has a total of five children who live with various relatives,

and she expressed her desire to preserve the family bond by keeping B.R.F. with

grandmother. N.L. testified that grandmother had provided housing and care for him

for the past several years and that, in his opinion, grandmother would be capable of

meeting B.R.F.’s needs.

{¶12} At the conclusion of trial, the magistrate entered a decision denying

grandmother’s custody petition and granting permanent custody of B.R.F. to HCJFS.

The magistrate determined under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) that B.R.F. had been in the

custody of HCJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. The

magistrate further found under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) that mother and father had

abandoned B.R.F. by failing to visit him or otherwise provide support for him since

2022. The magistrate also determined under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that B.R.F. could

not or should not be placed with his parents, because they failed to substantially

remedy the conditions causing B.R.F. to be placed in foster care. With respect to the

best-interest analysis, the magistrate determined that B.R.F.’s best interest would be

served by granting permanent custody of B.R.F. to HCJFS and denying grandmother’s

custody petition.

{¶13} Mother and grandmother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.

The trial court conducted an independent review of the matter, overruled

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

grandmother’s and mother’s objections, and adopted the decision of the magistrate

granting permanent custody of B.R.F. to HCJFS.

{¶14} Grandmother appeals.

Analysis

{¶15} In a single assignment of error, grandmother argues that the juvenile

court’s decision granting permanent custody of B.R.F. to HCJFS and denying her

petition for legal custody was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶16} With respect to the juvenile court’s decision to terminate mother’s and

father’s parental rights, neither mother nor father have appealed the permanent-

custody decision, and grandmother has never stood in loco parentis for B.R.F.

Therefore, grandmother’s appeal is limited to challenging the juvenile court’s denial

of her legal-custody petition. See In re L & M Children, 2019-Ohio-5520, ¶ 50 (1st

Dist.).

{¶17} Under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), if a juvenile court finds a child to be abused,

neglected, or dependent, the court may award legal custody of that child to any person

who has filed a petition for custody prior to the dispositional hearing, as a dispositional

alternative to committing the child to the permanent custody of a public children

services agency. In determining whether to grant legal custody to a petitioner under

R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), the statute does not require the juvenile court to consider any

specific criteria, but this court has held that the court may be guided by the best-

interest factors as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) and 3109.04(F), to the extent

applicable. In re A.F., 2020-Ohio-5069, ¶ 35-36 (1st Dist.).

{¶18} The best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) are as follows: (a)

the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, siblings,

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may

significantly affect the child; (b) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the

child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the

child; (c) the custodial history of the child; (d) the child’s need for a legally secure

permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a

grant of permanent custody to the agency; and (e) whether any of the factors in R.C.

2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply.

{¶19} The relevant best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) are as

follows: (a) the wishes of the child’s parents; (b) the child’s wishes; (c) the child’s

interactions with family members or any other person who may significantly affect the

child; (d) the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community; and (e) the mental

and physical health of all involved.

{¶20} The juvenile court’s findings with respect to the legal-custody petition

must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and this court reviews a

juvenile court’s decision on a petition for legal custody for an abuse of discretion. In

re M.S., 2025-Ohio-1194, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.).

{¶21} As to the best-interest factors, the juvenile court determined that B.R.F.

was bonded to his foster parents, and that his parents had abandoned him and had

not had contact with him since 2022. The juvenile court determined that B.R.F. was

too young to express his wishes, but that his court-appointed special advocate believed

that permanent custody was in B.R.F.’s best interest. With respect to grandmother,

the court found that B.R.F. had positive interactions with grandmother during visits

in that she was able to engage and play with him, and that grandmother had stable

housing and income. However, the court had serious concerns with grandmother’s

positive toxicology screens during the pendency of the case. Although the court

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

recognized that N.L., B.R.F.’s half sibling, had achieved successes in grandmother’s

care, the court noted the significant difference between a 17-year-old and a three-year-

old, with the latter being unable to self-protect. The court found grandmother’s

explanations for the positive toxicology screens unreasonably minimized her drug use.

{¶22} On appeal, grandmother argues that the juvenile court erred in

weighing the best-interest factors. Grandmother argues that HCJFS “stood in the way

of reunification” even though grandmother had an approved home study.

Grandmother points out that her visits with B.R.F. went well and that HCJFS did not

have any concerns with visits. The visits also progressed to four hours in length and

occurred at grandmother’s home and in the community. Grandmother argues that the

juvenile court minimized the bond that had developed between her and B.R.F., and

that the juvenile court failed to consider that the absence of B.R.F.’s crying at the

conclusion of visits with grandmother indicated secure attachment and not a lack of

attachment.

{¶23} Grandmother also argues that the juvenile court failed to consider that

she had stable housing and income, and instead, the juvenile court focused on two

positive drug screens, which occurred a year apart. Grandmother argues that she does

not have a substance-abuse problem, shown by the fact that she also had negative drug

screens during the pendency of the case, and that she has successfully cared for N.L.

Grandmother also points out that B.R.F.’s foster family had not yet decided whether

to adopt B.R.F.

{¶24} The juvenile court’s decision with respect to the best-interest findings

in denying grandmother’s custody petition is supported by the evidence and is

therefore not an abuse of discretion. The evidence shows that B.R.F. has lived with his

foster family since he was eight months old, and he was three and a half years old at

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the time of trial. Parents have abandoned B.R.F. and have not demonstrated progress

towards resolving the substance-abuse, domestic-violence, and housing issues, which

led to HCJFS’s involvement in B.R.F.’s life. Although grandmother has stable housing

and income, has helped raise another of mother’s children, clearly loves B.R.F., and

understandably wants to keep the familial bond intact, grandmother’s drug use

remained a significant safety concern from the standpoint of HCJFS, the guardian ad

litem, and ultimately the juvenile court, particularly given B.R.F.’s young age and the

timing of grandmother’s positive drug tests so close to trial. Grandmother tested

positive for methamphetamine in January 2023 and for amphetamine and

methamphetamine in February 2024—just one month prior to trial.

{¶25} Given these considerations, the juvenile court’s decision denying

grandmother’s petition for legal custody of B.R.F. is supported by a preponderance of

the evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. We therefore overrule grandmother’s

assignment of error.

Conclusion

{¶26} We affirm the juvenile court’s judgment denying grandmother’s petition

for legal custody of B.R.F.

Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS and BOCK, JJ., concur.