In re B.S.

2025 Ohio 4318

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 4-25-03
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re B.S., 2025-Ohio-4318.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT DEFIANCE COUNTY

IN RE: CASE NO. 4-25-03

B.S.,

ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT CHILD. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY [TANEESHA S. - APPELLANT]

Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 35249

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: September 15, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Joseph Sobecki for Appellant

Chelsea R. Cereghin for Appellee, Defiance/Paulding Consolidated Dept. of Job and Family Services Case No. 4-25-03

ZIMMERMAN, J.

{¶1} Mother-appellant, Taneesha S. (“Taneesha”), appeals the December 30,

2024 decision of the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,

granting permanent custody of her minor child to the Defiance/Paulding

Consolidated Job and Family Services (the “agency”). For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

{¶2} The underlying proceedings commenced on January 12, 2023 when the

agency filed a complaint in the trial court alleging the minor child, B.S. (born in

2022), to be an abused, neglected, and dependent child of Taneesha and Phil R.

(“Phil R.”).1 The complaint followed B.S.’s removal from her home and the trial

court’s placement of her into the agency’s emergency temporary custody on January

11, 2023. B.S.’s removal occurred after law enforcement responded to a 911 hang-

up call at a residence in Sherwood, Ohio. Through investigation, it was determined

that B.S. had been placed outside in 30-degree temperatures and was struck on the

head while outside. Taneesha, who was present at the scene, was arrested. She

appeared to be under the influence, admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages, and

tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.

{¶3} Following a probable-cause hearing, the trial court concluded on

January 18, 2023 that probable cause existed to believe that B.S. was an abused,

1 Phil R. was not determined to be B.S.’s biological father until February 16, 2024 and he did not participate in the proceedings.

-2- Case No. 4-25-03

neglected, and dependent child. The trial court further found that it was in B.S.’s

best interest to be placed in the temporary custody of the agency and that the agency

made reasonable efforts to avoid removing B.S. from her home.

{¶4} On January 20, 2023, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem

(“GAL”) to represent B.S.’s interests. Following an adjudicatory hearing on

February 17, 2023, the trial court, upon the consent of Taneesha, adjudicated B.S.

as a dependent child and ordered that she remain in the temporary custody of the

agency.

{¶5} Over the course of 2023 and 2024, the parties filed several competing

motions concerning B.S.’s custody. Initially, the agency requested the trial court to

grant legal custody to B.S.’s maternal aunt, Jessica B., and her husband, Brandon

B., on December 22, 2023. On December 28, 2023, Taneesha, filed a motion

requesting custody of B.S. However, these motions were temporarily withdrawn in

February 2024 after B.S.’s biological father was identified through paternity testing.

{¶6} Thereafter, the agency renewed its request in June 2024 that the trial

court place B.S. in the legal custody Jessica B. and Brandon B. However, B.S. was

removed from Jessica B. and Brandon B.’s care due to concerns about B.S.’s well-

being in their care. Consequently, on September 16, 2024, the agency reversed

course, withdrawing that motion and filing a new one. The new motion requested

that the trial court grant permanent custody of B.S. to the agency or, alternatively,

-3- Case No. 4-25-03

award legal custody of B.S. to Gary H. and Morgan H., who are the custodians of

B.S.’s half-sibling.

{¶7} The GAL filed a report on December 3, 2024 recommending that the

trial court grant legal custody of B.S. to Gary H. and Morgan H., with an alternative

recommendation of permanent custody to the agency should legal custody be

unviable. Furthermore, throughout the proceedings, the trial court approved the

agency’s case plans.

{¶8} After a hearing on December 3, 2024, the trial court granted permanent

custody of B.S. to the agency on December 30, 2024. The trial court found that the

grounds for permanent custody were met because the child had been in the agency’s

continuous custody for 18 months and that it was in B.S.’s best interest to award

permanent custody of B.S. to the agency. The trial court reasoned that permanent

custody was in B.S.’s best interest because returning her to Taneesha would be

unsuccessful and that legal custody with relatives would likely expose B.S. to

similar trauma that her older half-sister experienced. Therefore, the trial court found

that it was in the best interest of B.S. to achieve a secure, permanent placement

through adoption, which necessitated the termination of parental rights.

{¶9} Taneesha filed her notice of appeal on January 28, 2025.2 She raises

two assignments of error for our review.

2 Phil R. did not file a notice of appeal.

-4- Case No. 4-25-03

First Assignment of Error The Trial Court Erred In Relying Upon A Statutory Provision That Violates The U.S. Constitution, Namely R.C. 2151.414(C), Insofar As It Expressly Prohibits A Trial Court From Considering The Effect Of A Grant Of Permanent Custody Would Have Upon The Parents.

{¶10} In her first assignment of error, Taneesha contends that R.C.

2151.414(C) is unconstitutional. In particular, she contends that it is

unconstitutional on its face because it expressly prohibits a trial court from

considering the effect that granting permanent custody would have on a parent,

which violates the fundamental liberty interest to raise one’s children protected by

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Standard of Review

{¶11} “It is difficult to prove that a statute is unconstitutional. All statutes

have a strong presumption of constitutionality.” Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson,

2007-Ohio-6948, ¶ 25. Thus, “[b]efore a court may declare unconstitutional an

enactment of the legislative branch, ‘it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that

the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible.’” Id., quoting

State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (1955), paragraph one of

the syllabus.

{¶12} “A party seeking constitutional review of a statute may proceed in one

of two ways: present a facial challenge to the statute as a whole or challenge the

statute as applied to a specific set of facts.” Id. at ¶ 26. “In an as-applied

-5- Case No. 4-25-03

constitutional challenge, ‘“the party making the challenge bears the burden of

presenting clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that

[makes the statute] unconstitutional and void when applied to those facts.”’” Brandt

v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525, ¶ 27, quoting Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2008-Ohio-

546, ¶ 181, quoting Harrold v. Collier, 2005-Ohio-5334, ¶ 38.

{¶13} To successfully present a facial challenge, the challenging party “must

demonstrate that there is no set of circumstances in which [the] statute would be

valid.” Arbino at ¶ 26. “To establish a constitutional violation through a facial

challenge, it is not enough ‘”that a statute might operate unconstitutionally under

some plausible set of circumstances.”’” Brandt at ¶ 27, quoting Groch at ¶ 181,

quoting Harrold at ¶ 37.

Analysis

{¶14} Here, Taneesha claims that R.C. 2151.414(C) violates the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by expressly

prohibiting a trial court from considering the effect that a grant of permanent

custody would have on a parent. R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically provides, in its

relevant part, that when determining whether to grant permanent custody, “a court

shall not consider the effect the granting of permanent custody to the agency would

have upon any parent of the child.”

{¶15} However, Taneesha concedes that she did not raise this issue in the

trial court. This failure constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal. In re Morris,

-6- Case No. 4-25-03

2006-Ohio-3231, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.) (analyzing that the parties “conceded that the

constitutionality of R.C. 2151.414 was not raised at the trial court level and that

such failure constitutes a waiver of that right”).

{¶16} Nevertheless, Taneesha urges this court to bypass this waiver under

our discretionary plain error review, which allows consideration of unraised

constitutional issues when “‘the rights and interests involved may warrant it.’” Id.,

quoting In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149 (1988), syllabus. We decline to do so. This

court and others have consistently refused to review this constitutional challenge

when not preserved for appeal, making a plain error analysis unnecessary. See id.

See also In re Goggins, 1998 WL 469861, *5 (9th Dist. July 29, 1998) (concluding

that the appellant waived a constitutional challenge to R.C. 2151.414(C) by failing

to raise the issue in the trial court).

{¶17} Taneesha’s first assignment of error is overruled.

Second Assignment of Error

If The First Assignment Of Error Cannot Be Considered By This Court Because It Was Not Raised Below, Then Trial Counsel For Appellant Was Ineffective In Failing To Raise The Constitutionality of R.C. 2151.414(C), Insofar As It Expressly Prohibits A Trial Court From Considering The Effect Of A Grant Of Permanent Custody Would Have Upon The Parents.

{¶18} In her second assignment of error, Taneesha argues that her trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise her constitutional challenge before the

trial court. Specifically, she claims that this failure was prejudicial, rendering the

-7- Case No. 4-25-03

permanent custody hearing fundamentally unfair and its outcome unreliable because

the trial court was statutorily prohibited from weighing her constitutionally

protected parental rights.

{¶19} “All parties in permanent custody proceedings are entitled to

representation by legal counsel in all stages of the proceedings.” In re V.G., 2021-

Ohio-3554, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.), citing R.C. 2151.352 and Juv.R. 4. “In permanent

custody proceedings, where parents face losing their children, we apply the same

test as the test for ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal cases.” In re E.C.,

2015-Ohio-2211, ¶ 40 (3d Dist.).

{¶20} A party asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must

establish: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under the

circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Id. at ¶

41, citing State v. Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In order to show counsel’s conduct was

deficient or unreasonable, the defendant must overcome the presumption that

counsel provided competent representation and must show that counsel’s actions

were not trial strategies prompted by reasonable professional judgment. Strickland

at 687. The appellant bears the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of trial

counsel and, in order to do so, must overcome the strong presumption that licensed

attorneys provided competent representation. In re E.C. at ¶ 41. “Prejudice results

-8- Case No. 4-25-03

when ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,

the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” In re V.G. at ¶ 63, quoting

Bradley at 142, citing Strickland at 694. “‘“A reasonable probability is a probability

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”’” Id., quoting Bradley at 142,

quoting Strickland at 694.

{¶21} “The failure to make either the deficiency or prejudice showing

defeats a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” In re V.G. at ¶ 64. “Thus, ‘a

court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before

examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged

deficiencies. . . . If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground

of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should

be followed.” Id., quoting Strickland at 697.

{¶22} On appeal, Taneesha argues that her trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to raise her constitutional challenge before the trial court. Taneesha’s

argument is without merit. Decisively, Taneesha cannot demonstrate the requisite

prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Indeed,

constitutional challenges to R.C. 2151.414 have been consistently rejected. See In

re Gomer, 2004-Ohio-1723, ¶ 31 (rejecting a due process constitutional challenge

to Ohio’s permanent custody statute); In re Brooks, 2004-Ohio-3887, ¶ 31 (10th

Dist.) (concluding that trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to challenge the

-9- Case No. 4-25-03

constitutionality of permanent custody statutes that the court has previously

determined to be constitutional). Consequently, Taneesha cannot demonstrate that

she was prejudiced by her counsel’s failure to raise a meritless constitutional claim.

Therefore, Taneesha’s trial counsel was not ineffective. See In re E.W., 2006-Ohio-

2609, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.).

{¶23} Taneesha’s second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellants herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.

-10- Case No. 4-25-03

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error

are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

Mark C. Miller, Judge

DATED: /hls

-11-