[Cite as In re E.D.L., 2026-Ohio-28.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN RE: : CASE NOS. CA2025-07-055 E.D.L. : CA2025-07-056
: OPINION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY 1/7/2026 :
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 23-D000106
KL Hurd Law, LLC, and Kenyatta Hurd, for appellant, father.
Kathleen Mezher & Associates, and Alexander Misali, for appellant, mother. (mother not seeking custody and not filing brief)
Law Office of Arica L. Underwood, and Arica L. Underwood, for appellant, grandmother
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Robyn T. Revelson, guardian ad litem Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
____________ OPINION
BYRNE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, the biological father ("Father") and the paternal grandmother
("Grandmother") of the minor child, "Ethan," separately appeal the decision of the Warren
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of Ethan
to Warren County Children Services (the "Agency").1 For the reasons outlined below, we
affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Overview
A. Physical Abuse and Father's Conviction
{¶ 2} Ethan was born in December, 2022. Father and Ethan's biological mother
("Mother") were never married but lived together for a time while dating, including after
Ethan's birth.
{¶ 3} In May of 2023, the Agency received a referral for physical abuse when
four-month-old Ethan showed up to a hospital with five rib fractures, a broken femur, and
a bruised temple. Father was the alleged perpetrator. Mother was at work when Ethan
was injured.2 When Mother recognized his injuries, she took Ethan to the hospital. Ethan
was briefly placed with his maternal grandparents, but in July 2023 he was returned to
Mother's custody, and the case was closed, after the Agency found that Mother was
protective of Ethan.
1. All children's names used in this opinion are pseudonyms adopted for the purpose of privacy and readability. In re D.P., 2022-Ohio-4553, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.); The Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual, § 16, at 115 (3d Ed. 2024).
2. Mother has another child, "Michael." Custody of Michael, who has a different father than Ethan, is not at issue in this case. -2- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
{¶ 4} On November 21, 2023, Father was convicted of Felonious Assault in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and Child Endangerment in violation of R.C.
2919.22(B)(1)—both second degree felonies—for his physical abuse of Ethan. Father
was sentenced to prison for 8-to-12 years and his release date from prison is 2031.
Mother also obtained a civil protection order against Father on Ethan's behalf. That
protection order expires in 2028.
B. Agency's Reopening of Case
{¶ 5} In November 2023, Mother called the Agency and stated that she was
having thoughts of harming Ethan because he reminded her of Father. She told the
Agency that every time she saw Ethan, she saw Father and this "scare[d] her." Mother
told the Agency that she loved Ethan but for various reasons, she thought the best option
for him was to go into foster care. Specifically, Mother indicated to the Agency that foster
care was the best option for Ethan because she struggled with depression and no longer
attended therapy. She also never wanted two children, and she had an "odd feeling" that
"[Father] [would] come looking for her." Mother expressed to the Agency that she did not
trust anyone from Father's family to keep Ethan away from Father when he was released
from prison.
{¶ 6} Following her call with the Agency, Mother was sent for a psychiatric
evaluation. While Mother was being evaluated, the Agency implemented a voluntary
three-day safety plan in which Mother agreed to place Ethan with his maternal
grandparents. Shortly after Ethan was placed with his maternal grandparents, they
indicated that they could not care for Ethan long term because of their own physical health
concerns. Upon Mother's release from her psychiatric evaluation, she reiterated that it
was in Ethan's best interests to be in foster care.
-3- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
C. Agency's Temporary Custody and Mother's Case Plan
{¶ 7} On November 9, 2023, the Agency filed a complaint with the Warren County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, alleging that Ethan was abused and dependent.
On the same day, the Agency filed a motion for temporary custody of Ethan. The juvenile
court conducted an emergency shelter care hearing and then granted the Agency's
motion for temporary custody. The Agency then placed Ethan in foster care.
{¶ 8} On December 14, 2023, the juvenile court approved the Agency's case plan
for Mother. The case plan's goal was the reunification of Mother with Ethan. The case
plan required Mother to complete mental health and substance use assessments and to
follow through with all resulting recommendations. The case plan also required Mother to
comply with random drug screens and to complete a psychiatric assessment. The Agency
permitted Mother to visit Ethan once a week for two hours at the Agency's visitation
center.
{¶ 9} After placing Ethan with a foster family, the Agency searched for a
temporary kinship placement. The Agency initially looked at both the maternal and
paternal sides of Ethan's family. The Agency seriously looked at Grandmother as a
potential placement for Ethan and decided to conduct a home study with her.
D. Grandmother's Housing, Living, and Family Situation
{¶ 10} Grandmother testified that she lives in a ranch-style home with three
bedrooms. She stated that her sister, Keisha, lives with her along with her six-year-old
grandson, Zeke, of whom she has legal custody. Grandmother indicated that if she
obtained legal custody of Ethan then he would share a room with Zeke. She further
testified that she has two adult nieces who visit with their children regularly.
{¶ 11} Grandmother has three children of her own—two of whom are in prison.
-4- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
She testified that she did not raise Father, but that his aunt raised him. Grandmother
further stated that Father's father was in prison for seven years while Father grew up.
{¶ 12} Grandmother further testified that she is employed as an office manager,
has health insurance, and would be able to add Ethan to her health insurance if she
obtained legal custody of him.
E. Grandmother's First Home Study
{¶ 13} In early December of 2023, the Agency conducted a home study of
Grandmother's home. The Agency supervisor, Brittany Smith, testified that while the
Agency wanted Grandmother's home to work as a placement for Ethan, the Agency
denied Grandmother's first home study for various reasons. First, Grandmother's sister,
Keisha, who lived with her, did not complete a BCI background check as requested, even
after Agency reminders. Second, the Agency was concerned about comments
Grandmother made which the Agency viewed as minimizing Father's physical abuse of
Ethan.
{¶ 14} Contrary to Smith's testimony, Grandmother testified that she "never got an
answer" from the Agency regarding her first home study.
F. Guardian Ad Litem's Initial Report
{¶ 15} The appointed guardian ad litem ("GAL") submitted an initial report to the
juvenile court on January 5, 2024. The report described the GAL's conversations with
Mother and other individuals with relevant knowledge. The GAL explained that Mother's
mental state had improved since her November 2023 call to the Agency. Specifically, the
GAL indicated that Mother had moved out of the apartment that she shared with Father,
and that she lived in her new boyfriend's home. Mother told the GAL that moving away
from her old apartment where Father abused Ethan "helped heal her" and that "it lifted a
-5- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
dark cloud" around her. Mother believed that she needed to continue with therapy before
being reunified with Ethan but looked forward to seeing Ethan at visitation and wanted to
eventually increase the amount of visitation time with him.
{¶ 16} The GAL recommended that Ethan should remain in the temporary custody
of the Agency while Mother worked through some parenting classes and therapy. The
GAL looked forward to the reunification of Mother and Ethan.
G. Adjudication, Disposition, and the Agency's Custody Motion
{¶ 17} On January 9, 2024, a magistrate conducted an adjudication hearing. The
next day, January 10, 2024, the magistrate adjudicated Ethan dependent and abused,
and continued all orders in effect. The juvenile judge affirmed the magistrate's
adjudication decision.
{¶ 18} On February 7, 2024, after a dispositional hearing, the magistrate ordered
Ethan to remain in the temporary custody of the Agency, and the juvenile judge affirmed
the magistrate's disposition. This was consistent with the Agency's recommendation that
Ethan remain in its temporary custody while Mother worked toward reunification.
{¶ 19} On March 28, 2024, after observing Mother make "great progress" on her
mental health and other progress on her case plan, the Agency filed a motion asking the
court to grant legal custody of Ethan to Mother and to close the case.
H. Grandmother's Motion to Intervene and Motion for Legal Custody
{¶ 20} On May 14, 2024, Grandmother filed a motion to intervene and a motion for
custody of Ethan. Though Grandmother's motion for custody referred to "temporary"
custody, the magistrate and juvenile court judge apparently interpreted the motion as
seeking "legal" custody. The parties consistently referred to it as a motion for legal
custody. We will do the same. Regardless, the juvenile court did not immediately address
-6- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
that motion, which we will discuss further below.
I. Mother's First and Second Home Trials
{¶ 21} Because of Mother's positive progress, in May 2024, the Agency attempted
to conduct a home trial with Mother. But Mother told the Agency that she wanted to hold
off before participating in a home trial with Ethan because she wanted to start cognitive
therapy.
{¶ 22} On July 11, 2024, the Agency attempted a second home trial with Ethan
staying with Mother. This time, Mother engaged in the home trial. However, she ended
the home trial on July 31, 2024. On that day, Mother informed the Agency that she no
longer wanted to work towards reunification with Ethan because she did not bond well
with him and because she was unable to care for him.
{¶ 23} The Agency then removed Ethan from Mother's care and placed him back
with his foster care family. A week later, on August 7, 2024, at the 180-day review hearing,
Mother reiterated her position that she did not want to reunify with Ethan. The Agency
then withdrew its motion for Mother to be awarded legal custody of Ethan.
J. Extension of Temporary Custody and Grandmother's Visitation with Ethan
{¶ 24} The Agency again looked at kinship placements. On October 3, 2024, the
Agency filed a motion for a six-month extension of temporary custody of Ethan so the
Agency could conduct a second home study with respect to Grandmother. The juvenile
court granted the Agency's motion to extend temporary custody.
{¶ 25} Between October 2024 and December 2024, the Agency allowed
Grandmother to engage in supervised visitation with Ethan for two hours, once a week,
at the Agency townhouse. The Agency indicated in its observations of the visitations that
while there was an adjustment period, Ethan appeared "to be comfortable" with
-7- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
Grandmother and stated that the Agency did not have any concerns during visitations.
Grandmother missed only one scheduled visitation, and that was because Ethan was
sick.
{¶ 26} Smith testified that visitations went "relatively well" but that there were some
struggles in the beginning because Ethan experienced "stranger danger" with
Grandmother.
{¶ 27} Grandmother admitted that from Ethan's birth in December 2022 until
Father's May 2023 arrest (and thus prior to the commencement of Grandmother's
visitation in October 2024), she saw Ethan on only four or five occasions. Grandmother
testified that the visitations with Ethan "were going great" and he "was really getting
comfortable with [her] again." Grandmother stated that Ethan would smile and come up
to her during visitations when she would say his nickname. Ethan's paternal grandfather
also attended visitations with her.
K. Hearing and Decision on Grandmother's Motion to Intervene
{¶ 28} On October 16, 2024, before Grandmother's second home study and
around the time that her visitations with Ethan began, the magistrate held a hearing on
Grandmother's motion to intervene. Grandmother testified at that hearing. Smith later
testified that the Agency was concerned by Grandmother's testimony at the motion-to-
intervene hearing because Grandmother did not seem to understand how Ethan was
injured, the extent of his injuries, or the timeline of his injuries. The Agency was also
concerned that Grandmother seemed to deflect blame from Father when she testified
"that [Mother] should have been investigated criminally as well."
{¶ 29} The next day, October 17, 2024, the magistrate issued a decision denying
Grandmother's motion to intervene. The magistrate found that "[Grandmother's] motion
-8- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
fail[ed] on procedural ground[s]" because "Civ.R. 24(C) requires that the pleading
attached to the motion be in compliance with Civ.R. 7(A)." The magistrate further noted
that Grandmother filed her motion "under the existing case number," which made "the
pleading a motion as opposed to a complaint." The magistrate, quoting In re L.M., 2021-
Ohio-1630, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.), noted that "'[a] party's failure to file a pleading in compliance
with Civ.R. 24(C) is fatal to a motion to intervene.'"
{¶ 30} The magistrate further found that even if Grandmother's motion to intervene
was procedurally correct, Grandmother would still have no right to intervene in the case
under Civ.R. 24(A) or Civ. R. 24(B). Specifically, Grandmother's motion to intervene failed
on the merits under Civ. R.24(A) because Grandmother, as a grandparent, did not have
a legal interest in the case. Likewise, the magistrate concluded that Grandmother's motion
to intervene failed on the merits under Civ.R. 24(B) because Grandmother did not
establish that she ever "stood in loco parentis" with regard to Ethan.
{¶ 31} On the same day, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, making
it a final appealable order. The trial court's entry adopting the magistrate's decision
advised the parties of the right to appeal. Grandmother never appealed the denial of her
motion to intervene.
{¶ 32} In a later-filed order, the court noted that its denial of Grandmother's motion
to intervene rendered her motion for custody moot and dismissed.
L. Grandmother's Second Home Study
{¶ 33} In November of 2024, the Agency conducted Grandmother's second home
study. This time, Grandmother and her sister, Keisha, completed the necessary
background checks. However, there were new concerns.
{¶ 34} While conducting the background checks, Smith learned that Grandmother
-9- Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
had legal custody of her daughter's child, Zeke. The background check revealed that
Zeke was an alleged child victim of physical abuse and that Zeke's biological father was
the alleged perpetrator. She also learned that in July of 2024, while Zeke was in the legal
custody of Grandmother, Zeke's father fled with Zeke during his unsupervised visit with
Zeke, which led to a criminal pursuit with law enforcement. Pursuant to Smith's testimony,
Zeke's father did not stop fleeing from police, and when the police apprehended him,
Zeke's father would not put Zeke down.3 Smith also testified to her understanding, based
on Agency records, that Zeke's mother—Grandmother's daughter—is in jail for
involuntary manslaughter for shooting and killing her mother-in-law for giving Zeke a
haircut.
{¶ 35} As part of the second home study, the Agency completed an announced,
scheduled visit to Grandmother's home in November 2024. Smith testified that during this
scheduled visit she reiterated to Grandmother the importance of protecting Ethan from
Father and showed Grandmother pictures of Ethan's injuries. She also showed
Grandmother the five-year protection order that was in place between Ethan and Father.
Smith testified that this was the first time that Grandmother had been shown the pictures
of Ethan's injuries.
{¶ 36} When Smith showed the pictures of Ethan's injuries and the protection order
to Grandmother, Smith testified that Grandmother did "express appropriate emotion" and
cried. However, Smith testified that Grandmother also stated, "why did he have to hurt
[Ethan] and why didn't he just hurt her," referring to Mother.
{¶ 37} Smith then told Grandmother that she should not have made that statement,
3. The transcript from the permanent custody hearing interchanges the names Zeke and Ethan when discussing how Zeke's father fled with Zeke. It appears Smith simply made a mistake in naming Ethan rather than Zeke as the child who was with Zeke's father while he was fleeing from law enforcement. - 10 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
and that the injuries that Father caused should not be made on infants nor adults. Smith
expressed how Grandmother's comment minimalized what Father did to Ethan and
concerned Smith about giving custody of Ethan to Grandmother. Smith admitted that after
seeing the pictures of Ethan and the protection order, Grandmother indicated she did not
want Ethan to have contact with Father, but explained that later Grandmother also
indicated she wanted Ethan to have a relationship with Father in the future.
{¶ 38} Grandmother had a different recollection of this exchange. Grandmother
testified that she did not see pictures of Ethan's injuries and that she was only told of his
injuries. Grandmother testified that she knew Ethan's injuries were serious and that she
knew "he did have like a brace thing on his legs."
{¶ 39} Smith also testified that after repeated effort over time to induce
Grandmother to set up Ethan's toddler bed, the toddler bed remained in its box in
Grandmother's house. Grandmother, on the other hand, testified that she set up Ethan's
toddler bed and had sent pictures of it to the Agency.
{¶ 40} Smith testified that there was "something off" about Grandmother, and that
"there [was] something that [she] did not trust [her] gut with . . ." As a result, Smith took
Ethan's case to the prosecuting attorney's office to get a fresh look of eyes on it, and to
get advice. The prosecuting attorney's office suggested conducting an unannounced
house visit due to the Agency's concerns about Grandmother's dishonesty and lack of
protectiveness. The Agency then conducted an unannounced home visit on December 3,
2024.
{¶ 41} Smith testified that when she went to Grandmother's door to conduct the
unannounced home visit, a woman that Smith had not seen before answered the door.
After that woman let Smith inside the house, Smith saw that there was an "unknown male
- 11 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
sitting on the couch . . . holding another infant child." Zeke was at school at the time of
the unannounced home visit, so this was an unidentified infant. When Smith asked who
the male was in Grandmother's house, the male would not provide his identification or
date of birth.
{¶ 42} Smith testified that the unidentified woman told Smith that her name was
Erica and that she and the unidentified man were from Michigan but were residing in
Grandmother's home until the end of the month. Smith then asked if they could complete
a fingerprint and background check to be a part of the home study. Erica and the
unidentified man declined to participate in the home study. Smith testified that she
reached out to Grandmother to try to get identification for the man and woman, but
Grandmother stated that she did not want them to be a part of the home study because
they did not live at her house.
{¶ 43} Again, Grandmother's view of the unannounced visit was different from
Smith's. Grandmother testified that Erica did not live at Grandmother's house but was still
there "all the time" visiting her mom, Keisha, and was probably at the house even as
Grandmother was testifying. Grandmother explained that Erica is a "stay-at-home mom"
and that her "boyfriend drop[s] her off first thing in the morning, [sic] he will come pick her
up, check on her and the baby throughout the day, and pick them up at night."
Grandmother further testified that when Erica and her boyfriend "are not on the road, they
[move] between [her] house and . . . her boyfriend's father's house." Grandmother also
stated that Grandmother's youngest daughter is at her house "all the time." Grandmother
admitted that she would get in trouble with her landlord if her landlord found out that her
niece and other visitors were staying at her house for months at a time.
{¶ 44} Grandmother testified that she told Erica to provide her information to the
- 12 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
Agency, but Erica felt like she had nothing to do with the case. Grandmother testified that
she has "no control" over Erica and that she's "not [her] child." Grandmother testified that
she knew that the Agency would deny her second home study if she did not provide
Erica's information to the Agency and accepted this.
{¶ 45} Smith testified that after the Agency's unannounced visit, the Agency denied
Grandmother's second home study for the reasons discussed above. Agency documents
in the record support Smith's testimony on this point.
{¶ 46} Despite Smith's testimony that Grandmother failed the second home study,
Grandmother testified that she did not fail the second home study but passed it.
Grandmother stated that she did not understand why Ethan was not placed with her.
M. Permanent Custody Motion and Hearing
{¶ 47} Because of Grandmother's second failed home study, the Agency on
December 9, 2024, filed a motion for permanent custody and stopped Grandmother's
visitations with Ethan. On May 23, 2025, Father filed a motion asking the court to award
legal custody of Ethan to Grandmother.
{¶ 48} On June 2, 2025, the juvenile court held the permanent custody hearing. At
the beginning of the hearing, the court addressed four issues.
{¶ 49} First, the court, noting that it had denied Grandmother's motion to intervene,
inquired as to the capacity in which Grandmother's counsel was participating in the
permanent custody hearing. Grandmother's counsel admitted that the law "clearly does
not provide a mechanism for a grandparent to intervene in this kind of case" but argued
that Grandmother's custody petition, which she characterized as a "private motion for
custody" or a "petition for custody" "should survive, even though she was denied
permission to intervene." The court, referring to the pending permanent custody motion,
- 13 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
noted that "private custody proceedings, uh, basically are put on hold in favor of the
dependent/neglect case," to which Grandmother's counsel stated, "I understand, Judge."
The court then more specifically stated, "So, I don't think we're going to have a hearing
on [Grandmother's] motion for legal custody," to which Grandmother's counsel
responded, "Understood. I just wanted to make the record."
{¶ 50} Second, the court confirmed that the GAL's latest report had been filed and
that the GAL recommended that permanent custody of Ethan be granted to the state.
{¶ 51} Third, the court inquired as to Mother's position regarding permanent
custody. During this exchange, the court explained the consequences of losing
permanent custody. Mother stated that she understood the consequences and wanted to
consent to the court awarding permanent custody to the Agency. The court found that
Mother knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily gave her consent. Through counsel,
Mother indicated she opposed Father's motion for legal custody of Ethan to be granted to
{¶ 52} Fourth, the court took judicial notice of the judgment entry of sentence for
Father's conviction for his physical abuse of Ethan.
{¶ 53} The court then heard testimony. The state's only witness was Smith, and
Father's only witness was Grandmother. We have addressed most of these witness'
permanent custody hearing testimony relevant to this appeal above. However, Smith
testified about one additional topic we have not addressed: Ethan's experience with his
foster family.
{¶ 54} Smith testified that, at the time of the permanent custody hearing, Ethan
was in a foster-to-adopt placement and had been there since his removal in December of
2023, and that he had been "phenomenal" and was "thriving." Smith also testified that
- 14 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
Ethan was "very bonded to the caregivers" and that Mother wanted Ethan to remain where
he was. Smith also stated that if Ethan was to be removed from his current foster family,
she believed that Ethan would regress.
{¶ 55} Smith further testified that since Grandmother was denied the second home
study, Smith had not reached out to the Agency about Ethan. Grandmother admitted that
she did not reach out to the Agency about Ethan but instead retained a lawyer.
N. Juvenile Court's Decision
{¶ 56} On June 9, 2025, the juvenile court issued a decision granting the Agency
permanent custody of Ethan and denying Father's motion for legal custody of Ethan to be
awarded to Grandmother. The court in its decision found that granting permanent custody
to the Agency was in Ethan's best interest. In so holding, the court noted, among other
things, that Ethan was doing "very well in his placement" and that Grandmother had not
visited or contacted him since Thanksgiving of 2024. The juvenile court also noted that
Ethan could not or should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time because
Father was incarcerated for injuring Ethan.
{¶ 57} With respect to the fourth best interest factor, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), the
juvenile court balanced the two options available to the court, granting permanent custody
to the Agency or granting Father's motion for legal custody to be given to Grandmother.
The court determined that Ethan's need for a legally secure permanent placement could
not be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the Agency because "adoption
is the best chance for [Ethan] to achieve a stable family home he needs." Therefore, the
juvenile court held that the Agency had proven by clear and convincing evidence that
granting permanent custody of Ethan to the Agency was in Ethan's best interest and that
it was not in Ethan's best interest to grant Father's legal custody motion.
- 15 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
{¶ 58} Father and Grandmother both appealed.
II. Legal Analysis
{¶ 59} Father raised two assignments of error and Grandmother raised three. We
will first address Grandmother's first assignment of error. We will then collectively address
Father's two assignments of error and Grandmother's second and third assignments of
error.
A. Due Process and Grandmother's Motion for Legal Custody
{¶ 60} Grandmother's first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO ALLOW PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER TO PROCEED ON HER CUSTODY PETITION.
{¶ 61} Grandmother argues that the trial court's failure to conduct a hearing on her
legal custody petition violated her right to due process. Grandmother also argues that
R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) provided her a statutory right to have her legal custody motion
adjudicated.
1. Preliminary Issue
{¶ 62} Before addressing Grandmother's argument about her motion for legal
custody, we must address a preliminary issue: Grandmother's motion to intervene.
{¶ 63} As explained above, Grandmother filed a motion to intervene on the same
day she filed her motion for legal custody. The juvenile court denied Grandmother's
motion to intervene, and Grandmother failed to appeal that decision. In fact, at the
permanent custody hearing, Grandmother's counsel admitted that the law "clearly does
not provide a mechanism for a grandparent to intervene in this kind of case."
{¶ 64} In an entry issued after the denial of Grandmother's motion to intervene, the
juvenile court noted that its denial rendered her motion for custody moot and dismissed.
- 16 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
Grandmother did not object to this characterization by the court. But, at the permanent
custody hearing, Grandmother's counsel took a different position, arguing that her motion
for legal custody was a "private motion for custody" or a "petition for custody" that "should
survive, even though she was denied permission to intervene." The juvenile court,
referring to the pending permanent custody motion, noted that "private custody
proceedings, uh, basically are put on hold in favor of the dependent/neglect case," to
which Grandmother's counsel stated, "I understand, Judge." The court then more
specifically stated, "So, I don't think we're going to have a hearing on [Grandmother's]
motion for legal custody," to which Grandmother's counsel responded, "Understood. I just
wanted to make the record."
{¶ 65} The juvenile court never made any definitive holding on the question of
whether Grandmother could pursue her legal custody motion after denial of her motion to
intervene. It simply stated that "private custody proceedings" are held in abeyance during
permanent custody proceedings. In effect, the juvenile court seems to have deferred
ruling on the question and never directly addressed the question because it granted
permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 66} Similarly, we conclude that we do not need to decide whether
Grandmother's motion for legal custody survived the denial of her motion to intervene, or
whether that denial instead rendered her motion for legal custody moot or dismissed. This
is the case because, even if Grandmother's motion for legal custody did survive, it was
without merit for the reasons that follow.
2. Analysis
{¶ 67} Grandmother argues that the juvenile court violated her due process rights
when the court did not hear her legal custody motion because when she filed for legal
- 17 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
custody, R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) entitled her to a "liberty interest and procedural due process
interests." Grandmother's argument is misguided. Neither procedural due process
principles nor R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) entitled Grandmother to a legal custody hearing.
{¶ 68} "'The fundamental requisites of due process of law in any proceeding are
notice and the opportunity to be heard.'" In re T.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3929, ¶ 6 (12th Dist.)
quoting In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 17. "'The requirements of procedural due process
only apply to protected liberty and property interests.'" In re T.L.C., at ¶ 6 quoting CT Ohio
Portsmouth, L.L.C., v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2020-Ohio-5091, ¶ 29.
{¶ 69} Grandmother argues that R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) gave her a protected liberty
or property interest, and thus due process gave her a right to be heard with respect to her
legal custody motion. That statute, in part, states:
If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child, the court may make any of the following orders of disposition: . . . [a]ward legal custody of the child to either parent to any other person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings.
R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). The plain language of the statute says that the juvenile court "may"
award legal custody to any person who, "prior to the dispositional hearing, filed a motion
requesting legal custody . . ." (Emphasis added.) The "may" language gives a juvenile
court discretion. The statute does not place a mandatory obligation on the trial court to
grant legal custody or to hold a legal custody hearing for any person who files for legal
custody. Instead, the statute is permissive, leaving those decisions to the trial court.
Grandmother's argument based on the text of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) is without merit.
{¶ 70} Next, Grandmother argues her family relationship to Ethan presents an
interest protected by procedural due process. She is again incorrect. The requirements
- 18 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
of procedural due process only apply to liberty and property interests, which Grandmother
does not have with respect to Ethan. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he
law does not provide grandparents with inherent legal rights based simply on the family
relationship." In re H.W., 2007-Ohio-2879, ¶ 9 citing In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213,
215 (1988). And we previously held, in a case similar to this one, that "[a] child's
grandparents . . . do not have a fundamental and constitutionally protected liberty interest
in choosing how to manage their grandchildren, 'as that would interfere with those rights
already vested in the parents.'" In re T.L.C., at ¶ 7, quoting In re Skinner, 1994 WL 93149
(4th Dist. Mar. 23, 1994). In that case, we held that a grandmother did not have a due
process right to a hearing on her motion for legal custody:
[B]ecause the requirements of procedural due process only apply to protected liberty and property interests, something which grandparents do not inherently have with respect to their grandchildren, the principles of procedural due process did not require the juvenile court to give Grandmother an opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of her two motions for legal custody before it could grant permanent custody of the children to WCCS.
In re T.L.C. at ¶ 7. Therefore, in the case before us, the juvenile court was not required
to give Grandmother an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of her
legal custody motion before it could grant permanent custody of Ethan to the Agency.
{¶ 71} Even so, the record indicates that Grandmother did have an opportunity to
be heard since she testified twice over the course of Ethan's case—once at her motion-
to-intervene hearing and once at the permanent custody hearing. Her counsel was also
present and participated in the permanent custody hearing. Accordingly, the juvenile court
did not deny due process to Grandmother by not holding a hearing on her motion for legal
custody.
{¶ 72} We overrule Grandmother's first assignment of error.
- 19 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
B. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
{¶ 73} Father's first assignment of error states:
THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT IT WAS IN [ETHAN'S] BEST INTEREST FOR [THE AGENCY] TO BE AWARED PERMANENT CUSTODY WHERE IT WAS NOT PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SUCH AN AWARD WAS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST.
{¶ 74} Father's second assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT [ETHAN'S] NEED FOR A LEGALLY SECURE PERMANENT PLACEMENT COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT A GRANT OF PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE AGENCY WHERE IT WAS PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT LEGAL CUSTODY SHOULD BE AWARDED TO THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER.
{¶ 75} Grandmother's second assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT [ETHAN'S] NEED FOR A LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT A PERMANENT GRANT OF CUSTODY TO THE [AGENCY].
{¶ 76} Grandmother's third assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT IT WAS IN [ETHAN'S] BEST INTEREST TO AWARD PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE [AGENCY] INSTEAD OF AN APPROPRIATE FAMILY MEMBER.
{¶ 77} In support of these assignments of error, Father and Grandmother both
argue that the juvenile court's permanent custody decision was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a
reminder, we note that whether or not Grandmother's motion for legal custody was
properly before the juvenile court at the time of the permanent custody hearing, Father
had also filed a motion asking the court to award legal custody of Ethan to Grandmother,
and the juvenile court considered the question of whether legal custody to Grandmother
- 20 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
was in Ethan's best interest as part of its larger best interest analysis. We will do the
same.
1. Applicable Law and Standards of Review
{¶ 78} "Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the
care and custody of [their] child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been
met." In re M.G., 2023-Ohio-1316, ¶ 44 (12th Dist.); R.C. 2151.414(E). "Under R.C.
2151.414(B)(1), the juvenile court may terminate the parental rights and award permanent
custody of a child to a children services agency if the court makes findings pursuant to a
two-part test." In re N.L., 2025-Ohio-2625, ¶ 20, (12th Dist.), citing In re K.P., 2022-Ohio-
1347, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). "First, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides that the juvenile court must
find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the 'best interests' of the
child." In re N.L., at ¶ 20, (12th Dist.), citing In re M.H., 2022-Ohio-48, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.).
"Second, the juvenile court must find that one of the circumstances set forth in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e) apply." In re R.C., 2025-Ohio-5150, ¶ 52 (12th Dist.), citing In re
R.B., 2022-Ohio-1705, ¶ 31(12th Dist.). Those circumstances include, but are not limited
to: (1) the child is abandoned, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b); (2) the child is orphaned, R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(c); (3) the child has been in temporary custody of one or more public
children service agencies for 12 of more months of a consecutive 22-month period, R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d); (4) the child has been removed from the parents' custody or been
adjudicated as abused, neglected, or dependent on three separate occasions, R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(e); and (5) the circumstances described in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b), (c),
(d), and (e) do not apply and the child cannot be placed with either the child's parents
within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).
- 21 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
In re J.B., 2023-Ohio-2454, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). Only one of these circumstances need to
apply to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test. In re C.S., 2020-
Ohio-4414, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 79} "An appellate court's review of a juvenile court's decision granting
permanent custody is generally limited to considering whether sufficient credible evidence
exists to support the juvenile court's determination." In re A.S., 2020-Ohio-4127, ¶ 19
(12th Dist.). However, "[e]ven if there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's
decision, an appellate court may nevertheless reverse a permanent custody judgment if
it finds the judgment to be against the manifest weight of the evidence." In re G.A., 2023-
Ohio-643, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), citing In re F.S., 2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 61 (12th Dist.). In
determining whether a juvenile court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, an appellate court "'weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage
of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.'" In re S.M., 2019-
Ohio-198, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.), quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. The
presumption in weighing the evidence favors the finder of fact, which we are especially
mindful of in custody cases. In re R.K., 2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). Therefore, if
the evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound
to give it the interpretation that is consistent with the verdict and judgment. In re D.S.,
2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 63 (12th Dist.).
2. First Part of Permanent Custody Test: Best Interest Analysis
{¶ 80} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that in considering the best interest of a child
in a permanent custody hearing, a juvenile court must consider all relevant factors,
- 22 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, 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, including whether the child has been in temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period . . .;
(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;
(e) Whether any of the factors in division (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
A juvenile court may also consider any other factors it deems relevant to the child's best
interest. In re A.J., 2019-Ohio-593, ¶ 24 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 81} In this case, the juvenile court thoroughly evaluated each of the best interest
factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D) and concluded that granting permanent custody of
Ethan to the Agency was in his best interest. Upon review, we find the juvenile court did
not err.
{¶ 82} As to the first best-interest factor—that is, the interaction and relationship of
the child with his parents, foster caregivers, and others, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)—the
record demonstrates that Ethan has spent most of his life—nearly all of it since he was
four months old—with the same foster family and has bonded well with them. The foster
family is also a "foster-to-adopt" family which indicates that there is a possibility for Ethan
to be adopted. Mother indicated that she did not bond well with Ethan but that she wanted
- 23 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
him to be in foster care, and to stay in his current placement. Father is incarcerated
because of the physical abuse that he inflicted on Ethan.
{¶ 83} Although Grandmother's visits with Ethan went relatively well, the record
indicates that she only had visitation with Ethan for a short time of two hours a week for
about two months, and she had very little contact with Ethan prior to the visitation period.
Grandmother failed both of her home studies. The evidence in the record supports the
Agency's concerns over her trustworthiness and lack of protectiveness with regard to
Ethan. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude that Grandmother's conflicting
testimony at the permanent custody hearing—for example, that she did in fact pass her
first home study, and that Smith did not show her the pictures of Ethan's injuries—
weighed against her trustworthiness.
{¶ 84} Furthermore, Grandmother allows multiple individuals to live or stay in her
home, and the juvenile court could conclude based on the evidence presented at the
permanent custody hearing that she was unwilling or uncooperative in providing
information about those individuals the Agency needed to determine if Grandmother's
home was safe for Ethan. This is particularly troubling considering the significant history
of physical abuse and other criminal behavior among Grandmother's family and/or those
living in or visiting her home. On balance, we find that the first best-interest factor favors
an award of permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 85} As to the second best-interest factor—the wishes of the child, R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(b)—Ethan was too young to express his wishes, being only two and a
half years old at the permanent custody hearing. The GAL recommended in her report
and at the permanent custody hearing that Father's motion for legal custody of Ethan to
go to Grandmother should be denied, and that permanent custody of Ethan should be
- 24 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
granted to the Agency. The GAL indicated in her report that Ethan had bonded with his
foster family and that he was doing well. The GAL also shared concerns that Ethan would
regress if he were to be removed from his foster family.
{¶ 86} The record indicates that Mother also opposed Father's motion for legal
custody of Ethan to go to Grandmother, and desired for the Agency to have permanent
custody of Ethan. Mother recognized that Ethan had bonded well with his foster family
and realized that the foster family was a better situation for him. For these reasons, the
second best-interest factor favors an award of permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 87} As to the third best-interest factor—the custodial history of the child, R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(c)—Ethan has been in the Agency's temporary custody since November
of 2023. Moreover, he has lived with his foster family for nearly all of his life, since he was
just four months old. (Given his young age, he may not even remember who Grandmother
is.) Therefore, the third best interest factor favors an award of permanent custody to the
Agency.
{¶ 88} As to the fourth best-interest factor—the child's need for a legally secure
permanent placement, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)—the record demonstrates neither Father
nor Grandmother can provide such a placement for Ethan. Father, of course, is
incarcerated for the violent acts he performed that caused Ethan serious physical injuries,
and he will be in prison until 2031. And, of course, it was Father who criminally injured
{¶ 89} For Grandmother, it is a closer call. Grandmother does have a stable job
and secure housing. Grandmother can also provide health insurance and has bonded
with Ethan during visitation. However, Grandmother's testimony and actions indicate that
Grandmother's ability to provide a legally secure placement for Ethan is highly
- 25 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
questionable.
{¶ 90} As stated above, Grandmother's home features a stream of guests or
residents, coming and going, several of whom did not identify themselves to the Agency.
Evidence supports the conclusion that Grandmother failed to fully cooperate in providing
the Agency with information about these individuals. Grandmother stated that she did not
need to provide their information to the Agency because they did not officially live at her
house, but Grandmother also testified that they were always over and even indicated that
Erica was probably at her house while she was testifying.
{¶ 91} Grandmother's failure to prioritize providing information the Agency needed
is particularly troublesome considering the history of criminal behavior among individuals
in Grandmother's household. In fact, the grandchild of whom Grandmother does have
legal custody, Zeke, was put in serious danger by his father while living in Grandmother's
house. Moreover, Smith testified that Grandmother, upon looking over the pictures of
Ethan's injuries, stated, "why did [Father] have to hurt [Ethan] and why didn't he just hurt
[Mother]." The juvenile court could conclude that this somewhat cavalier statement about
violence, when combined with the Agency's concerns about Grandmother's lack of
appreciation for the seriousness of Father's violence against Ethan, suggested she was
unlikely to provide a legally secure permanent placement.
{¶ 92} In contrast to the uncertainty in the record regarding Grandmother's ability
to provide a legally secure permanent placement, Ethan has been in the same foster care
placement for most of his life. Throughout his time in his foster care placement, there
have been no incidents that have caused concern about Ethan or his safety. In fact, the
record demonstrates that he has done "phenomenal[ly]" in his placement and has bonded
well with his foster family.
- 26 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
{¶ 93} We also note that Grandmother heavily relies on two Ohio First District
Court of Appeals cases in support of her argument that the trial court erred in granting
permanent custody to the Agency. Those cases are In re A.H., 2025-Ohio-2708 (1st
Dist.), and In re B.J., 2021-Ohio-373 (1st Dist.). In both of those cases, the First District
overturned the juvenile court's decisions granting permanent custody to the Agency
where there was evidence that a relative had an approved home study and had filed for
legal custody. But here, to Grandmother's detriment, she did not have an approved home
study, but failed two. Therefore, A.H. and B.J. are distinguishable and do not support
Grandmother's arguments.
{¶ 94} On balance, we find that the fourth best-interest factor favors the Agency
receiving permanent custody.
{¶ 95} As a result of the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err
in finding the best interest factors weighed in favor of awarding permanent custody to the
Agency. There is sufficient credible evidence to support the juvenile court's determination,
and the juvenile court's determination is not against the manifest wright of the evidence.
3. The Second Part of the Permanent Custody Test
{¶ 96} As mentioned above, the juvenile court found that three of the
circumstances under the second prong of the permanent custody test were met.
Specifically, the court found that: (1) Ethan had been in the Agency's custody for at least
12 of the last 22 months (referencing the "12 of 22" circumstance described in R.C.
2151.414[B][1][d]); (2) Father abandoned Ethan (referencing the "abandonment"
circumstance described in R.C. 2151.414[B][1][b]); and (3) Ethan could not or should not
be placed with either Mother or Father in a reasonable time (referencing the "reasonable
time" circumstance described in R.C. 2151.414[B][1][a]).
- 27 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
{¶ 97} On appeal, Father does not challenge the juvenile court's "12 of 22" finding.
Because Father does not challenge "12 of 22" finding, we do not need to review that
finding. In re Z.B., 2024-Ohio-5387, ¶ 32 (12th Dist.). However, we note that the record
unquestionably establishes that the "12 of 22" finding was met because Ethan was placed
in temporary custody of the Agency in November of 2023, was adjudicated abused and
dependent in January of 2024, and remained in the Agency's custody through the date
the Agency filed for permanent custody in December of 2024. Because only one of the
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e) findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-
part permanent custody test, we need not review the juvenile court's "abandonment" or
"reasonable time" findings. In re R.B., 2023-Ohio-3145, ¶ 51, citing In re J.N.L.H., 2022-
Ohio-3865, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). As such, the state satisfied the second prong of the
permanent custody test.
{¶ 98} Considering the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court's decision
was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Therefore, we overrule Father's first and second assignments of error, and Grandmother's
second and third assignments of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 99} We conclude that the juvenile court did not err by determining that it was in
Ethan's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency. The juvenile court's
permanent custody decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the trial court did not violate
Grandmother's due process rights in not holding a legal custody hearing. Thus, we
overrule Grandmother's first, second, and third assignments of error, and we also overrule
Father's first and second assignments of error.
- 28 - Warren CA2025-07-055 CA2025-07-056
{¶ 100} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and SIEBERT, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge
/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
- 29 -