[Cite as In re E.L.B., 2025-Ohio-118.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: E.L.B. : : : C.A. No. 2024-CA-64 : : Trial Court Case No. 2022-C-00068-0D : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on January 17, 2025
KELLY M. SCHROEDER, Attorney for Appellant
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Greene County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights and awarded Greene
County Children Services (“GCCS”) permanent custody of her child, E.L.B. Mother
contends the court erred by finding that an award of permanent custody was in the child's -2-
best interest.
{¶ 2} Because a review of the record shows clear and convincing evidence that
E.L.B. had been in the temporary custody of GCCS for 12 or more months out of a
consecutive 22-month period and that an award of permanent custody to GCCS was in
E.L.B.’s best interest, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 3} E.L.B. was born in September 2022. At the time, Mother was residing with
a man, “Adam,” who was believed to be the child’s father.1 On September 13, 2022,
GCCS received a report that Adam was abusing drugs and alcohol in the home and had
acted violently while doing so. After Adam refused a requested drug screen, GCCS
implemented a safety plan requiring him to leave the home. However, on October 19,
2022, Adam was arrested at the home after he held a gun to his head and threatened to
kill himself. That same day, GCCS tried to find a placement out of the home as a safety
plan for the child. However, when no options were identified, Mother signed an
agreement to place the child in foster care.
{¶ 4} On November 9, 2022, GCCS filed a complaint alleging that E.L.B. was a
dependent child. Following a hearing, the child was adjudicated dependent. The court
awarded GCCS temporary custody on January 3, 2023.
{¶ 5} A first extension of temporary custody was granted on October 9, 2023, at
which time the trial court made a finding that Mother had abandoned the child. The
1 DNA testing later established that Adam was not the child’s biological father. -3-
finding was based on Mother’s failure to attend any visitation after June 30, 2023. A
second extension of temporary custody was granted on April 15, 2024.
{¶ 6} On May 2, 2024, GCCS filed a motion for permanent custody. A hearing
was conducted in August 2024. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment awarding
permanent custody to GCCS. Mother appeals.2
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} Mother’s sole assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY
TO THE AGENCY SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN
THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.
{¶ 8} Mother contends the trial court’s finding that awarding permanent custody to
GCCS was in the best interest of the child was not supported by the evidence.
{¶ 9} A juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights and grant permanent
custody to an agency of the State must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence
which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact “a firm belief or conviction as to the
allegations sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).
The evidence must be more than a preponderance, but it need not rise to the level of
certainty that is required beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Id.
{¶ 10} In reviewing a permanent custody decision, “we apply an abuse-of-
2 The biological father, who was identified while the juvenile case was pending, is not a party to this appeal. -4-
discretion standard, and we will not disturb such a decision on evidentiary grounds ‘if the
record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a
firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental
rights have been established.’ ” In re T.S., 2017-Ohio-482, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing In re L.C.
at ¶ 14. The phrase “abuse of discretion” implies a decision which is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 11} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes the following two-part test for courts to
apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public children services
agency:
Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant
permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the
hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing
evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent
custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent
custody and that any of the following apply:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the 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, or has not been in the 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 if, as described
in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was -5-
previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another
state, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within
a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents.
(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
able to take permanent custody.
(d) The child has been in the 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, or the child has
been in the 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 and, as described in division (D)(1) of
section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the
temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.
(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from
whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
court in this state or another state.
{¶ 12} Here the juvenile court made the findings required to award GCCS
permanent custody. Specifically, the court found that E.L.B. had been in the custody of
GCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and that awarding
permanent custody to MCCS was in the child's best interest. Mother does not dispute -6-
the 12-out-of-22-month finding. However, she does claim that the court erred in finding
that the child’s best interest required a grant of permanent custody to the agency.
{¶ 13} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), which sets forth the factors a court must consider
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re E.L.B., 2025-Ohio-118.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: E.L.B. : : : C.A. No. 2024-CA-64 : : Trial Court Case No. 2022-C-00068-0D : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on January 17, 2025
KELLY M. SCHROEDER, Attorney for Appellant
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Greene County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights and awarded Greene
County Children Services (“GCCS”) permanent custody of her child, E.L.B. Mother
contends the court erred by finding that an award of permanent custody was in the child's -2-
best interest.
{¶ 2} Because a review of the record shows clear and convincing evidence that
E.L.B. had been in the temporary custody of GCCS for 12 or more months out of a
consecutive 22-month period and that an award of permanent custody to GCCS was in
E.L.B.’s best interest, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 3} E.L.B. was born in September 2022. At the time, Mother was residing with
a man, “Adam,” who was believed to be the child’s father.1 On September 13, 2022,
GCCS received a report that Adam was abusing drugs and alcohol in the home and had
acted violently while doing so. After Adam refused a requested drug screen, GCCS
implemented a safety plan requiring him to leave the home. However, on October 19,
2022, Adam was arrested at the home after he held a gun to his head and threatened to
kill himself. That same day, GCCS tried to find a placement out of the home as a safety
plan for the child. However, when no options were identified, Mother signed an
agreement to place the child in foster care.
{¶ 4} On November 9, 2022, GCCS filed a complaint alleging that E.L.B. was a
dependent child. Following a hearing, the child was adjudicated dependent. The court
awarded GCCS temporary custody on January 3, 2023.
{¶ 5} A first extension of temporary custody was granted on October 9, 2023, at
which time the trial court made a finding that Mother had abandoned the child. The
1 DNA testing later established that Adam was not the child’s biological father. -3-
finding was based on Mother’s failure to attend any visitation after June 30, 2023. A
second extension of temporary custody was granted on April 15, 2024.
{¶ 6} On May 2, 2024, GCCS filed a motion for permanent custody. A hearing
was conducted in August 2024. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment awarding
permanent custody to GCCS. Mother appeals.2
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} Mother’s sole assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY
TO THE AGENCY SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN
THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.
{¶ 8} Mother contends the trial court’s finding that awarding permanent custody to
GCCS was in the best interest of the child was not supported by the evidence.
{¶ 9} A juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights and grant permanent
custody to an agency of the State must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence
which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact “a firm belief or conviction as to the
allegations sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).
The evidence must be more than a preponderance, but it need not rise to the level of
certainty that is required beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Id.
{¶ 10} In reviewing a permanent custody decision, “we apply an abuse-of-
2 The biological father, who was identified while the juvenile case was pending, is not a party to this appeal. -4-
discretion standard, and we will not disturb such a decision on evidentiary grounds ‘if the
record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a
firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental
rights have been established.’ ” In re T.S., 2017-Ohio-482, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing In re L.C.
at ¶ 14. The phrase “abuse of discretion” implies a decision which is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 11} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes the following two-part test for courts to
apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public children services
agency:
Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant
permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the
hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing
evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent
custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent
custody and that any of the following apply:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the 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, or has not been in the 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 if, as described
in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was -5-
previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another
state, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within
a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents.
(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
able to take permanent custody.
(d) The child has been in the 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, or the child has
been in the 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 and, as described in division (D)(1) of
section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the
temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.
(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from
whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
court in this state or another state.
{¶ 12} Here the juvenile court made the findings required to award GCCS
permanent custody. Specifically, the court found that E.L.B. had been in the custody of
GCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and that awarding
permanent custody to MCCS was in the child's best interest. Mother does not dispute -6-
the 12-out-of-22-month finding. However, she does claim that the court erred in finding
that the child’s best interest required a grant of permanent custody to the agency.
{¶ 13} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), which sets forth the factors a court must consider
when determining whether granting permanent custody to a public children's services
agency is in the best interest of the child, states:
In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to
division (A) of this section . . . , the court shall consider all relevant factors,
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 the 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 divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply
in relation to the parents and child. -7-
{¶ 14} Here, there was competent evidence supporting the trial court's finding that
it was in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to GCCS. The record
demonstrates that E.L.B. was bonded and thriving with her foster family, with whom she
had been placed one month after her birth. She had no relationship with her father.
Mother had been sporadic, at best, in attending visitation with the child. Indeed, Mother
failed to visit the child for a six-month period from June 2023 until January 2024. Even
after visits were reinstated, Mother failed to attend numerous visits.
{¶ 15} Although the child was too young to express her wishes, the court appointed
special advocate assigned to her case recommended that GCCS receive permanent
custody.
{¶ 16} The child had been in the custody of GCCS since her removal from the
home at approximately one month of age. At the time of the permanent custody hearing,
the child was two-years old. The record supported a finding that the child was in need
of a legally secure placement and that such a placement could not be achieved without a
grant of custody to GCCS. There was also evidence in the record that Mother had failed
to comply with her case plan. At the time of the hearing, she was unemployed, and she
had failed to engage in mental health services or parenting classes as required by her
case plan. More concerning, she continued to live with Adam. Indeed, she indicated that
she valued her relationship with Adam over her relationship with E.L.B.
{¶ 17} Based upon the record before us, we conclude that there was clear and
convincing evidence supporting the trial court's decision to award permanent custody to
GCCS. Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled. -8-
III. Conclusion
{¶ 18} Mother’s sole assignment of error being overruled, the judgment of the
juvenile court is affirmed.
EPLEY, P.J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.