[Cite as In re J.B., 2025-Ohio-2135.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: J.B. : APPEAL NOS. C-250133 C-250141 : TRIAL NO. F/14/1148 Z
: JUDGMENT ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the appeals, 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 these appeals, 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 6/18/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re J.B., 2025-Ohio-2135.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: J.B. : APPEAL NOS. C-250133 C-250141 : TRIAL NO. F/14/1148 Z
:
: OPINION
Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 18, 2025
Jon R. Sinclair, for Appellant Father,
Alana Van Gundy, for Appellant Mother,
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Allison Smith, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellee Guardian Ad Litem. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, Mother and Father challenge the juvenile
court’s grant of permanent custody of J.B. to the Hamilton County Department of Job
and Family Services (“HCJFS”). In separate assignments of error, both parents
challenge the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.
{¶2} We overrule those assignments of error. Affidavits in the evidence and
caseworker testimony show that the parents persist in patterns of domestic violence.
And Mother’s testimony, combined with visitation records, reveals a more-than-three-
month absence of the parents from J.B.’s life. This constitutes clear and convincing
evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that J.B. could not or should not be
placed with her parents. And clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile
court’s conclusion that awarding HCJFS permanent custody is in J.B.’s best interest.
{¶3} We affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶4} Mother and Father have three children together. J.B., the youngest, was
born in November 2019.
{¶5} Roughly five years before J.B. was born, HCJFS filed for custody of
Mother and Father’s two older children, Ja.B. and Jo.B. In 2018, the juvenile court
awarded HCJFS permanent custody of Ja.B. and Jo.B. based on Father’s lack of
engagement with case-plan services, Mother’s lack of “insight into her mental
illnesses,” Mother’s “belief that she does not need psychiatric care or counseling,” and
Mother’s “abusive relationship with Father.”
{¶6} We affirmed that decision on appeal, reasoning:
The record contains sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) that the children cannot be placed with OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
either parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with
either parent. See In re W.W.[,2011-Ohio-4912,] ¶ 46 [1st Dist.]. Both
parents failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the
conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the home. See
R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Both parents suffer from chronic mental illness,
and father suffers from chronic substance abuse, which prevented the
court from safely placing the children with either of them within a
reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(2). In addition, the parents
continued to maintain their abusive relationship despite their history of
domestic violence.
Father did not engage in mental-health or substance-
abuse treatment, nor did he complete an anger-management program,
all required by his case plan. He did not submit to drug screening and
reported that he continued to use marijuana and crack. Although
mother completed a required domestic-violence course, she refused to
make behavioral changes and continued to engage in aggressive
behavior. Mother was discharged unsuccessfully from a parenting
course because she failed to attend the coaching component of the
course. Although mother had recently obtained housing, her caseworker
had not been able to locate her or father for a two-month period after
J[o.B.]’s birth.
In re B. Children, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2129, *2-3 (1st Dist. May 18, 2018).
A. First complaint
{¶7} In August 2022, HCJFS moved for permanent custody of J.B., alleging
that J.B. was dependent under R.C. 2151.04. HCJFS based its dependency allegation
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
on both parents’ history of domestic-violence allegations and charges, which
prompted HCJFS to investigate in July 2022. HCJFS noted in its complaint and an
affidavit that Mother and Father fled with J.B. during the July 2022 investigation.
While Mother and Father initially allowed a HCJFS employee into their apartment,
the parents asked the caseworker “to leave before the assessment was completed.”
{¶8} HCJFS requested interim custody of J.B. and a determination that
reasonable efforts were not required. The magistrate placed J.B. in HCJFS’s interim
custody and found that reasonable efforts were not required.
{¶9} In early November 2022, HCJFS filed a case plan. To alleviate the “risk
of harm” caused by J.B.’s caregivers’ “out of control behavior, untreated mental health,
substance abuse and domestic violence,” HCJFS wanted Mother and Father to
demonstrate impulse control and self-control, “identify coping mechanisms that
[Father] can use when he become[s] escalated to avoid engaging in violent and out of
control behavior,” and remove themselves from “volatile environments and refrain
from domestically violent and/or physically aggressive behavior.” But due to the
magistrate’s no-reasonable-efforts finding, HCJFS would “not be facilitating any case
plan services.” HCJFS also identified Mother’s and Father’s regular attendance at
visitation and appropriate behavior as action steps for Mother and Father.
B. Second complaint
{¶10} In December 2022, HCJFS moved to dismiss the permanent-custody
complaint because the 90-day deadline for holding the dispositional hearing had
lapsed. So, HCJFS refiled its complaint for permanent custody of J.B. based on
domestic-violence allegations in July 2022, and Mother and Father’s flight during
HCJFS’s investigation. The complaint noted that J.B. was “significantly delayed in
speech development and has been diagnosed with Thalassemia.” It also noted that
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Mother and Father “went six weeks without seeing the child” and neither parent
engaged in domestic-violence services.
{¶11} The magistrate awarded HCJFS interim custody of J.B. the following
day, finding that HCJFS “made reasonable efforts to prevent removal from the home
by provision of the following services: diagnostic assessment, visitation, domestic
violence services, mental health treatment, and case management.”
{¶12} In January 2023, the magistrate adjudicated J.B. dependent as defined
by R.C. 2151.04(D)(1)-(2). The magistrate found that Mother and Father “have a
history of behavior which resulted in an adjudication of a sibling for abuse, neglect, or
dependency,” and “the circumstance in the siblings’ case are congruent to [J.B.]’s case,
in that parents have unresolved domestic violence and mental health issues, and are
living together.” Police had responded to the family residence in July 2022 to
investigate domestic violence when J.B. was present. “Mother presented with a black
eye,” Mother and Father fled as HCJFS sought an emergency order, and J.B. was found
two weeks later at a relative’s home.
{¶13} HCJFS filed a case plan and wanted Mother and Father to seek mental-
health treatment, but HCJFS made clear it would not be facilitating any services.
C. Disposition hearing
{¶14} The magistrate held disposition hearings on February 8, August 9,
September 6 and 27, 2023, and April 17, 2024. HCJFS built its permanent-custody
case on testimony from Allison Beresford (J.B.’s HCJFS caseworker), Mother, and
Father. It supplemented that testimony with visitation records and both parents’
criminal-history records.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
1. J.B.’s relationships
{¶15} Beresford started working on J.B.’s case in the summer of 2022. She
explained that J.B. is bonded with Mother—J.B. would “run to [Mother] and give her
a hug” when she saw her during visits, “and Mo[ther] is very affectionate towards her.”
Further, Beresford testified that Father was “positive” with J.B. and was bonded with
J.B.—though that bond was weaker than Mother’s bond with J.B. Beresford also saw
a bond between J.B. and her foster parents.
{¶16} Beresford explained that HCJFS filed its complaint due to “ongoing
domestic violence between [Mother] and [Father].” HCJFS was concerned with
Mother’s and Father’s criminal histories, domestic-violence issues, “out-of-control
behavior,” untreated mental-health issues, and inconsistent visitation.
{¶17} Mother, Father, and J.B. were living in Avondale when HCJFS became
involved. Mother testified that she took J.B. and “went to Sharonville” because her
Avondale apartment lacked heat and air conditioning. Father was unsure why HCJFS
“took” J.B. but later recalled that HCJFS removed J.B. “because of AC, an AC
problem.” Father testified that an HCJFS worker visited Mother’s residence, and
Mother and Father asked for assistance with getting an air conditioner. But the agency
worker “came back down and said we got to take J[.B].” Mother and Father told the
agency worker they were leaving and “walked out in front of [her] face.”
{¶18} Mother and Father both denied having mental-health or domestic-
violence issues. Mother testified that she attended therapy and completed domestic-
violence classes when HCJFS pursued permanent custody of J.B.’s older siblings.
Mother denied having ever called the police as a victim of domestic violence. Though
she described the forms of domestic violence and the steps that a victim can take to
escape an abusive relationship. Father recalled taking a diagnostic assessment during
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
J.B.’s siblings’ case. He initially participated in mental-health services as required by
the case plan, but he had “a lot of things going on.” So, he disengaged. While he
expressed frustration over the lack of case-plan services offered by HCJFS, Father
testified that he does not need mental-health or domestic-violence services.
2. Domestic violence
{¶19} Mother and Father both testified that domestic violence was not an
issue in their relationship. Mother denied having been arrested for domestic violence
in 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2023, and for assault in 2020. HCJFS, however, entered
Mother’s criminal records into the evidence, which revealed that Mother was arrested
and convicted of domestic violence in 2015 and 2023, and of assault in 2020.
{¶20} Mother and Father both testified that Father has been convicted of
domestic violence. But they asserted that their other convictions were the product of
false accusations. Father explained that Mother and he would get into verbal
disagreements and resort to “childish” means for revenge. Father testified that the two
had “been through a lot.” In the beginning, they resorted to calling police to avoid
arguments and exert control over their relationship. Father admitted that his infidelity
created issues early in the relationship and “the only way [he] could keep it together
was to make her look crazy.” And he did that by calling the police.
{¶21} Mother testified that calls to the police were a de-escalation tactic. But
neither cooperated with the prosecution, so some charges were dropped. Mother
explained, “You can call the police anywhere. . . . People do it all the time. It ain’t no
big deal.”
{¶22} Father, like Mother, downplayed the false accusations. During their 12-
year relationship, Father had fabricated allegations “four or five” times. But Mother
and Father “did it to each other.” He was unsure how many times Mother fabricated
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
allegations against him because he has children with seven women, and therefore, he
is “dealing with seven women everyday.” He explained, “It’s something that we both
know that we can hurt each other. So we call the police on each other and make up
stupid things and – which is petty, but it’s something that ain’t stopped, you know.”
According to Father, the two have come to realize that “[a]rguing ain’t going to solve”
their problems, “[a]ttacking each other ain’t going to solve it.”
{¶23} Beresford recalled a May 2023 phone call with Mother, where Beresford
“could hear [Father] yelling and screaming” at Mother, though she could not “hear
exactly what he was saying to her.” While Mother “had locked herself in the room that
she was in, her and [J.B.] to be in at the time,” Mother assured Beresford that “she was
safe and didn’t need [Beresford] to call anyone.” Mother informed Beresford that
Father “was not currently receiving any mental health treatment” and Mother
“mentioned something about wanting a temporary protection order.” Beresford
directed Mother to a domestic-violence center, but Mother did not follow through.
{¶24} Beresford also recalled that, in July 2023, “[Mother] was charged with
domestic violence against [Father].” Beresford explained that “there was a knife
involved and [Mother] had attempted to assault [Father] while he was asleep.” The
evidence includes a July 2023 affidavit signed by Father stating that Mother “came in
the room after police left we were told to separate I did I went to sleep after [a]bout 10
min she came in the room with a butcher knife and tried to stab me in my sleep.”
{¶25} Mother testified that she had been arrested for disorderly conduct
rather than domestic violence and denied trying to stab Father. Mother explained that
Father’s 23-year-old child was involved in an “altercation” with a neighbor, which
turned into a “big ole group fight.” Mother tried to de-escalate the situation as the
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
police arrived. But she was arrested because she “fought the neighbor.” Afterwards,
Mother and Father “got into a debate,” and “got into it” as the two “debated.”
{¶26} Father explained that he was upset that his son “got beat up,” so he “took
it out on [Mother] and made up a fabricated ass story that she stabbed the bed.” At
another point, he testified that he called the police on Mother in July after they got
into an argument over something “petty,” like laundry, and Father wanted to sleep.
Father called the police repeatedly until they came to arrest Mother. He felt regret the
next morning.
{¶27} Father also described a time when Mother called the police when his
oldest son threatened to “kill” Mother and J.B. in response to Mother asking the son
to clean a room. Father was not worried because his son has a “mental condition,” is
prone to outbursts, and is not violent. Mother testified that she ignored his threat, as
Father’s oldest son just “say[s] stuff” and Mother is “used to that.” Mother clarified
that the son was upset because he could not see J.B., so his outburst was “completely
understandable.” Father testified that his oldest son came over to the house “all the
time.” Yet, Mother testified that Father’s oldest son had not been back to Mother’s
house since that incident. Father also explained that his oldest son’s girlfriend was
arrested near, but not in, Mother’s house after she “pulled a knife out” on his son.
3. Visitation
{¶28} Beresford described Mother’s and Father’s visitation with J.B. as
“inconsistent.” In 2023, supervised visitation took place at HCJFS because Mother
had resisted completing the intake paperwork for Family Nurturing Center. Beresford
explained that Mother and Father visited Ja.B. and Jo.B. at Family Nurturing Center
and Mother was concerned that employees would hold biases against the family.
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Beresford described Mother’s and Father’s interactions with J.B. during those visits as
positive and a reflection of a bond between J.B. and both Mother and Father.
{¶29} But Beresford recalled that Mother and Father had “several missed
visits and periods of time where parents were not visiting.” There were “nine either
no-shows by the parents or they arrived after the 14-minute window whereby we
cancelled the visit.” Father told Beresford that he missed a visit because of a court date,
and Mother reported transportation issues. HCJFS attempted to help the parents with
bus passes, but Mother asked for bus tickets “on demand, and they’re not always
immediately available.” Other times, Mother cancelled visits with J.B. because of her
work schedule. While HCJFS rescheduled those visits, “Mother missed [some] follow-
up visit[s] as well.” According to Beresford, both Mother and Father were reactive and
“escalated verbally” when they learned that their visits had to be cancelled.
{¶30} Mother and Father eventually completed the Family Nurturing Center
intake forms but only visited J.B. at Family Nurturing Center once on June 15, 2023.
According to Beresford, Father’s oldest son’s unauthorized presence at that visit
created an issue. Mother and Father both described feeling uncomfortable that a male
staff member took J.B. to the bathroom. And both described feeling unsafe at Family
Nurturing Center due to its location.
{¶31} HCJFS ultimately referred the family to JusticeWorks in July 2023.
Mother and Father were placed on a waitlist, and Beresford asked Mother to continue
visiting J.B. at Family Nurturing Center. Mother insisted that visitation return to
HCJFS, but that was not possible. At the September 27, 2023 hearing, Mother testified
that the Family Nurturing Center visit was “the last time” she had seen J.B.
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶32} Father testified in April 2024 that visitation had been going well at
JusticeWorks until he was “shot randomly out of nowhere” in December 2023. Father
was bedridden for two months and the family returned to the waitlist.
{¶33} Following the April 2024 hearing, the magistrate issued her decision
granting permanent custody of J.B. to HCJFS. Mother and Father objected. After
conducting an independent review of the issues and evidence, the juvenile court
overruled Mother’s and Father’s objections, and “accepted and approved” the
magistrate’s decision as the decision of the juvenile court, and awarded HCJFS
permanent custody of J.B.
II. Analysis
{¶34} Both Mother and Father challenge the juvenile court’s awarding HCJFS
permanent custody of J.B., arguing that the juvenile court’s decision is supported by
insufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
A. Appellate review in permanent-custody cases
{¶35} Under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4), a juvenile court may award a child-services
agency permanent custody of a child who has been adjudicated dependent if the
juvenile court makes two findings. First, it must find, “by clear and convincing
evidence, that [] the child cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time
or should not be placed with the parents.” In re K.H., 2024-Ohio-5292, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.).
Second, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that “permanent custody is in
the child’s best interest.” Id.
{¶36} Clear and convincing evidence is a “‘degree of proof which is more than
a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is
required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.’” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703,
¶ 7, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
When a statute requires clear and convincing evidence, we review a lower court’s
judgment and findings under sufficiency and manifest-weight standards. Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶37} To review the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court “must assess
whether the facts, record evidence, and inferences supporting the juvenile court’s
disposition were adequate to sustain the juvenile court’s statutory determinations.” In
re S/F Children, 2025-Ohio-822, ¶ 36 (1st Dist.), citing In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247,
¶ 15 (1st Dist.). This court defers to the juvenile court’s factual determinations when
competent, credible evidence supports them. Id., quoting In re A.Y.C., 2023-Ohio-
4494, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.).
{¶38} We will reverse a decision as against the manifest weight of the evidence
only if we determine that the juvenile court’s judgment “created ‘a manifest
miscarriage of justice.’” Id. at ¶ 38, citing In re B.J., 2021-Ohio-373, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.).
We review the entire record to determine if the juvenile court “lost its way . . . in
resolving conflicts in the evidence.” Id., quoting In re B.J. at ¶ 14. In other words, the
juvenile court’s permanent-custody decision will not be reversed if the record contains
“competent, credible evidence that the essential statutory elements for permanent
custody have been established by clear and convincing evidence.” In re C.L., 2023-
Ohio-462, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.).
B. J.B.’s placement with Mother or Father
{¶39} A juvenile court must consider the 16 enumerated factors listed in R.C.
2151.414(E), and “all relevant evidence,” when determining if a child adjudicated
dependent “cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time
or should not be placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.353(A)(4); see R.C. 2151.414(E).
The juvenile court may rest its determination that a child cannot or should not be
placed with either parent on a finding that a single R.C. 2151.414(E) factor exists. See
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
In re Z.F., 2024-Ohio-1698, ¶ 41 (1st Dist.).
{¶40} Here, the magistrate and juvenile court relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1),
(4), (10), and (11) to find that J.B. could not or should not be placed with either Mother
or Father.
1. Remedying the conditions that caused J.B.’s removal
{¶41} Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the juvenile court had to consider whether
Mother and Father, despite HCJFS’s reasonable case planning and efforts to assist
them, “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions” that
initially caused J.B.’s placement outside the home. The juvenile court must consider
whether, and to what extent, the parents used services made available to help them
change their conduct and “maintain parental duties.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).
{¶42} The juvenile court found that Mother and Father failed to remedy their
domestic-violence and mental-health issues. The magistrate cited Father’s failure to
engage with case-plan services related to J.B.’s older siblings and noted, “Due to the
history of the other children, HCJFS was relieved from [its] obligation to provide
reasonable efforts to reunify the family.”
{¶43} But “‘a case plan relating to a prior matter cannot be used to satisfy [R.C.
2151.414(E)(1)] where the agency seeks permanent custody as the initial disposition.’”
In re B.S., 2018-Ohio-4645, ¶ 65 (4th Dist.), quoting In re Ward, 2000 Ohio App.
LEXIS 3519, *5 (4th Dist. Aug. 2, 2000). That is so because R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)’s focus
“is on the efforts made to remedy the problems after the child is removed from the
home.” In re B.S. at ¶ 61, quoting In re Ward at *5. We note that several Ohio courts
have questioned reliance on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) when an initial complaint seeks
permanent custody of the child and the child-services agency does not provide the
parent with an opportunity to rectify the cause for removal. See In re B.B., 2021-Ohio-
14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
2299, ¶ 51 (10th Dist.); see also In re Destiny C., 2008-Ohio-5292, ¶ 25 (6th Dist.); In
re B.S. at ¶ 61. While there was a case plan filed for the parents in this case, HCJFS’s
efforts fell short of the diligent efforts referenced by the statute.
{¶44} But we do not have to consider whether R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applies
because there is clear and convincing evidence that other statutory factors applied to
J.B.’s case. And “[a] proper finding of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors is
sufficient to sustain a conclusion that the children cannot now, or in a reasonable time,
be reunited.” In re Destiny C. at ¶ 25.
2. Mother’s and Father’s commitment to J.B.
{¶45} Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), a child cannot or should not be placed with
either parent within a reasonable time where clear and convincing evidence shows that
the parents lack commitment toward the child, evidenced by their failure to regularly
“support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by other actions
showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.”
{¶46} The magistrate found that Mother and Father failed to engage in
services or demonstrate behavioral changes necessary for a safe reunification. Plus,
she found that Mother and Father repeatedly abandoned J.B. As for the juvenile court,
it cited Mother’s and Father’s inconsistent visitation and failure to remedy the issues
that brought J.B. into HCJFS’s care.
{¶47} Infrequent visitation with a child can establish a parent’s lack of
commitment. See In re Y.H., 2023-Ohio-4554, ¶ 41 (1st Dist.). In In re Y.H., this court
determined that R.C. 2151.414(E) had been satisfied when “Father missed more visits
than he attended [and] [w]hile Father testified to having transportation and work
issues, those conflicts do not explain all of the missed visits.” Id. Plus, we cited Y.H.’s
father’s “trouble understanding that Mother’s turbulent behavior posed a safety risk
15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to the children” as evidence of his “unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent
home for the child.” Id. at ¶ 63.
{¶48} Similarly, a lack of commitment has been found when “parents
attended approximately half of the scheduled visits with their son,” the parents never
progressed to unsupervised visits, the parents were uncooperative with service
providers, and the parents failed to inform the agency of the father’s conviction and
jail sentence. See In re G.K., 2008-Ohio-5442, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.).
{¶49} Following a review of the record, we conclude that the juvenile court’s
findings are supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶50} Beresford described Mother’s and Father’s lack of consistent visits with
J.B. at HCJFS. She explained that Mother and Father resisted filling out the Family
Nurturing Center intake forms, which delayed visitation with J.B. And the parents
refused to continue visitation at Family Nurturing Center when they were placed on a
waitlist at a different visitation center. Plus, Mother testified in late September 2023
that she had not seen J.B. since the June 15, 2023 Family Nurturing Center visit. In
other words, Mother and Father went more than three months without seeing J.B.
{¶51} Testimony and police reports support the juvenile court’s finding that
Mother and Father failed to address domestic-violence concerns. Beresford described
a phone call where Mother had locked herself in a room with J.B. because Father was
“screaming” at Mother. Father signed an affidavit describing Mother’s attempt to stab
him with a butcher knife in his sleep. And both Mother and Father minimized Father’s
son’s threat to kill Mother.
{¶52} Mother and Father both testified that the domestic-violence charges
and convictions were the product of a cycle of mutual retaliation, with each falsely
accusing the other of domestic violence as a form of revenge. The magistrate, however,
16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
rejected those explanations as incredible. The magistrate’s ability to see and hear both
Mother’s and Father’s testimony warrants deference. See State v. Carson, 2019-Ohio-
4550, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.).
3. Abandonment
{¶53} Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10), the juvenile court shall find that the child
cannot or should not be placed with either parent where clear and convincing evidence
shows that the child has been abandoned. A child is abandoned where the parents did
not visit or maintain contact with the child for more than 90 days, even if the parents
later resume contact with the child. In re P/W Children, 2020-Ohio-3513, ¶ 31 (1st
Dist.), quoting R.C. 2151.011(C).
{¶54} The magistrate identified three 90-day periods without contact between
the parents and J.B.: (1) before Mother and Father’s June 2023 visit at Family
Nurturing Center; (2) from the Family Nurturing Center visit to the end of September
2023; and (3) from December 2023 to April 2024. The juvenile court cited the second
and third periods of time to find that Mother and Father abandoned J.B.
{¶55} Sufficient clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s
abandonment finding. On September 27, 2023, Mother testified that the last time she
had visited with J.B. was at the Family Nurturing Center. Exhibits show that this visit
occurred on June 15, 2023, more than 90 days before Mother testified. When Mother
and Father were placed on a waitlist for visitation at JusticeWorks, they refused
visitation at Family Nurturing Center. This evidence also shows that the juvenile
court’s finding on abandonment is consistent with the weight of the evidence.
4. A legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for J.B.
{¶56} The final statutory factor cited as evidence that J.B. cannot and should
not be returned to Mother and Father is their inability to provide a legally secure
17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
permanent placement. Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), juvenile courts are required to find
that a child cannot and should not be placed with either parent when (1) parental rights
were “involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling”; and (2) the parents “failed
to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior
termination, [they] can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate
care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(11).
{¶57} Under the statute, a prior involuntary termination of parental rights
creates a rebuttable presumption of unfitness. In re A.W., 2022-Ohio-3715, ¶ 23 (1st
Dist.). The parents have the burden of proving that they can provide a legally secure
placement for the child. Id. at ¶ 24. A legally secure placement includes “‘“a stable
environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults who
will provide for the child’s needs.”’” Id. at ¶ 23, quoting In re A.D., 2022-Ohio-2346,
¶ 20 (1st Dist.), quoting In re D.V., 2022-Ohio-1024, ¶ 30 (1st Dist.).
{¶58} There is no dispute that the juvenile court awarded HCJFS permanent
custody of J.B.’s older siblings. The magistrate found that Mother and Father cannot
provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequately care for J.B.’s health,
welfare, and safety because of Mother’s and Father’s untreated mental-health issues
and persistent domestic-violence issues. The juvenile court also cited Mother’s and
Father’s failures to remedy the conditions that brought J.B. into HCJFS’s custody.
{¶59} Mother argues that the evidence proved that she has a stable income
and residence. She also points to her testimony describing what she learned from the
domestic-violence services, demonstrating her understanding of the need to remove
herself from unsafe environments.
{¶60} Mother further argues that HCJFS failed to satisfy its burden under this
factor, but R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) shifts the burden to the parent to rebut the
18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
presumption created by the previous termination of parental rights over a sibling. See
In re A.W., 2022-Ohio-3715, at ¶ 24 (1st Dist.).
{¶61} Father points to his and Mother’s adequate housing and income to
support J.B. He explains that the domestic-violence issue is not a true reflection of
their parental ability and relationship because the concerns are the product of false
reports to the police.
{¶62} But the juvenile court’s findings are supported by sufficient evidence
and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As discussed, the magistrate
found that Mother’s and Father’s explanations of the domestic-violence charges were
incredible. The affidavits in the record undercut Mother’s and Father’s claims of their
ability to provide a stable, legally secure permanent placement.
{¶63} In sum, there is sufficient clear and convincing evidence supporting the
juvenile court’s findings that Mother and Father (1) demonstrated a lack of
commitment to J.B., (2) abandoned J.B., and (3) failed to prove that they can provide
a legally secure placement for J.B. under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), (10), and (11). Moreover,
those findings are consistent with the weight of the evidence. Because these factors are
present, the juvenile court appropriately found that J.B. cannot and should not be
placed with either Mother or Father.
C. J.B’s best interest
{¶64} Turning to the second prong of our inquiry, we note that Father did not
challenge the juvenile court’s best-interest findings. Therefore, based on our holding
in section B above, we overrule Father’s assignment of error and confine our
consideration of the best-interest factors to Mother’s arguments.
{¶65} In all custody matters, the child’s best interest is paramount. See In re
D.A., 2007-Ohio-1105, ¶ 11. A court determining a child’s best interest must consider
19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the factors enumerated under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and all other relevant factors. In re
A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102, ¶ 19. No single factor controls the best-interest analysis. See
In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513, ¶ 56. Rather, the best interest of a child reflects the
totality of the circumstances. See In re N.R.S., 2018-Ohio-125, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.).
{¶66} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)’s best-interest factors are:
(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 . . . ;
(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;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).
{¶67} Mother first argues that the juvenile court failed to discuss each
statutory factor. But the Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that “R.C.
2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best-
interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e).” In re A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102,
¶ 31. While “it is preferable for a juvenile court to provide some discussion or analysis
of the best-interest factors to aid in appellate review and to increase confidence in its
decision, [] the statute itself requires only that the court consider those factors.” Id. at
¶ 42. Plus, the only factor absent from the juvenile court’s R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) analysis
is “[w]hether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in
20 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
relation to the parents and child.” R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e). The juvenile court’s findings
concerning whether J.B. could not or should not be placed with Mother or Father were
based on its “consideration of all factors” and its findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10)
and (11). So, the juvenile court did consider R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11), which is all
that the statute requires.
{¶68} The juvenile court’s best-interest findings began with recognizing J.B.’s
bond with Mother and Father. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). But it determined that
Mother’s failure to remedy the conditions that prompted J.B.’s removal from the home
demonstrated that a legally secure permanent placement could not be achieved
without awarding HCJFS permanent custody of J.B. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).
{¶69} Mother argues that there is no evidence that she cannot parent or
protect her child, or that J.B. was in danger in Mother’s care. But as discussed,
Beresford’s description of the phone call with Mother and the affidavits in the record
constitute sufficient clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s and Father’s ongoing
domestic-violence issues. And the juvenile court’s decision is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence simply because it did not believe Mother’s and Father’s
testimony. See In re B.O.J., 2010-Ohio-791, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.).
{¶70} Therefore, we overrule Mother’s assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶71} We overrule Mother’s and Father’s assignments of error and affirm the
juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of J.B. to HCJFS.
Judgment affirmed.
NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., concur.