[Cite as In re K.L., 2026-Ohio-266.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE K.L. : No. 115381 A Minor Child :
[Appeal by Mother] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-23909622
Appearances:
Dawn Snyder, LLC, and Dawn Snyder, for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
Appellant-Mother (“Mother”) appeals from the juvenile court’s
decision awarding permanent custody of her minor child, K.L. (“the child”),
approximately 22 months old at the time of trial, to the Cuyahoga County Division
of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency”) after a hearing on the agency’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. After a
complete review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision.
On August 23, 2023, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging abuse and
dependency and requesting temporary custody of the child. The complaint
indicated that at the time of the child’s birth, the child tested positive for drugs and
suffered withdrawal symptoms, from which the child was still hospitalized. As to
the allegations regarding Mother, the complaint alleged that she (1) suffered from
substance-use issues with fentanyl and marijuana that she used during her
pregnancy; (2) lacked basic needs to provide care for the child, including stable
housing and necessary provisions; (3) suffered from mental-health disorders, which
she had been inconsistently addressing; (4) had other children “adjudicated” and
committed to the legal custody of a relative; and (5) had unresolved legal issues
related to her prior felony convictions. As to the allegations regarding the alleged
Father, the complaint alleged that he failed to establish paternity, and visit, support,
or communicate with the child.
A magistrate conducted a hearing on this same day at which Mother
did not appear, despite Mother calling the court to confirm the hearing. Based on
the testimony received and the allegations contained in the complaint, the court
granted the agency’s request for emergency predispositional temporary custody.
On October 5, 2023, CCDCFS filed an amended complaint alleging
abuse and dependency and requesting temporary custody of the child. The
amended complaint’s allegations were relatively the same regarding the child and Mother but added allegations against the child’s alleged Father. The complaint
clarified that Mother and alleged Father had four older children that were
adjudicated due in part to both parents’ substance abuse and Mother’s mental-
health issues. As to the allegations specifically regarding the alleged Father, the
complaint alleged that he was (1) currently incarcerated with pending charges; (2)
on probation for multiple felony convictions; and (3) failed to establish paternity.
Following a hearing on January 4, 2024, the juvenile court
adjudicated the child abused and dependent and granted the agency temporary
custody of the child.1 Neither Mother nor alleged Father attended the hearing. It
was reported that Mother’s absence was because she left the area because of
purported physical abuse by the child’s alleged Father. At the hearing, testimony
was offered that Mother had an active warrant for her arrest and was expelled from
a halfway house. CCDCFS social worker, Ebony Sheffey, testified that she had
contact with Mother. According to extended case worker, Mark Pountney, Mother
failed to (1) follow up with assessments; (2) sign the requested release of
information; (3) verify her address; and (4) visit the child since birth. The agency’s
case plan noted that Mother would not tell the agency her whereabouts in fear of
being arrested, did not agree with the case-plan services, and believed the child
should not have been removed from her care. The agency’s case-plan objectives
included (1) substance-use assessment; (2) mental-health assessment; (3) domestic-
1 The record reflects that obtaining service on Mother and alleged Father was problematic. violence counseling; (4) parenting classes; and (5) basic needs. The child’s guardian
ad litem (“GAL”) opined that temporary custody to the agency would be in the child’s
best interest.
In March 2024, the agency filed its semiannual administrative
review. The review noted that Mother reported that she was enrolled and actively
working through the services offered at Green Leaf and was nearly done with the
program. She reported she submitted to drug testing, and attended counseling,
therapy, and parenting classes. Mother, however, could not provide the agency with
a sobriety date. She stated that she was staying with a friend and available for weekly
visits with the child. She further stated that she “cleared up” her active warrants
before Christmas. Per the review, the agency needed to obtain a release of
information to verify Mother’s assertions, and according to Mother, nothing
prevented her from meeting with the agency and signing the release. Despite
Mother’s statements, the agency reported that Mother failed to follow through with
their requests, including visiting with the child.
On August 8, 2024, the agency moved to modify temporary custody
to permanent custody, contending that Mother failed to engage in any of the
required case-plan services and failed to visit with the child and that the alleged
Father failed to establish paternity and was currently incarcerated.
On August 12, 2024, the court held a review hearing at which Caitlin
Golich (“Golich”), the child’s assigned CCDCFS case worker, testified. She stated
that the agency had not received any documentation from Mother regarding her engagement in services. She stated that the agency had been limited in making
referrals for Mother because Mother had not executed a release of information to
allow the agency to release Mother’s personal information — Mother had been asked
twice to sign the release. Golich further testified that although Mother reported that
she was working with Green Leaf, an agency in Akron, Mother had failed to provide
any details, contact information, counselor names, or phone numbers. Golich stated
that when she tried to contact Green Leaf directly, she was “shut down very quickly
by them saying they don’t [give out information or facilitate signing a release].”
(Aug. 12, 2024; tr. 8.) She stated that the two times she spoke with Mother, Mother
stated that she could not visit with the child until she resolved her “legal stuff.” (Id.;
tr. 9.) Despite being given the opportunity, Mother had not visited the child since
birth. Golich offered testimony that Mother’s cousin had been identified as a viable
placement for the child, but no visits with cousin had occurred yet.
On August 22, 2024, an amended case plan was filed because “kinship
placement has been identified and approved by the agency. [The child] will begin
visitations with kinship with the goal of moving [the child] to a less restrictive
environment.” In November 2024, the agency withdrew this amended case plan,
following the receipt of a video demonstrating poor judgment on the part of the
potential relative placement.2
2 The video was discussed and reviewed at the September 17, 2024 status hearing. During this time frame, the court appointed counsel for both Mother
and the alleged Father and granted the agency’s motion for genetic testing to
establish paternity. Paternity was subsequently established in November 2024.
On February 4, 2025, the court conducted an arraignment hearing on
the agency’s complaint and motion to modify temporary custody to permanent
custody. Both Mother, who was serving a prison sentence at the Ohio Reformatory
for Women, and Father appeared before the court with counsel. The matter was
continued for trial.
On June 13, 2025, the juvenile court conducted a trial on the agency’s
motion for permanent custody. Mother, who was still serving a prison sentence at
the Ohio Reformatory for Women, attended the hearing and expressed her desire to
proceed without assigned counsel. Father also attended the hearing and expressed
dissatisfaction with assigned counsel but ultimately agreed to proceed with counsel.
The agency presented testimony from (1) Golich, (2) Danielle Smith, a family
advocate, and (3) Nancy Sin, the child’s GAL. Father and Mother also testified.
Relevant to the appeal, the court heard the following testimony.3
Golich testified that the child had been in agency custody since his
release from the hospital in August 2023. She stated that during this time, Mother
did not sign her case plan, appear for any assessments, or visit with the child.
Although Mother advised her during their two telephone conversations that she was
3 Father has not appealed. Accordingly, only the testimony relevant to Mother’s appeal will be discussed. working on programs through Green Leaf, she never provided Golich with any
documentation, nor did she sign a release to allow the agency to verify Mother’s
participation.
Golich further testified that Mother advised her that she could not
visit with the child because she had active arrest warrants. In fact, Mother was
incarcerated in August 2024 serving a prison sentence with an expected release date
of February 2026. Golich stated that she contacted individuals at the prison to
coordinate visitation with Mother and the child, but her attempts were unsuccessful.
She stated that despite leaving messages, no phone calls were returned. Golich
stated that in addition to making phone calls, she sent letters to Mother, requesting
Mother to have her case manager contact Golich to arrange visitation.
Regarding the child, Golich testified that he had been in agency
custody since birth. The child was born with a mass on his liver that required
consistent monitoring and also suffered from asthma that required treatments. She
said that the child had been with the same foster family and any potential placement
with relatives was unsuccessful. Golich stated that the child’s foster family meets
his basic and medical needs and that the child “demonstrates a very secure
attachment to his foster family. I also want to say he demonstrates a very secure
secondary attachment to like the neighborhood as a whole. He’s got a foster brother
who’s a little bit older. Friends come over. They all play, and you know, he’s an
unknown person. He’s very attached.” (June 13, 2025; tr. 36.) Danielle Smith, the CCDCFS family advocate assigned to the child’s
case, testified that she only spoke with Mother once during the pendency of the case.
During this conversation, Mother advised her that she was being released from
prison soon and that she was looking for housing to remove herself from the
domestic violence situation with Father.
Mother provided a statement to the court, denying that Golich ever
contacted her or her case worker while she was in prison. She stated that she was
granted early release for good behavior and was scheduled to be released from
prison on July 28, 2025. Mother stated that she completed all of her required
objectives for domestic violence, parenting, and mental-health assessments and was
currently taking medications to treat her mental health and substance use. She
stated that her family was going to help her obtain stable housing. Regarding her
other four children, she stated that although Summit County Children Services were
involved, she voluntarily relinquished her children to her family’s care while she was
incarcerated. Mother expressed her desire to care for the child and if the child could
not be placed with her, then the child should be with Father.
The GAL submitted a report prior to trial. During the trial, the GAL
stated that she had been with the case since the beginning, but yet only spoke to
Mother once. According to the GAL’s report, Mother stated that she would send
documentation that she completed all of her case-plan requirements, but the
documents submitted to the GAL did not involve the case-plan requirements. Regarding the child, the GAL noted the child’s health concerns, but
that he was “achieving all of his growth milestones.” The report provided that
[t]he child is attending daycare and is socially involved. The child’s needs are being met by foster family. He is thriving in the foster home and has established a significant bond with the foster family. The foster family [is] able and willing to adopt him. They will be able to provide a legally secure permanent placement, steady income for basic needs, and a nurturing environment for the child’s needs.
The GAL opined that granting permanent custody to the agency would be in the best
interest of the child.
On July 3, 2025, the juvenile court granted the agency’s motion to
modify temporary custody to permanent custody, terminating Mother and Father’s
parental rights. This appeal followed.
I. The Appeal
Mother’s sole assignment of error states:
The [juvenile] court erred and abused its discretion in finding that it would be in the best interests of the child to permanently terminate the parental rights of Mother and place the child in the permanent custody of CCDCFS.
The issue she specifically presents is “that the [juvenile] court’s finding that the child
cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or cannot be placed with
Mother was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Challenges to the manifest weight of the evidence require the
appellate court to “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the
credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.” In re Z.C.,
2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 14, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20.
R.C. 2151.414 permits a juvenile court to modify a child’s temporary
custody with a public services agency to permanent custody if, after a hearing, the
court determines by clear and convincing evidence that (1) one of the factors
enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) are applicable and (2) permanent
custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child. Clear and convincing
evidence is evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established. In re T.B., 2014-Ohio-2051, ¶ 28
(8th Dist.).
Regarding the first factor, the juvenile court found that R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied, which provides in relevant part, that “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.”
When assessing whether a 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 under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), a juvenile court must consider the factors
outlined in R.C. 2151.414(E). In re K.G., 2026-Ohio-127, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). If any one
or more of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors are found by clear and convincing evidence,
the court “shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent
within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.” (Emphasis
added.) R.C. 2151.414(E); see In re J.S., 2022-Ohio-4517 (8th Dist.). In support of the first prong, as applied to Mother, the juvenile court
found the factors under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (10) applicable. These provide:
(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.
...
(10) The parent has abandoned the child.
Specifically, the juvenile court found that Mother had not completed
any case-plan services and had not visited with the child. Further, the court stated
that Mother was incarcerated in August 2024 and her expected release date was in
February 2026. The court also noted a history of domestic violence between the
parents — a history that Mother admitted. Finally, the court stated that Mother
refused to disclose a verifiable address and that Mother had concerns about housing
once released from prison.
These findings are the focus of Mother’s appeal, contending that they
are contrary to law and against the manifest weight of the evidence. Our review of
the record reveals that the juvenile court’s finding that 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 was supported by clear and convincing evidence and thus
supported by the weight of the evidence.
Golich testified that the agency did not have any documentation or
verification that Mother completed any of her case-plan services, which included
substance-abuse services, mental-health and domestic-violence counseling, and
housing. Mother disputed this testimony, contending that she participated in the
requisite programs before she was incarcerated and completed her case-plan
objectives while she was incarcerated. Mother did not offer any documentation to
the juvenile court substantiating her claims.
A review of the entire record reveals that prior to Mother’s
incarceration, she advised CCDCFS case workers that she was participating in
programs at Green Leaf in Akron, Ohio. The agency repeatedly documented that
they were unable to verify this information because of Mother’s failure to sign the
requisite release of information — this lack of release was first documented in
January 2024 before Mother was even incarcerated. Accordingly, Mother’s attempt
to fault the agency for failing to verify whether she participated in or completed her
case-plan objectives is unpersuasive. No evidence was submitted supporting
Mother’s claims that she completed her case-plan objectives. Accordingly, the
juvenile court’s finding that Mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions
causing the child’s removal pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) was supported by the
record. The juvenile court’s finding that Mother failed to visit with the child
is undisputed. Mother admitted that she had not visited the child since his discharge
from the hospital, which was in August 2023. The child was almost two years old at
the time of the permanent custody trial.
Mother focuses her arguments on the agency’s failure to coordinate
visitation with her and the child while she was incarcerated. However, Mother
neglects to appreciate that she did not visit with her child prior to incarceration,
which was not the fault of the agency. From August 2023 until Mother’s
incarceration in August 2024, Mother failed to exercise any visitation with her child
because she knew she had active warrants for her arrest.
Accordingly, the juvenile court’s finding that Mother abandoned the
child pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) was supported by clear and convincing
evidence. A child is “presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed
to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of
whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.”
R.C. 2151.011(C). In this case, Mother had not visited the child for almost two years.
Finally, insofar as Mother challenges whether the agency made
“reasonable efforts” or “diligent efforts” to assist Mother with her case-plan
objectives, relying on this court’s decision in In re L.H., 2024-Ohio-2271 (8th Dist.),
we find the arguments unpersuasive. Although the facts and the parties appear
similar to this case, the key distinction in L.H. was that L.H.’s mother was no longer
incarcerated at the time of the permanent custody hearing, maintained visitation with her child, and had verifiably completed some of her case-plan objectives.
Moreover, the agency worker testified that the agency had not made certain referrals
for L.H.’s mother or contacted the halfway house to establish visitation. Based on
those facts, this court found that mother did not demonstrate a lack of commitment
to the child — contrary to the juvenile court’s findings. Id. at ¶ 45.
These identified facts in L.H. are significant because in the case before
this court, Mother was still incarcerated at the time of the permanent custody
hearing and not scheduled to be released from incarceration until February 2026.
Although Mother testified that she anticipated being released on good behavior in
six weeks, this information was not supported by any documentary evidence and
Mother did not request a continuance of the permanent custody hearing on this
basis. Moreover, Mother was not incarcerated during the entirety of the child’s life
and pendency of the case. Mother, unlike L.H.’s mother, had the opportunity to visit
with the child for the entire first year of the child’s life and start her case-plan
objectives. Mother failed to do so. Accordingly, we find L.H. distinguishable.
Based on the evidence demonstrating Mother’s failure to complete
her case-plan objectives and Mother’s abandonment of the child, the juvenile court’s
finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time
or should not be placed with either parent is supported by clear and convincing
evidence and thus, not against the manifest weight of the evidence.4 Mother has not
4 Father has not appealed, and Mother raises no arguments as they pertain to Father.
A cursory review of the juvenile court’s findings as they pertain to Father were also supported by clear and convincing evidence. Father was incarcerated for a majority of the raised any argument on appeal challenging the juvenile court’s best-interest
determination under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Accordingly, that finding will not be
addressed. Mother’s assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
child’s life and when finally released and paternity established, his visits with the child were sporadic. Testimony was presented that Father had not completed any verified assessments and had not made any progress on his case-plan objectives.