[Cite as In re L.D., 2026-Ohio-546.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: L.D. and H.D. : APPEAL NO. C-250607 TRIAL NO. F/23/530 X :
:
: JUDGMENT ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be 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 2/18/2026 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re L.D., 2026-Ohio-546.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: L.D. and H.D. : APPEAL NO. C-250607 TRIAL NO. F/23/530 X :
: OPINION
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 18, 2026
Alana Van Gundy, for Appellant Mother,
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy A. Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Shawn Moore, Appellee Guardian ad Litem for the minor children. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s grant
of permanent custody of her two children, L.D. and H.D., to the Hamilton County
Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). In her sole assignment of error,
Mother argues that the judgment of the court was not supported by sufficient evidence
and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below,
Mother’s arguments are not well taken, and the judgment of the juvenile court is
affirmed.
I. Factual and Procedural History
A. Pretrial
{¶2} At the heart of this appeal was a family of five: Mother, Father, and their
three children. Only the family’s two minor children, L.D., born in 2011, and H.D.,
born in 2014, are the focus of this case.
{¶3} On April 7, 2023, Father committed suicide. The next day, HCJFS filed
an ex parte emergency custody petition. HCJFS’s affidavit in support stated that in
2022 Mother was involuntarily hospitalized at UC Medical Center for 31 days by the
Hamilton County Probate Court. HCJFS noted that following Mother’s release it had
continued to observe Mother in an active state of psychosis. HCJFS’s case remained
open for six months before it closed its case upon concluding that the children were
safe with Father because he was able to supervise Mother’s visits with the children.
The court granted the ex parte order, and the children were placed with their paternal
grandparents.
{¶4} On June 2, 2023, HCJFS filed its initial case plan, which identified
several concerns with Mother. These concerns included Mother’s mental health, her
ability to meet the children’s needs, and her ability to provide a secure environment
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
for the children. The plan also requested that she complete a diagnostic assessment
and engage with HCJFS. The magistrate adopted the case plan.
{¶5} On July 6, 2023, the magistrate adjudicated L.D. and H.D. dependent.
Among the considerations relied upon by the court was a stipulation that Mother was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that she was observed “to be in a state of active
psychosis on multiple occasions.”
{¶6} On August 15, 2024, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody
to permanent custody. The court set the matter for trial.
B. Trial
{¶7} Over the course of the trial, the magistrate heard from several witnesses,
including Mother, the children’s paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”), Shawn
Moore, who served as the children’s guardian ad litem, as well as Sara Cruz and Leah
McKinney, two HCJFS caseworkers who had worked on the case from 2023 to 2025.
1. Mother’s Testimony
{¶8} Mother testified that she believed that she was ready for the children to
come home. Mother said she was ready to provide for her children and that she wanted
to get a home for the family. Mother, however, testified that her finances were limited,
because she was disabled and could not work. Mother testified that she has applied for
disability and Social Security benefits, and that she intended to apply for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families benefits when the children came home. While she
awaited the outcome of her benefits claims, she has relied on her roommate to pay her
rent and the financial contributions from her family to get by.
{¶9} Mother also testified about her current housing. She explained that she
lives with a male roommate and that she has rooms available for the children. Mother
also testified that for several months in 2023, another roommate was in her home, and
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that this man would drink, act erratically, and keep illicit substances in the home.
Despite testifying she did not feel safe, she did not explain why this roommate was
allowed to stay in her home for months.
{¶10} Mother also testified about her mental-health treatment. Mother
testified that in May 2022 and February 2024 the probate court ordered that she be
involuntarily hospitalized over concerns that she was a threat to herself and others.
Mother insisted that doctors reached this conclusion because they were not aware that
she had ADHD and PTSD, and that this lack of a baseline resulted in two misdiagnoses.
Mother ultimately agreed that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by licensed
medical professionals.
2. Mother’s 2024 Hospitalization
{¶11} Several exhibits were introduced that had led up to Mother’s 2024
hospitalization, including the audio recording from Mother’s 9-1-1 calls and
responding police officers’ body-worn-camera (“BWC”) footage. On the night of
February 4, police were dispatched to Mother’s home and asked if everything was
okay. Mother stated that she intentionally set off her home’s security system, and that
the police and Women Helping Women were to escort Mother from her home to a safe
undisclosed location that she would share with police on the way.
{¶12} Despite stating that she intentionally set off the alarm, Mother also
believed that someone was hacking into her home’s security system, but she was not
sure who it was. When police asked Mother to clarify what exactly was going on,
Mother explained that guns and money had gone missing and Father was responsible.
Mother also claimed that several aggrieved parties were now out to get her since Father
was gone. Mother called Women Helping Women, and after speaking with both
Mother and one of the responding police officers, the operator informed Mother that
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
no escort was coming, and that Women Helping Women was planning on contacting
her the following day.
{¶13} On February 5, Mother called 9-1-1 twice, and police visited her in the
morning and afternoon. During the second call, Mother requested a security detail,
explained that she would be wearing a blonde wig to feel safer, and that she would be
taken to a safe place where she would see her children and that people would take care
of them.
{¶14} Police returned to Mother’s home and invited a social worker to speak
with her. Mother reiterated that people were “out to get her” and that she was waiting
on her escort. The social worker told police that she believed Mother was having a
manic episode, and that she should be evaluated at a hospital. Mother agreed to be
evaluated and was peacefully escorted to Christ Hospital.
{¶15} HCJFS also admitted Mother’s hospital records from the visit. Mother
underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which determined that she was having a manic
episode and diagnosed her with bipolar disorder. Despite Mother stating on her intake
form that she had no history of mental-health disorders, her attending doctor noted
that a review of outside health records revealed that Mother was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder in 2022. During her 2024 stay, Mother’s records noted that her
paranoia persisted, and that she believed that people with guns were out to kill her.
{¶16} Mother’s YouTube videos were also played at trial. These videos
displayed Mother acting erratically and at times paranoid.
3. Grandmother’s Testimony
{¶17} Grandmother testified that the children are thriving in her care. Since
being placed in her home, the children are doing fine in school, making friends, and
living comfortably. Grandmother stated if provided the opportunity to adopt the
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
children, she would not hesitate. When asked if she would be willing to ensure that the
children and Mother have a relationship, Grandmother provided a mixed response.
Specifically, Grandmother explained that while H.D. continues to communicate with
Mother, L.D. has remained adamant that he does not want a relationship with Mother.
L.D. had only communicated with Mother once since being placed with Grandmother.
Grandmother testified that if the children wish to have a relationship with Mother, she
would not intervene, but she also would not force L.D. into doing something he was
uncomfortable with.
4. Leah McKinney’s and Sara Cruz’s Testimony
{¶18} McKinney testified that she was the case manager from July 2023 until
August 2024. She expressed concern over Mother’s failure to be candid with her about
Mother’s 2024 hospitalization, as well as with her lack of familiarity with Mother’s
roommate.
{¶19} Cruz assisted with the case from 2024 to the present. Cruz recalled
several concerns with Mother, one being that she was unable to process her for a
diagnostic assessment of functioning. While Mother signed three releases of
information, Mother modified these releases, which limited HCJFS’s ability to verify
what mental-health services Mother was involved in. Cruz testified that as a result she
was unable to speak freely with Mother’s mental-health care providers.
{¶20} Like McKinney, Cruz had concerns with the children living with Mother.
These include that HCJFS was unfamiliar with Mother’s roommate, that Mother was
unable to remove someone from the home who made her feel unsafe and engaged in
illicit behavior, and that Mother provided no proof of income. HCJFS’s primary
concern with Mother was her mental health, but Mother remained insistent that she
was not bipolar. Cruz testified that she wanted to see a behavioral change in Mother
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that would indicate that she could handle her manic episodes safely and that she did
not pose a risk to the children or herself. Cruz, however, testified that she has not yet
seen this change.
{¶21} Both McKinney and Cruz testified that granting permanent custody to
HCJFS would be in the children’s best interest.
5. Shawn Moore’s Testimony
{¶22} Moore testified that he had served as the children’s guardian ad litem
since April 2023. Based on his interactions with Mother, Moore believed that Mother
was not candid about her mental health. He recalled that Mother offered several
explanations for her 2024 hospitalization, including that she was not feeling well, that
she could not afford her medication, that she was starving, and that the real reason
would “come out in trial.” Moore also recalled that Mother believed that it was either
the other roommate, members of Father’s family, or the gangs in the neighborhood
that had hacked her security system.
{¶23} Moore’s concerns with Mother extended beyond her 2024
hospitalization. Moore recalled several troubling allegations made by Mother,
including that members of Father’s family wanted to kill her and that they were
abusing the children. While according to Moore Mother refused to share the evidence,
she claimed that she kept undeveloped film that if developed would supposedly show
Father engaged in a sexual act with a minor. Mother also claimed to be keeping what
she believed to be a stick of dynamite, which was actually just a road flare, inside of
her home. Moore expressed concern that he could not verify Mother’s participation in
mental-health services.
{¶24} Moore testified that given Mother’s remarks, the uncertainty
surrounding her mental health, and her financial and food insecurity, he believed that
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
it was in the children’s best interest to remain in their current kinship placement and
that permanent custody be granted to HCJFS.
C. Post-Trial Motions and Entries
{¶25} On May 19, 2025, the magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS.
In the magistrate’s entry, she noted that the children were in agency custody for more
than 12 months during a 22-month period, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B). The
magistrate went on to find that the children could not be placed with Mother in a
reasonable time because Mother failed to stabilize her mental health and therefore
failed to remedy what prompted the children’s removal from the home. R.C.
2151.414(E)(1). The magistrate also noted that Mother could not provide a permanent
home for the children within one year. R.C. 2151.414(E)(2).
{¶26} The magistrate then assessed factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e) and
concluded that permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s best interest.
Considering the (D)(1)(a) factor, the children’s interaction with family, the magistrate
noted that the children are bonded with their grandparents and that L.D. has refused
to contact Mother for two years. While H.D. is bonded to Mother, the magistrate noted
that this bond is secondary to the evidence that Mother has failed to remedy her
profound mental-health issues. Likewise, under the (D)(1)(b) factor, the children’s
wishes, the magistrate noted that both children wish to remain with their
grandparents. When considering the (D)(1)(c) and (D)(1)(d) factors, the custodial
history and the children’s need for a secure placement, the magistrate stated that it is
statutorily impossible to prolong HCJFS’s temporary custody, and that the only way a
secure placement could be achieved was by granting HCJFS permanent custody. The
magistrate further concluded that the considerations underlying the (D)(1)(e) factor
were inapplicable. The magistrate recognized that Mother clearly loves her children,
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
but that it is equally clear that she has not adequately treated her mental-health
disorders, and as a result, the children cannot be reunited with Mother.
{¶27} Mother and Mother’s guardian ad litem timely objected and argued that
the magistrate’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court
took written arguments from the parties in response to the objections, and upon
completion of an independent review of the record, affirmed and adopted the
magistrate’s decision.
{¶28} This appeal followed.
II. Analysis
A. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight
{¶29} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the court’s grant of
permanent custody was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶30} In reviewing a juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights
under R.C. 2151.414, the court applies a sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or a manifest-
weight standard of review, in accordance with the arguments raised. In re Z.C., 2023-
Ohio-4703, ¶ 11. These are distinct concepts, as a sufficiency challenge attacks whether
a party met its burden of production, whereas a manifest-weight challenge disputes
whether a party satisfied its burden of persuasion. State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-
4562, ¶ 26, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390 (1997) (Cook, J.,
concurring).
{¶31} When faced with a sufficiency challenge, we must independently review
the evidence to determine if the court’s decision is supported by clear and convincing
evidence. In re C/S Children, 2025-Ohio-1639, ¶ 32 (1st Dist.), citing In re K.D., 2024-
Ohio-5582, ¶ 48 (1st Dist.). “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence sufficient to
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought
to be established.” Id., quoting In re Ar. L., 2024-Ohio-231, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.).
{¶32} By contrast, when reviewing a manifest-weight challenge, we must
“[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the
witnesses, and determine whether—in resolving the conflicts in the evidence—the
juvenile court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice
that the judgment must be reversed.” In re Ar. L. at ¶ 25.
{¶33} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes that for a juvenile court to award
permanent custody to the state agency, the court must make two findings. C/S
Children at ¶ 34, citing Ar. L. at ¶ 26. The court must first determine if one of the R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) factors applies and then assess whether permanent custody is in
the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e).
{¶34} However, Mother does not take issue with any single statutory finding
by the court, nor does Mother cite any case law in furtherance of her arguments.
Instead, Mother supports her sole assignment of error with what we categorize as
procedural and evidentiary issues. We first review Mother’s arguments and then
assess the court’s application of the R.C. 2151.414(B) and (D) factors.
1. Alleged Procedural Errors
{¶35} Mother argues three procedural defects occurred at trial. These include
HCJFS’s failures to refer Mother for a diagnostic assessment of function, to comply
with a court order to place L.D. and H.D. in therapy, and to make reasonable efforts to
reunite the family. However, because Mother has solely framed her assignment of
error as sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges, we are limited to assessing
whether these arguments demonstrate that the juvenile court’s grant of permanent
custody was not supported by sufficient evidence or was against the manifest weight
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
of the evidence. As an appellate court, we pass judgment on assignments of error, “not
mere arguments.” State v. Lear, 2023-Ohio-3442, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), citing Mun. Tax
Invest. LLC v. Northup Reinhardt Corp., 2019-Ohio-4867, ¶ 24 (10th Dist.). App.R.
12(A)(1)(b) obligates appellate courts to “determine the appeal on the merits on the
assignments of error set forth in [the] brief.” Mother did not identify how her
procedural arguments relate to her sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to the
court’s grant of permanent custody to HCJFS.
{¶36} To the extent that we interpret Mother’s procedural arguments as
relating to her sole assignment of error, her arguments are not persuasive. The court
recognized that HCJFS expended diligent efforts to refer Mother, but her
modifications to her releases of information delayed HCJFS’s ability to refer Mother
for treatment services. While Mother takes issue with HCJFS’s failure to place the
children in therapy, such a failure does not outweigh the abundance of evidence
introduced at trial that the children’s best interests were furthered by granting
permanent custody to HCJFS.
2. Alleged Evidentiary Errors
{¶37} Mother raises two challenges: that there was insufficient evidence in the
record to show that Mother’s mental health would impact her ability to parent, and
that the court erroneously admitted Mother’s YouTube videos without first
authenticating them. Mother does not identify how the court’s alleged erroneous
admission of evidence relates to her sufficiency and manifest-weight arguments under
her assignment of error. Again, we endeavor to interpret Mother’s challenge of alleged
inadmissible evidence as supporting her sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to
the court’s grant of permanent custody.
{¶38} Mother’s first claim is not supported by the record. Mother stipulated
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that she was involuntarily hospitalized and testified that she had been diagnosed with
bipolar disorder. HCJFS offered and the magistrate admitted Mother’s 2024
hospitalization record, which diagnosed Mother with “bipolar disorder, current
episode manic severe with psychotic features,” and recognized that she has previously
been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The children’s guardian ad litem and HCJFS
caseworkers testified they have real concerns with Mother’s failure to manage her
bipolar disorder and that this in turn would hamper her ability to provide a safe home
for the children. While Mother takes issue with the absence of expert medical
testimony concerning Mother’s mental health, Mother fails to cite to any case law in
support of her proposition that such testimony is required.
{¶39} As to Mother’s claim concerning the admission of the YouTube videos,
because Mother did not challenge the admission of the YouTube videos below, Mother
waived all but plain-error review on appeal. Kelley v. Horton, 2025-Ohio-5252, ¶ 22
(1st Dist.), citing Anders v. Seitz, 2023-Ohio-668, ¶ 15, fn. 3 (12th Dist.). However,
Mother has not raised a plain-error argument, and we decline to do so on her behalf.
See In re G.W., 2024-Ohio-1551, ¶ 24. We therefore decline to address the merits of
Mother’s evidentiary argument.
{¶40} Therefore, Mother’s evidentiary arguments are not well taken.
3. Permanent-Custody Factors
{¶41} The record demonstrates that the children remained in agency custody
for more than 12 months during a consecutive 22-month period, and thus R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d) was satisfied.
{¶42} Likewise, the court’s best-interest analysis was supported by clear and
convincing evidence as the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors weigh in favor of granting
permanent custody to HCJFS. While Mother arguably has a relationship with one of
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
her children, both children wish to remain with Grandmother, and based on the
duration the children remained in custody, the court could not prolong HCJFS’s
temporary custody. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(c).
{¶43} Further, and most importantly, Mother cannot satisfy the children’s
need for a legally secure placement. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d). While Mother insists
that she has a home for the children to live in, secure placement is “more than a house
with four walls.” See In re K.D., 2024-Ohio-5582, at ¶ 53 (1st Dist.), quoting In re S.D.,
2020-Ohio-3379, ¶ 82.
{¶44} While Mother may have a home for the children, Mother has been
largely dismissive and in denial that she has bipolar disorder, despite twice being
involuntarily hospitalized for manic episodes. Mother’s own conduct has frustrated
HCJFS’s ability to refer her for mental-health services. The testimony from Mother,
HCJFS caseworkers, and the children’s guardian ad litem demonstrate that Mother
has not managed her mental health. The record reflects that Mother has failed to
adequately treat her mental health, which was the impetus for the children’s removal
from her home in the first place. By persistently being in denial about her condition,
Mother has failed to demonstrate that if the children were to return to her home, she
could provide a safe and secure home while responsibly managing her episodes.
{¶45} Beyond Mother’s mental health, Mother offered no proof of income, had
yet to receive a decision on her disability- and Social-Security-benefits claims, and is
entirely reliant on the financial gifts of others to get by. Mother stated that she has not
paid rent since 2022, and HCJFS caseworkers testified that they are unfamiliar with
Mother’s roommate. Further, the court was free to consider that Mother testified that
she allowed another person to occupy her home, even though that person made her
feel unsafe and kept illicit substances in the home.
14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶46} Because the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody was supported
by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence,
Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶47} The judgment of juvenile court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., concur.