In re P.B.

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 31761
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re P.B., 2026-Ohio-1747.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: P.B. C.A. No. 31761

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DN 24 12 0848

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: May 13, 2026

SUTTON, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights and placed her child in the permanent

custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of P.B., born December 2, 2024. The

parents had six older children, all of whom were removed from their custody. A circuit court in

Monroe County, Indiana involuntarily terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to four

of those children after the parents had over two years to work to remedy the concerns that led to

the children’s removals.

{¶3} After recently relocating to Ohio, Mother gave birth at 34 weeks’ gestation to P.B.

who was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit (“NICU”) to address issues related to his

prematurity. CSB received a referral reporting that Mother and Father seemed indifferent to the 2

infant and only visited him twice in the four days after his birth. After investigation, the agency

learned of the parents’ history of involvement with child welfare services regarding six other

children, as well as their criminal and substance abuse histories. CSB filed a complaint alleging

that P.B. was a dependent child and obtained an emergency order of temporary custody.

{¶4} Mother and Father waived their rights to both an adjudicatory hearing and initial

dispositional hearing. By that time, the parents had left Ohio and relocated to Illinois. They

stipulated to the child’s dependency and placement in CSB’s temporary custody, visitation

provisions, and the adoption of the agency’s case plan as an order. The case plan required each

parent to obtain parenting evaluations and mental health assessments and follow all

recommendations arising therefrom, submit to drug screens upon request, obtain substance use

assessments upon testing positive or failing to screen and follow all subsequent recommendations,

execute necessary releases of information, and resolve all pending criminal warrants and charges.

{¶5} Just over three months into the case, CSB moved for permanent custody. The

agency alleged multiple statutory first-prong grounds and best interest considerations, focusing on

the parents’ prior involuntary terminations of parental rights regarding siblings of the child and

their abandonment of P.B. The permanent custody hearing took place eight months later. Mother

and Father attended remotely via Zoom. Their attorneys orally requested a six-month extension

of temporary custody to allow the parents additional time to work toward reunification.

{¶6} At the hearing, Mother neither testified nor presented a case in chief. After

considering the testimony of the CSB caseworker, Father, and the guardian ad litem, as well as

other evidence admitted, the juvenile court issued a judgment granting the agency’s motion,

denying the parents’ requests for a six-month extension of temporary custody, and terminating 3

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to P.B. Mother timely appealed and now raises one

assignment of error for review.

{¶7} As an initial matter, Mother has moved this Court to strike CSB’s responsive brief

or, alternatively, disregard the agency’s reference to any facts not included in Mother’s statement

of the facts based on its failure to comply with App.R. 16. CSB declined to include a statement of

facts relevant to the assignment of error as permitted by both App.R. 16(B) and Loc.R. 16(B).

Mother cites no authority for striking the appellee’s brief under these circumstances. Moreover,

in reviewing issues on appeal, this Court has a duty to review the whole record and is not

constrained from considering all facts relevant to the assigned errors, whether or not any party has

set forth each one in a statement of facts. While the better practice for an appellee may be to focus

this Court’s attention on the relevant facts salient to that party’s argument in the statement of facts,

the rules do not prohibit a party from referring to facts in the argument portion of the brief that are

not set out in the statement of facts. Accordingly, this Court declines Mother’s request to disregard

facts beyond those included in her statement of facts.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO [CSB] RATHER THAN GRANTING [MOTHER’S] REQUEST FOR A SIX- MONTH EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY.

{¶8} Rather than directly challenging the juvenile court’s award of permanent custody

of P.B. to CSB as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, Mother argues that the trial

court abused its discretion by denying her request for a first six-month extension of temporary

custody. This Court disagrees. 4

{¶9} The juvenile court “may” extend temporary custody for up to six months under

certain circumstances. R.C. 2151.415(D). We review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a

request for an extension for an abuse of discretion. In re P.H., 2021-Ohio-3726, ¶ 25 (9th Dist.),

citing In re A.S., 2017-Ohio-8984, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). The juvenile court abuses its discretion when

it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio

St.3d 217, 219 (1983). The trial court has authority to exercise its discretion to grant a first six-

month extension of temporary custody, however, only if the moving party has proved by clear and

convincing evidence all of the following: “the extension is in the best interest of the child, there

has been significant progress on the case plan of the child, and there is reasonable cause to believe

that the child will be reunified with one of the parents or otherwise permanently placed within the

period of extension.” R.C. 2151.415(D)(1); In re A.S. at ¶ 11 (9th Dist.).

{¶10} As the party moving for a six-month extension of temporary custody, Mother bore

the burden of proof. See In re R.S., 2023-Ohio-2224, ¶ 46 (9th Dist.) (holding parents responsible

for supporting their motions in child custody cases with the requisite burden of proof). Mother did

not testify or otherwise put on a case in chief in support of her request for an extension of temporary

custody. Nevertheless, as Mother’s counsel cross-examined both the caseworker and Father, this

Court will consider the testimony of both in determining whether there was clear and convincing

evidence to support a six-month extension.

{¶11} Mother argues that the evidence demonstrates that she made significant progress

on most of her case plan objectives. The record does not support her assertion.

{¶12} In the eight months after the case plan took effect, Mother failed to obtain a mental

health assessment and parenting evaluation. Father claimed to have completed a mental health

assessment the day before the hearing, but he had not executed a release of information to allow 5

the caseworker and guardian ad litem to verify and learn of the results. Father testified that he and

Mother were aware that the caseworker wanted them to undergo substance abuse assessments as

well, and that neither of them had complied with that request by the time of the hearing.

Accordingly, no services designed to alleviate the concerns underlying the child’s removal had

been identified or initiated.

{¶13} In addition, there was no evidence that the parents could meet the child’s basic

needs. Father testified that he and Mother secured housing 20 days before the hearing. Prior to

that, the parents’ whereabouts had either been unknown or in temporary lodging with others. The

parents failed to notify the caseworker and/or the guardian ad litem about their recently acquired

housing, so neither had the opportunity to assess its propriety. In any event, Mother failed to prove

that the parents had remedied their historic housing instability.

{¶14} There was further no evidence that the parents could meet the financial needs of the

child. Father testified that he and Mother had signed up with a temporary employment agency,

but that Mother had not had any jobs yet. He admitted that there were limited job opportunities

available where they lived in Mother’s area of experience, specifically, retail work. Father’s last

placement was a one-day job two weeks before the hearing. He testified that he earned

approximately $150 that day and that the parents’ rent and utilities are $650 per month. In the

absence of evidence of stable income, Mother did not demonstrate that the parents could meet

P.B.’s basic needs.

{¶15} Finally, Mother presented no evidence that she had resolved her criminal cases and

warrants. The caseworker testified and the guardian ad litem reported that Mother had a pending

felony child neglect charge and a misdemeanor public indecency charge. There were warrants for

her arrest in both cases. Father testified that he was aware that there was a current warrant for 6

Mother’s arrest in the misdemeanor case which mirrored his own criminal situation. He was not

aware of a warrant in the felony case, and he thought that case had been resolved. Mother did not

rebut the testimony of the caseworker, guardian ad litem, or Father regarding at least one pending

warrant for her arrest. Accordingly, Mother had not resolved her criminal matters as required by

the case plan.

{¶16} The caseworker testified that the parents made minimal progress on their case plan

objectives, and the juvenile court agreed. That finding is supported by the evidence. Accordingly,

this Court concludes that Mother failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she

had made significant progress on the case plan as required by R.C. 2151.415(D)(1) to support a

first six-month extension of temporary custody.

{¶17} Moreover, Mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an

extension of temporary custody was in P.B.’s best interest. The best interest factors the juvenile

court must consider include the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the child’s wishes,

the custodial history of the child, his need for permanence, and whether any factors enumerated in

R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e).

{¶18} P.B. spent his entire life, except for mere days before his release from the hospital

after his birth, in CSB’s temporary custody. Except for two in-person visits with the child in the

NICU, the child has had no physical contact with either parent. Mother and Father attended six

30-minute remote visits over Zoom with the infant. The caseworker testified that Mother was

often not visible on the screen during visits and that she rarely engaged with the child when she

was on screen. The guardian ad litem opined that there could be no discernable parent-child bond

absent more frequent and in-person visits given the child’s infancy. 7

{¶19} The parents failed to address the concerns underlying the child’s removal in any

significant way and were, therefore, not in a position to provide a safe, stable, and appropriate

home for P.B. Having spent nearly his entire life in custodial limbo, the child required

permanence. He shared a strong bond with the foster parents who were providing for all his needs

and were willing to continue to do so.

{¶20} Significantly, two R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) factors are relevant to this case. Both

parents abandoned P.B. by failing to visit or maintain contact with him for a period of more than

90 days. R.C. 2151.414(E)(10); R.C. 2151.011(C). In addition, both parents had their parental

rights involuntarily terminated with regard to at least one sibling of the child, and they failed to

prove by clear and convincing evidence that, notwithstanding those prior terminations, they can

now provide a legally secure permanent home for the child. R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). Under these

circumstances, Mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that extending temporary

custody was in the child’s best interest. R.C. 2151.415(D)(1).

{¶21} Finally, Mother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating reasonable cause to

believe that P.B. would be reunified with either parent or otherwise permanently placed during the

six-month period of extension. Mother makes no argument as to why reunification or other

permanent placement would be likely within a six-month period of the extension of temporary

custody. She argues only that an extension of time would give her the opportunity to “ease [CSB’s]

concerns” about housing, employment, and her other case plan objectives. By the time of the

permanent custody hearing, however, Mother had made minimal progress on the case plan, even

according credibility to Father’s testimony that the parents had recently obtained appropriate

housing. 8

{¶22} Mother and Father had not identified any appropriate relatives or kin who would be

able to provide a permanent placement for P.B. within six months, so the agency had not been able

to develop concurrent planning for the child’s custody. It is axiomatic that permanent custody is

not a permanent “placement,” but rather a precursor to adoption which could not occur during the

pendency of the juvenile case. Under the circumstances, given the parents’ failure to make even

modest progress on the case plan in eight months, coupled with their loss of custody of six other

children due to their failure to remedy underlying and ongoing concerns, Mother failed to prove

reasonable cause to believe that reunification would occur in another six months. R.C.

2151.415(D)(1).

{¶23} Based on a thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that Mother failed

to meet her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a first six-month extension of

temporary custody was warranted under R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). Accordingly, the juvenile court

had no authority to exercise its discretion to grant Mother’s request. Mother’s assignment of error

is overruled.

III.

{¶24} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 9

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

BETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JOSEPH SHELL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and ASHLEE JAMES, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.