[Cite as In re P.S, 2026-Ohio-1785.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STARK COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE MATTER OF: Case Nos. 2025CA00172 2025CA00173 P.S. 2025CA00174 B.S. 2025CA00175 R.S. 2025CA00176 H.S. W.S. Opinion And Judgment Entry MINOR CHILDREN Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case Nos. 2023JCV1476,2023JCV1477, 2023JCV1478, 2023JCV1479, 2023JCV1480
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: May 14, 2026
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, Kevin W. Popham, and David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: Brandon Waltenbaugh, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Jeffrey R. Jakmides, for Defendant-Appellant
OPINION
Popham, J.,
{¶1} Appellant-Father, B.S., (“Father”)1 appeals the December 8, 2025,
Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio, Family Court
Division, terminating his parental rights and granting permanent custody of his five
1 Mother of the children is not a party to this appeal. minor children to appellee, Stark County Jobs and Family Services (“SCJFS”). For the
reasons below, we affirm.
Initiation of the Case
{¶2} On December 27, 2023, SCJFS filed a complaint alleging that P.S. (born July
1, 2015)2, B.S. (born November 21, 2016)3, R.S. (born March 7, 2018)4, H.S. (born August
5, 2021)5, and W.S. (born December 1, 2022)6 were dependent and neglected. On
December 28, 2023, a shelter care hearing was held. Both parents appeared and, after
consultation with counsel, stipulated to probable cause. The trial court granted temporary
custody to SCJFS and scheduled further proceedings.
{¶3} On January 17, 2024, the original case plan was filed and approved. The
matter proceeded to adjudication on March 21, 2024. At that hearing, SCJFS moved to
dismiss the neglect allegations, which the trial court granted. Both parents stipulated to
dependency, and the trial court adjudicated the children dependent. The court found that
although the parents had begun case plan services, significant concerns remained
regarding the condition of the family home. Temporary custody with SCJFS was
continued.
Case Plan Progress and Review Hearings
{¶4} On June 13, 2024, the lower court conducted a dispositional review hearing
and approved an amended case plan. The evidence established that the children were
placed in multiple foster or kinship homes and were doing well. The court found that the
2 2025CA00172/2023 JVC 01476. 3 2025CA00173/2023 JVC 01477 4 2025CA00174/2023 JVC 01478 5 2025CA00175/2023 JVC 01479 6 2025CA00176/2023 JVC 01480 parents needed to maintain a sanitary and safe home environment and complete
recommended services, including counseling and parenting programs.
{¶5} On November 19, 2024, the lower court granted SCJFS’s motion to extend
temporary custody. On May 15, 2025, a second extension was granted following another
review hearing at which both parents appeared and stipulated to the extension. The court
again ordered the status quo.
{¶6} On October 22, 2025, the lower court conducted an additional review
hearing. Although the parents had engaged in some services, the court found that
substantial concerns remained and that there were no compelling reasons to preclude
SCJFS from seeking permanent custody.
Permanent Custody Proceedings
{¶7} On September 11, 2025, SCJFS filed its motion for permanent custody, and
the hearing was conducted on November 25, 2025.
{¶8} SCJFS caseworker Lisa Eggenschwiler testified that the family had a lengthy
agency history involving deplorable home conditions, excessive discipline, and exposure
of the children to unsafe individuals. She described the home as unsanitary and unsafe,
including conditions involving animal feces, insects, clutter, and lack of adequate heat.
The children were also observed to be unclean and in poor condition at the time of
removal.
{¶9} Eggenschwiler testified that Father failed to accept responsibility for the
conditions leading to removal and instead blamed the children. Although Father made
some improvements to the home, including installing a furnace and replacing flooring, he
did not remediate the underlying concerns. {¶10} Eggenschwiler testified that Father’s case plan required completion of a
parenting and mental health assessment through Lighthouse Family Center. The
resulting recommendations included comprehensive mental health treatment,
medication management, parenting education, and marital counseling. Eggenschwiler
testified Father was initially resistant to treatment and was terminated from services due
to poor attendance. Eggenschwiler testified that although Father later reengaged in
counseling, his compliance remained inconsistent.
{¶11} Eggenschwiler testified Father also failed to complete the Goodwill
Parenting Program, as he was terminated after multiple unexcused absences. Testimony
from the program instructor established that Father did not demonstrate improvement
in parenting skills and struggled to manage the children during supervised visitation.
Visits were frequently chaotic, and Father failed to appropriately respond to the children’s
behavioral needs.
{¶12} Dr. Aimee Thomas, a psychologist with Lighthouse Family Counseling
Center, testified as an expert witness. Dr. Thomas testified that she met with Father for
his evaluation on February 20, 2024, March 13, 2024, and April 3, 2024. (Tr. at 53). Dr.
Thomas testified that she diagnosed Father with major depressive disorder, re-current
severe, depressive personality disorder, other specified anxiety while identifying some
paranoid ideation, stubborn[ness], and some potential detachment difficulties that
stem from early childhood experiences. (Tr. at 57). Dr. Thomas testified that she
recommended that Father participate in comprehensive mental health treatment,
including individual counseling and psychiatric services, participation in the Goodwill
Parenting Program, including the Home-Based Program when reunification occurred, that Children Services monitor the condition of the home, that Father participate in
anger management if he continued to present anger issues after engaging in counseling,
and marital counseling. (Tr. at 57-58).
{¶13} Dr. Thomas testified that she specifically recommended Goodwill
parenting classes for Father because it is a more intensive program, and that the
T r i p l e "P" Parenting Program would be insufficient for his needs. (Tr. at 58-59).
Best Interests of the Children
{¶14} Eggenschwiler testified that the children entered agency custody with
significant unmet medical and dental needs. Several children required treatment for
serious conditions, and the older children exhibited trauma-related issues requiring
mental health services.
{¶15} Eggenschwiler testified that the children are currently placed in stable
foster or kinship homes. Eggenschwiler testified R.S. is placed with a relative and wishes
to remain there. Eggenschwiler testified H.S. and W.S. are placed together in a foster
home. Eggenschwiler testified B.S. and P.S. are placed separately but are doing well in
their respective placements. Eggenschwiler testified several placements have expressed a
willingness to adopt. Eggenschwiler testified no suitable relative placements were
identified due to disqualifying background concerns.
{¶16} Eggenschwiler testified that permanent custody is in the children’s best
interests and that the benefits of permanence outweigh any harm from severing parental
bonds. The Guardian ad Litem likewise recommended that permanent custody be
granted. Disposition
{¶17} On December 8, 2025, the trial court issued detailed findings of fact and
conclusions of law granting permanent custody of the children to SCJFS. The court found
that the children had been in the temporary custody of SCJFS for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period, that they could not or should not be placed with Father
within a reasonable time despite reasonable efforts by the agency, and that permanent
custody was in the children’s best interests.
Assignment of Error
{¶18} Father raises one assignment of error for our consideration,
{¶19} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PERMANENT
CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AS IT WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.”
Fundamental Rights and Governing Standards
{¶20} A parent’s right to raise a child is an “essential” and “basic” civil right. In re
Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). The
interest in the care, custody, and management of one’s child is therefore fundamental. Id.;
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). Because permanent termination of parental
rights has aptly been described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty,” parents
must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows. In re Smith, 77
Ohio App.3d 1, 16 (6th Dist. 1991). Accordingly, a juvenile court’s award of permanent custody
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Standard of Review
{¶21} The Ohio Supreme Court has clarified that appellate review of permanent-
custody determinations under R.C. 2151.414 proceeds under the sufficiency-of-the-
evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards, depending on the nature of
the arguments raised. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. Father challenges both.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶22} Sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law, which we review de
novo. State v. Walker, 2016-Ohio-8295, ¶ 30; State v. Jordan, 2023-Ohio-3800, ¶ 13.
Sufficiency is a test of adequacy—whether the evidence, if believed, permits the factfinder
to reach the challenged conclusion as a matter of law. In re Z.C. at ¶ 13, quoting State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).
{¶23} Where, as here, the governing burden of proof is clear and convincing
evidence, the reviewing court examines the record to determine whether the juvenile
court had before it sufficient evidence from which it could form a firm belief or conviction
that the statutory requirements for permanent custody were met. In re Estate of Haynes,
25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-104 (1986); In re Z.C. at ¶¶ 7-8; In re L.A., 2024-Ohio-3436, ¶ 59
(5th Dist.).
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶24} Manifest-weight review concerns the persuasive effect of the evidence.
Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 19. In conducting this review, we consider
whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way in resolving evidentiary conflicts, resulting in
a manifest miscarriage of justice—even where the evidence is legally sufficient.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386-387. {¶25} Although an appellate court may act as a “thirteenth juror,” we afford
substantial deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations, given its superior
position to observe the witnesses. Eastley at ¶ 21; Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 80 (1984). A manifest-weight challenge succeeds only in the exceptional case
where the evidence weighs heavily against the judgment. Thompkins at 387.
Statutory Framework for Permanent Custody
{¶26} R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-pronged inquiry for permanent custody.
The juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that one of the
circumstances set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) - (e) applies, and (2) that granting
permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.
{¶27} Here, the lower court found that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied to the
children, and further determined, in the alternative, that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) was
satisfied for the children. Either finding—when coupled with a best-interest
determination—is independently sufficient to support an award of permanent custody. In
re Dalton, 2007-Ohio-5805 (5th Dist.); In re K.C., 2024-Ohio-2081, ¶ 45 (10th Dist.).
Temporary Custody for Twelve of Twenty-Two Months
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)
{¶28} With respect to the children the lower court expressly found that the
children had been in the temporary custody of SCJFS for more than twelve months of a
consecutive twenty-two-month period at the time the agency filed its motion for
permanent custody.
{¶29} The “12-of-22” provision reflects the legislature’s deliberate balance
between reunification efforts and the child’s need for timely permanence. In re C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411, ¶ 22. Once the statutory time has elapsed, the focus properly shifts from
parental opportunity for reunification to the child’s need for stability. Id. at syllabus.
{¶30} Father does not challenge the lower court’s twelve-of-twenty-two-month
finding with respect to the children. Accordingly, this finding alone - when coupled with
a best-interest determination - supports the award of permanent custody for the children,
and our analysis could properly end there. In re Calhoun, 2008-Ohio-5458 (5th Dist.); In
re: K.C., 2024-Ohio-2081, ¶45 (10th Dist.).
Placement with Father Within a Reasonable Time
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)
{¶31} Nevertheless, the lower court also determined that the children cannot be
placed with Father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with him, pursuant
to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). That determination is likewise supported by clear and
convincing evidence.
{¶32} Under R.C. 2151.414(E), if the court finds that any one of the enumerated
factors exists as to a parent, it must conclude that the child cannot or should not be placed
with that parent within a reasonable time. In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996).
{¶33} Here, the record amply supports the court’s findings under R.C.
2151.414(E)(1) and (2). Lisa Eggenschwiler, the agency caseworker, testified that the case
began due to severe concerns about the home, including no heat, bugs, animal feces,
clutter, and the children appearing dirty. She explained that the agency had prior
involvement with the family and that both parents were given case plan services but failed
to make sufficient progress. She testified that the mother was inconsistent with
counseling and did not successfully complete parenting classes, while the father struggled with anger issues, was inconsistent with treatment, and was terminated from parenting
classes due to absences. Eggenschwiler described visits as chaotic, with poor supervision
and limited engagement from both parents, often involving yelling and difficulty
managing the children. She also testified that the mother exposed the children to unsafe
individuals and that the father denied responsibility and blamed the children. Although
some improvements were made to the home, she stated that concerns remained,
particularly outside the home. She ultimately concluded that neither parent remedied the
core issues, and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
{¶34} Dr. Aimee Thomas, a psychologist who conducted parenting assessments,
testified that Father suffers from severe mental health conditions, including major
depressive disorder and personality-related issues, and described him as pessimistic and
prone to self-pity. She testified that he requires both therapy and medication, as well as
parenting education and possibly anger management. Dr. Thomas also noted that
Father’s completion of an online parenting course was a positive step but insufficient to
address his needs. Overall, she indicated that both parents required significant
improvement, with the Father presenting more serious concerns.
{¶35} Amy Humrighouse, a parenting instructor at Goodwill, testified that Father
failed to complete the program due to excessive absences, even after signing an
attendance agreement. She described his visits as increasingly chaotic, marked by yelling,
profanity, and anger, and stated that he did not meet program goals or demonstrate
improvement. Overall, she concluded that neither parent benefited from the program.
{¶36} The lower court found, and the evidence confirms, that Father consistently
refused to engage in mental-health treatment and rejected services designed to address his parenting skills. The case worker testified that Father was frequently hostile, verbally
abusive, threatening and uncooperative.
{¶37} Although the home was improved, and Father attempted to engage in
mental health counseling, completion—or partial completion—of a case plan does not
itself preclude permanent custody. A case plan is a means to an end, not the end itself. In
re J.L., 2004-Ohio-6024, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.). Where, as here, the problems that precipitated
removal persist despite services, the court does not err in finding that reunification is not
reasonably achievable. In re Summerfield, 2005-Ohio-5523 (5th Dist.); In re K.C., 2024-
Ohio-2081, ¶ 56 (10th Dist.).
{¶38} Although the record reflects that Father loves his children, love alone does
not overcome years of noncompliance, instability, and unmet needs. The evidence
supports the lower court’s conclusion that Father has made virtually no sustained
progress since SCJFS’s initial involvement, and that additional time would not alter that
reality.
{¶39} Accordingly, we conclude that competent, credible evidence supports the
lower court’s finding that the children cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable
time or should not be placed with him.
R.C. 2151.414(D)
{¶40} When determining whether permanent custody is in a child’s best interest,
a juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in R.C.
2151.414(D)(1). No single factor is dispositive; rather, the court must weigh the totality of
the circumstances. In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513, ¶ 56. {¶41} A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent
situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he
discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent
custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the
nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will have on the lives
of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 2000 Ohio App.LEXIS 5261 (5th Dist.
Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316 (8th Dist. 1994).
Interaction and Interrelationship
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)
{¶42} The evidence demonstrated that the children’s interactions with Father
were generally good, and the children are bonded with Father. The evidence also
established that the mother exposed the children to unsafe individuals and that Father
denied responsibility and blamed the children for the problems leading to their removal
from the home.
{¶43} Eggenschwiler testified that the children entered agency custody with
significant unmet medical and dental needs. Several children required treatment for
serious conditions, and the older children exhibited trauma-related issues requiring
mental health services. Eggenschwiler testified that the children have been in the
temporary custody of the SCJFS for almost two years.
Wishes of the Children R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) and Custodial History
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c)
{¶44} Eggenschwiler testified that the children are bonded and/or fine with their
current placements. (Tr. at 110-112). Eggenschwiler testified that P.S. desires to return home and has throughout the entire case. (Id. at 113). Eggenschwiler testified that B.S.
desires to return home. (Id.). Eggenschwiler testified that R.S. wishes to remain in her
current placement. (Id. at 114).
{¶45} Eggenschwiler testified H.S. and W.S. are placed together in a foster home.
(Tr. at 110 -112). They have been placed there for almost two years. Eggenschwiler
testified that everyone in the home is bonded to each other. (Tr. at 110). Eggenschwiler
testified the kinship provider is willing to adopt H.S. and W.S.
{¶46} Eggenschwiler testified that permanent custody is in the children’s best
interests and that the benefits of permanence outweigh any harm from severing parental
bonds. The Guardian ad Litem likewise recommended that permanent custody be
granted.
Need for a Legally Secure Permanent Placement
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)
{¶47} The children has been subject to agency involvement for nearly two years at
the time the motion for permanent custody was filed. Despite years of intervention,
services, and repeated opportunities to remedy the conditions leading to removal, the
Father failed to achieve or maintain a safe, stable, and sanitary home or to meet the
children’s medical and developmental needs. The length and continuity of this custodial
history weigh heavily in favor of permanency.
{¶48} The record overwhelmingly establishes that the children require a legally
secure placement that can provide long-term stability and address their needs. Father has
not demonstrated the ability or willingness to provide such an environment. Additional Relevant Factors
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e)
{¶49} The court also considered the Father’s demonstrated lack of commitment,
as evidenced by repeated refusals to engage in services, hostile interactions with
providers, and failure to prioritize the children’s basic needs. Despite extensive assistance
from SCJFS, Father made no meaningful progress toward reunification.
Conclusion
{¶50} Considering the totality of the evidence and each factor under R.C.
2151.414(D), the record clearly supports the lower court’s determination that granting
permanent custody to SCJFS was in the children’s best interests. The children’s need for
safety, stability, and care—needs that were met only after removal—outweigh Father’s
expressed desire to maintain parental rights.
{¶51} We find that the lower court correctly found that the children had been in
the temporary custody of SCJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month
period.
{¶52} We further find the court’s determination that Father had failed to remedy
the issues that caused the initial removal, and, therefore, the children could not be placed
with him within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with him, was based upon
competent credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the
evidence.
{¶53} We further find that the lower court’s decision that granting permanent
custody to SCJFS was in the children’s best interests was based upon competent, credible
evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. {¶54} Because the evidence in the record supports the lower court’s judgment, we
overrule Appellant-Father’s assignment of error and affirm the decisions of the Court of
Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio, Family Court Division in Case Number 2023 JVC
01476, Case Number 2023 JVC 01477, Case Number 2023 JVC 01478, Case Number
2023 JVC 01479 and Case Number 2023 JVC 01480.
{¶55} For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgments of the Court of
Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio, Family Court Division in Case Number 2023 JVC
01476, Case Number 2023 JVC 01477, Case Number 2023 JVC 01478, Case Number 2023
JVC 01479 and Case Number 2023 JVC 01480 are affirmed. Costs to be paid by
Appellant- Father B.S.
By: Popham, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gormley, J., concur