In re Q.N.

2025 Ohio 3258

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 31375, 31376
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re Q.N., 2025-Ohio-3258.]

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

IN RE: Q.N. C.A. Nos. 31375 E.K. 31376

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 24 05 0350 DN 24 05 0351

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: September 10, 2025

HENSAL, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, D.K. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her two minor children in the legal custody of

their respective fathers. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of Q.N., born January 29, 2018; and E.K., born

December 7, 2015. Father N. is the biological father of Q.N. and Father B. is the father of E.K.

An older half sibling of these children was also involved in the trial court proceedings but is not a

party to this appeal.

{¶3} At the time this case began, the children resided with Mother in Summit County.

They had established and ongoing relationships with their respective fathers. Father B. also lived 2

in Summit County and E.K. regularly visited him. Father N. lived farther away in Columbus, but

Q.N. had spent every other weekend and summers with him.

{¶4} CSB first received a referral about this family because Q.N. had excessive school

absences and, when he came to school, he often was not clean, and the school was concerned that

he was living in an unsafe and unsanitary home without electricity. CSB made an appointment to

meet with Mother but, on the date scheduled for the meeting, the family was involved in an

automobile collision because Mother fell asleep while driving.

{¶5} A CSB intake caseworker met with Mother the following day and observed the

home to be filthy and without electricity. Mother explained that the children missed school

because she often stayed up late at night and overslept in the morning. The children reported that

Mother slept a lot, and that she often left them at home alone. Mother stated that she would leave

Q.N. and E.K., then six and eight years old, in the care of their ten-year-old sister. Mother believed

that the ten-year-old was an appropriate caregiver for her younger siblings.

{¶6} Mother further admitted to CSB that she regularly used crack cocaine and that she

had struggled with depression after the death of another child three years earlier. Mother admitted

experiencing suicidal ideations, but she was not then involved in any mental health treatment.

Mother later submitted an oral swab that tested positive for cocaine.

{¶7} On May 24, 2024, Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”) filed

complaints to allege that Q.N. and E.K. were neglected and dependent children because of

Mother’s ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental illness, and her failure to properly supervise

or meet the basic needs of her children. By agreement of the parties, the trial court adjudicated the

children dependent as alleged in the complaint. The parties also agreed to the trial court placing 3

Q.N. and E.K. in the temporary custody of their respective fathers, under an order of protective

supervision by CSB. The trial court also adopted the case plan as an order of the court.

{¶8} Mother participated in the preparation of the case plan and agreed to its

requirements. As CSB had alleged in its complaint, it had no concerns about the parenting abilities

of Father B. and Father N. Each father had stable employment and housing, and the agency had

no reason to suspect that either of them struggled with untreated mental illness or substance abuse.

Consequently, the case plan included no requirements for Father B. and the only requirement for

Father N. was for him to establish paternity of Q.N. Father N. established paternity through DNA

testing.

{¶9} The case plan included several specific goals for Mother that focused on her

substance abuse, untreated mental illnesses, and other lack of stability in her life. Mother was

required to complete substance abuse and mental health assessments and engage in recommended

treatment; obtain and maintain stable income and housing; and otherwise demonstrate that she

could meet the basic needs of the children. During the next several months, Mother continued to

struggle with cocaine abuse and failed to complete two different drug treatment programs.

{¶10} Father B. filed a motion to have E.K. placed in his legal custody and CSB later

moved for Q.N. to be placed in the legal custody of Father N. At the legal custody hearing, CSB

presented the testimony of the ongoing caseworker, each father testified on his own behalf, and

the guardian ad litem testified in support of legal custody to the fathers.

{¶11} Mother filed no motion on her own behalf but informed the trial court that she was

opposed to the motions for legal custody. Implicitly, she sought to continue the children in the

temporary custody of the fathers until the one-year sunset date so she could have more time to

work on the case plan. Mother did not testify or present any evidence on her own behalf, however. 4

In fact, she did not cross-examine Father N. or Father B. when they testified. Following the

hearing, the trial court placed Q.N. in the legal custody of Father N. and E.K. in the legal custody

of Father B. and terminated the orders of protective supervision.

{¶12} Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision pertaining to each child, which

were overruled by the trial court. The trial court placed Q.N. in the legal custody of Father N. and

E.K. in the legal custody of Father B., and terminated the order of protective supervision by CSB.

Mother appeals and raises one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO GRANT LEGAL CUSTODY TO THE FATHERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶13} Mother’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court’s legal custody decision was

not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. An award of legal custody will not be

reversed if the judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance of the evidence entails the greater weight of the evidence, evidence that is more probable, persuasive, and possesses greater probative value. In other words, when the best interest of the child is established by the greater weight of the evidence, the trial court does not have discretion to enter a judgment that is adverse to that interest.

(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) In re A.M., 2025-Ohio-2139, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). Thus, our

standard of review is whether a legal custody decision is against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

{¶14} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight

of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the

credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder 5

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]

must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Eastley

v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence, this Court “must always be

mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.

{¶15} “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse, the juvenile court's

determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a parent or a relative is based

solely on the best interest of the child.” In re K.H., 2016-Ohio-1330, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). The Ohio

Revised Code does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the

juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best interest of the child. In re

B.B., 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.), quoting In re N.P., 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.). The

juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in Section 2151.414(D) of the

Revised Code relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 2008-Ohio-5003, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), citing

In re T.A., 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.).

{¶16} Those best interest factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the

children, the children’s wishes, the custodial history of the children, their need for permanence,

and whether any of the factors in Section 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) are applicable. R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see also In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). The juvenile court

may also look to the best interest factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A., 2017-

Ohio-1, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). While some factors overlap with those above, others include the

children’s adjustment to their environment; the mental and physical health of all persons involved;

and the proposed custodian’s history of honoring companionship orders. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d),

(e), (f). 6

{¶17} Mother does not argue that she should have received legal custody rather than the

children’s fathers. Instead, she asserts that the trial court should have given her more time to work

on the case plan. Mother makes no argument under the best interest factors but instead asserts that

she had complied with the case plan, so she should have been given more time to be reunited with

her children. “[A]lthough case plan compliance is relevant to the best interest of the child

determination, it is not dispositive.” In re T.R., 2024-Ohio-3092, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.), citing In re J.W.,

2019-Ohio-210, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). Moreover, the record demonstrates that Mother had begun to

comply with the requirements of the case plan, but she was not yet prepared to provide the children

with a safe and stable home. At the time of the hearing, Mother had recently gotten a job, but she

still had not obtained housing. She was regularly engaged in mental health treatment and had

tested negative for drugs for the past two months, but she had not yet completed a substance abuse

treatment program. She began an intensive outpatient treatment program several months before

the hearing but left before completing the program. Mother tested positive for cocaine after leaving

the first program and then was admitted into a residential treatment program. She left that program

after three weeks. By the time of the hearing, Mother had started another intensive outpatient

treatment program but was still working her way through that program.

{¶18} CSB expected Mother to complete a drug treatment program and demonstrate a

sustained period of sobriety and stability before it would contemplate returning the children to her

home. Moreover, she would need to have stable income and housing. Mother wanted the trial

court to give her more time to work toward reunification, yet she failed to testify about her

relationship with her children or desire to be reunited with them. Because no evidence was

presented to support reunification with Mother, she has failed to demonstrate that it was in the 7

children’s best interest to remain in temporary custody for several more months so she could have

more time to work on the case plan.

{¶19} In contrast, the evidence presented at the hearing by CSB and the fathers supported

the trial court’s decision that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed in the legal custody

of their respective fathers. Beginning with the children’s interaction and interrelationships with

each father, the evidence was not disputed that each child had a long-standing and positive

relationship with each father before this case began. They visited their fathers regularly and there

had never been any concern about the children’s safety and wellbeing while with their fathers.

{¶20} All parties agreed that the children would be placed with their respective fathers as

soon as they were removed from Mother’s custody and that they would remain placed in those

homes after the dependency adjudication. The dependency adjudication and the reunification

goals of the case plan focused entirely on Mother’s need for mental health and substance abuse

treatment and her ability to provide appropriate supervision for her children and to meet their basic

needs. During this case, the children had been thriving in each father’s stable home, where they

had adjusted well and all their daily needs were met. The fathers had ensured that they attended

school regularly and Q.N. and E.K. had made significant academic progress. The children had

expressed their desires to remain in the fathers’ homes, but to continue to visit with Mother. The

guardian ad litem also opined that each child should be placed in the legal custody of his or her

father.

{¶21} Notably, CSB had no concerns about either father’s ability to provide a safe and

stable home for his child, and no evidence was presented at the hearing to raise any concerns about

them. Mother presented no evidence on her own behalf and did not challenge the credibility of

most of the evidence presented to support legal custody to the fathers. 8

{¶22} Instead, Mother raises two unsubstantiated concerns on appeal: 1) that Father B.

had a 2018 “gun charge” so CSB or the guardian ad litem should have, but did not, inspect his

home for the presence of a firearm; and 2) Father N. unreasonably prevented Mother from having

telephone or in-person contact with Q.N. Mother supports these arguments with

mischaracterizations of the evidence before the trial court.

{¶23} Mother attempted to raise an issue about Father B. having a prior “gun charge” by

questioning only the guardian ad litem about it, but no evidence was presented that Father B. was

ever convicted of that unexplained “gun charge” several years earlier. Moreover, although Mother

asserts on appeal that Father B.’s home was not inspected for the presence of a firearm, the only

testimony on this issue came from the guardian ad litem, who responded to Mother’s question that

she did not personally inspect the home for the presence of a firearm. Mother did not question the

caseworker or Father B. about the extent to which CSB inspected the safety of his home before

approving him for placement of E.K. Mother has failed to demonstrate that Father B.’s home was

not adequately assessed for safety prior to the trial court placing E.K. in that home.

{¶24} As to Mother’s argument that Father N. impeded her ability to communicate with

Q.N., Mother again mischaracterizes the limited evidence that was presented at the hearing. When

questioned about the communication between Mother and Father N., the caseworker testified that

there had been some problems, but attributed those problems to both Mother and Father N.

Notably, there was no evidence that Father N. or his fiancée “blocked” Mother’s phone number,

as Mother asserts. Instead, the caseworker testified that each parent had changed their phone

number several times, that there were sometimes “issues” with Mother’s calls going through, and

that Mother and Father N. were not always prompt in returning the other parent’s calls. She 9

emphasized, however, that the parties understood the importance of Mother having ongoing visits

and communication with Q.N. and that the siblings should also visit regularly.

{¶25} The caseworker further testified that Mother and Father N. had agreed at the

beginning of this case that Mother would have visits with Q.N. every other week and the maternal

grandparents assisted Mother with transportation. She further testified that, for no specified

reason, Mother had made it to only three face-to-face visits during this case. The caseworker did

not blame Father N. for the lack of contact. Further, Mother was in a residential drug treatment

program during part of this case, which would have prevented her from visiting either child during

that period. Father N. testified at the hearing that he would facilitate visitation between Mother

and Q.N. every other week. Mother did not cross-examine him to challenge any of his testimony.

{¶26} Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court lost its way by concluding that

legal custody of Q.N. to Father N. and legal custody of E.K. to Father B. was in each child’s best

interest. Insofar as she asserts that it would cause the children no harm to delay ruling on the legal

custody motions so she would have more time to work on the case plan, that is not the legal

standard to be applied in this case. Mother implicitly advocated for a preservation of the status

quo, but she presented no evidence at the hearing to support her implicit argument that a delay in

achieving permanency for the children was in their best interest. Because Mother has failed to

demonstrate that the trial court’s judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, her

assignment of error is overruled.

III.

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

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 10

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

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.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR. 11

APPEARANCES:

STEPHEN M. GRACHANIN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and AARON B. CAMPBELL, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

RONALD GATTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

LAWRENCE DELINO, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.