[Cite as In re S.D., 2025-Ohio-4340.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: S.D. Case No. 2025-CA-00019
Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: September 12, 2025
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: DAVID A. TAWNEY, for Appellant-Mother; M. DOUGLAS BRIMBERRY, JR., for Appellee-Agency; SARAH RAHTER, for Child-S.D.; WILLIAM HOLT, Guardian ad Litem; JULIA TABOR, for Father.
King, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant mother, J.D., appeals the May 12, 2025 decision of the Fairfield
County Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of
the child to appellee, Fairfield County Child Protective Services ("FCCPS"). We affirm
the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On April 6, 2023, FCCPS filed a complaint for the temporary custody of S.D.
born November 2017, alleging the child to be dependent. Mother of the child is J.D.,
appellant herein; presumed father is S.D. The initial concerns centered on allegations of
sexual abuse of the child by father and/or mother's boyfriend, and family members not believing the allegations and not acknowledging the concerns. The child was placed in
shelter care on April 6, 2023. Case plans were filed and agreed to by the parents.
{¶ 3} An agreed adjudicatory and dispositional hearing was held on June 23,
2023. The trial court found the child to be dependent and continued the child's temporary
custody with FCCPS.
{¶ 4} Case reviews were held on October 6, 2023, and January 5, April 2, July 2,
and October 1, 2024, and January 7, 2025. On November 13, 2024, FCCPS filed a
motion for permanent custody of the child. A hearing before a magistrate was held on
March 5, 2025. By decision filed March 18, 2025, the magistrate terminated all parental
rights and granted permanent custody of the child to FCCPS. Mother filed objections. By
judgment entry filed May 12, 2025, the trial court overruled the objections and upheld the
magistrate's decision.
{¶ 5} Mother filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ACTED IN ERROR BY CONDUCTING A HEARING
ON THE PERMANENT CUSTODY MOTION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE
STATUTORY PERIOD DESIGNATED FOR THE COURT'S DECISION ON THIS
MATTER."
{¶ 7} Mother claims the trial court erred in hearing the permanent custody motion
prior to the end of the statutory period. We disagree. {¶ 8} While the assignment of error is couched as a statutory time issue, in her
appellate brief, mother argues the evidence was insufficient to warrant permanent
custody to FCCPS.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states permanent custody may be granted if the trial
court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the
child and:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned . . . and 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.
(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who
are able to take permanent custody.
(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or
more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period . . . .
(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents
from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
court in this state or another state.
{¶ 10} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must conduct when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. {¶ 11} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established."
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. See In re
Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985). "Where the degree of proof required to
sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record
to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the
requisite degree of proof." Cross at 477.
{¶ 12} The child was placed in FCCPS's temporary custody on April 6, 2023, the
motion for permanent custody was filed on November 13, 2024, and the hearing on the
motion was held on March 5, 2025; therefore, the child was in the temporary custody of
a public children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-
month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This fact was stipulated to by all the parties.
See Stipulated Findings of Fact attached to March 18, 2025 Magistrate's Decision. The
hearing on permanent custody was not held prior to the end of the statutory period
designated for the trial court's decision on the matter.
{¶ 13} Because R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied in this case, the trial court properly
moved to a best interest analysis. "As long as one of these factors is present, then the
first prong of the test is satisfied." Matter of A.S., 2024-Ohio-2099, ¶ 36 (5th Dist.); accord
Matter of A.S., 2025-Ohio-2663, ¶ 17. A finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), coupled
with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re
Calhoun, 2008-Ohio-5458, ¶ 45 (5th Dist.); accord In re K.B., 2025-Ohio-2997, ¶ 45 (5th
Dist.). {¶ 14} Notwithstanding the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) stipulation, the trial court noted
mother failed to comply with most aspects of her case plan. See Judgment Entry filed
May 12, 2025. Mother was to undergo assessments for mental health and substance
abuse and follow all recommendations, submit to drug and alcohol screenings, attend the
child's counseling when appropriate, complete a parenting education program, and
establish stable and consistent housing. T. at 49, 62, 65, 71, 103, 145. The trial court
found mother had some twenty months to work on her case plan, but was incarcerated
for three of those months "due to her own failures to abide by laws or her probation rules."
The trial court held that time against her "in that she made herself unavailable to her child
or to work the case plan." The trial court found mother failed to obtain an assessment for
mental health and substance abuse and follow through with counseling and drug and
alcohol screenings. These findings are supported in the record, including through
mother's own testimony. T. at 38-41, 44-45, 62, 104. Mother also failed to obtain stable
housing. T. at 37, 45, 71-73, 104-105.
{¶ 15} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court shall consider in
determining the best interest of a child:
(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held
pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4)
or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised
Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited
to, the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re S.D., 2025-Ohio-4340.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: S.D. Case No. 2025-CA-00019
Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: September 12, 2025
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: DAVID A. TAWNEY, for Appellant-Mother; M. DOUGLAS BRIMBERRY, JR., for Appellee-Agency; SARAH RAHTER, for Child-S.D.; WILLIAM HOLT, Guardian ad Litem; JULIA TABOR, for Father.
King, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant mother, J.D., appeals the May 12, 2025 decision of the Fairfield
County Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of
the child to appellee, Fairfield County Child Protective Services ("FCCPS"). We affirm
the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On April 6, 2023, FCCPS filed a complaint for the temporary custody of S.D.
born November 2017, alleging the child to be dependent. Mother of the child is J.D.,
appellant herein; presumed father is S.D. The initial concerns centered on allegations of
sexual abuse of the child by father and/or mother's boyfriend, and family members not believing the allegations and not acknowledging the concerns. The child was placed in
shelter care on April 6, 2023. Case plans were filed and agreed to by the parents.
{¶ 3} An agreed adjudicatory and dispositional hearing was held on June 23,
2023. The trial court found the child to be dependent and continued the child's temporary
custody with FCCPS.
{¶ 4} Case reviews were held on October 6, 2023, and January 5, April 2, July 2,
and October 1, 2024, and January 7, 2025. On November 13, 2024, FCCPS filed a
motion for permanent custody of the child. A hearing before a magistrate was held on
March 5, 2025. By decision filed March 18, 2025, the magistrate terminated all parental
rights and granted permanent custody of the child to FCCPS. Mother filed objections. By
judgment entry filed May 12, 2025, the trial court overruled the objections and upheld the
magistrate's decision.
{¶ 5} Mother filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ACTED IN ERROR BY CONDUCTING A HEARING
ON THE PERMANENT CUSTODY MOTION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE
STATUTORY PERIOD DESIGNATED FOR THE COURT'S DECISION ON THIS
MATTER."
{¶ 7} Mother claims the trial court erred in hearing the permanent custody motion
prior to the end of the statutory period. We disagree. {¶ 8} While the assignment of error is couched as a statutory time issue, in her
appellate brief, mother argues the evidence was insufficient to warrant permanent
custody to FCCPS.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states permanent custody may be granted if the trial
court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the
child and:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned . . . and 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.
(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who
are able to take permanent custody.
(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or
more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period . . . .
(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents
from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
court in this state or another state.
{¶ 10} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must conduct when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. {¶ 11} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established."
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. See In re
Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985). "Where the degree of proof required to
sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record
to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the
requisite degree of proof." Cross at 477.
{¶ 12} The child was placed in FCCPS's temporary custody on April 6, 2023, the
motion for permanent custody was filed on November 13, 2024, and the hearing on the
motion was held on March 5, 2025; therefore, the child was in the temporary custody of
a public children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-
month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This fact was stipulated to by all the parties.
See Stipulated Findings of Fact attached to March 18, 2025 Magistrate's Decision. The
hearing on permanent custody was not held prior to the end of the statutory period
designated for the trial court's decision on the matter.
{¶ 13} Because R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied in this case, the trial court properly
moved to a best interest analysis. "As long as one of these factors is present, then the
first prong of the test is satisfied." Matter of A.S., 2024-Ohio-2099, ¶ 36 (5th Dist.); accord
Matter of A.S., 2025-Ohio-2663, ¶ 17. A finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), coupled
with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re
Calhoun, 2008-Ohio-5458, ¶ 45 (5th Dist.); accord In re K.B., 2025-Ohio-2997, ¶ 45 (5th
Dist.). {¶ 14} Notwithstanding the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) stipulation, the trial court noted
mother failed to comply with most aspects of her case plan. See Judgment Entry filed
May 12, 2025. Mother was to undergo assessments for mental health and substance
abuse and follow all recommendations, submit to drug and alcohol screenings, attend the
child's counseling when appropriate, complete a parenting education program, and
establish stable and consistent housing. T. at 49, 62, 65, 71, 103, 145. The trial court
found mother had some twenty months to work on her case plan, but was incarcerated
for three of those months "due to her own failures to abide by laws or her probation rules."
The trial court held that time against her "in that she made herself unavailable to her child
or to work the case plan." The trial court found mother failed to obtain an assessment for
mental health and substance abuse and follow through with counseling and drug and
alcohol screenings. These findings are supported in the record, including through
mother's own testimony. T. at 38-41, 44-45, 62, 104. Mother also failed to obtain stable
housing. T. at 37, 45, 71-73, 104-105.
{¶ 15} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court shall consider in
determining the best interest of a child:
(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held
pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4)
or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised
Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited
to, the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers,
and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or
through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the
child;
(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services
agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a
consecutive twenty-two-month period . . . ;
(d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and
whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of
permanent custody to the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 16} As for best interests, caseworkers testified the child needs permanency in
order to meet the child's mental health needs, keep the child safe, and provide stability;
the child needs stable housing and a forever home. T. at 109, 150. The child has
"endured some sexualized trauma" and experiences nightmares and night terrors and
behavioral issues such as lashing out, hitting, pushing, and kicking; the child is on an IEP
plan at school. T. at 88, 117-118, 169, 202. The child needs a high level of care. T. at
170. The guardian ad litem believed permanent custody to FCCPS was in the child's best interest. T. at 200. The trial court considered the trauma experienced by the child and
given "Mother's 'sporadic' counseling, self-acknowledged mental health barriers, and
continued use of marijuana, and lack of consistency in housing," found mother cannot
provide the child with a stable environment. See Judgment Entry filed May 12, 2025. The
trial court noted mother has not consistently addressed her own concerns to meet "the
demands emotionally, physically, educationally, and financially of Child with significant
trauma." Id.
{¶ 17} Based upon the stipulation and the testimony presented, we do not find the
trial court erred in terminating mother's parental rights and granting permanent custody
of the child to FCCPS. We find sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.
{¶ 18} The sole assignment of error is denied.
{¶ 19} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Fairfield County Juvenile Court is AFFIRMED.
{¶ 20} Costs to Appellant.
By: King, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gormley, J. concur.