[Cite as In re S.L., 2025-Ohio-4608.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
In re S.L., W.L., Sk.L., A.L. Court of Appeals No. WD-24-087
Trial Court No. 2023JC0943 2023JC0944 2023JC0946 2023JC0947
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: October 3, 2025
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and Wesley R. True, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant E.L. (“mother”) appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, awarding legal custody of the minor children S.L., W.L., Sk.L., and A.L. to maternal grandparents W.S. and B.S.1 For the reasons that
follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Appellee the Wood County Department of Job and Family Services (“the
agency”) became involved with the family in November 2023 when it received a report
that mother, her boyfriend J.J., and four children were living in a van behind a gas
station. The children, at the time aged 13, 11, 8, and 6, were observed to be
unsupervised, dirty, and malnourished.
{¶ 3} A shelter care hearing was held, and the children were placed in the
temporary custody of the agency. On January 4, 2024, mother stipulated to a finding of
dependency.
{¶ 4} The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on February 6, 2024, at
which it placed the children in the temporary custody of the maternal grandparents with
the agency providing protective supervision. The trial court also approved case plan
services for mother, including mental health services, substance abuse services, and
parenting classes.
1 Also before the juvenile court was two motions by father, W.L., for legal custody and for court-ordered visitation. The trial court denied father’s motion for legal custody but granted, in part, his motion for visitation. Father, however, has not appealed the juvenile court’s judgment. This appeal, therefore, will focus solely on the facts and issues as they pertain to mother.
2. {¶ 5} On May 10, 2024, the agency filed a motion to award legal custody of the
children to the maternal grandparents. A hearing on the legal custody matter was held on
September 24, 2024, and October 29, 2024.
{¶ 6} At the hearing, the agency first presented the testimony of William Metzler,
the original caseworker for the family. Metzler testified that the agency received a report
of the family staying at a gas station in Perrysburg, Ohio. The agency placed the family
in a hotel for the night, and shortly thereafter placed the children in the temporary
custody of the maternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents live in Vermillion,
Ohio, over one hour away from Wood County.
{¶ 7} Metzler explained that mother was originally living with the children at the
maternal grandparents’ house for several years. She then met J.J. online in the spring of
2023. In August 2023, there was an issue between mother and maternal grandmother,
with each claiming that the other “put her hands on [me].” Maternal grandmother then
allegedly said to mother, “if you leave, don’t come back.” Mother left with the children,
and they began living in the van and various hotel and motel rooms. At no point did
mother contact maternal grandparents to see if the children could stay with them.
{¶ 8} The agency’s concerns for mother included a lack of permanent and stable
housing, her developmental delays, and the condition of the children at the time they
were found. Its concerns for J.J. were similar and also included substance abuse. To
address those concerns, the agency recommended mental health services, substance abuse
services, and parenting classes.
3. {¶ 9} Metzler testified that when he first became involved after the children were
removed, mother and J.J. had found a family shelter in Toledo, Ohio. A few weeks later,
though, they were kicked out for committing multiple rule violations. After leaving the
shelter, mother and J.J. slept in the van until it was repossessed and they found an
abandoned house. They stayed in the abandoned house for several months until they
found shelter at the Beach House near the end of May. They remained at the Beach
House homeless shelter through the remainder of Metzler’s time on the case. Metzler
was presented with evidence on cross-examination that mother was now approved for a
residence with Neighborhood Properties, Inc., whose purpose is “[h]elping families
transition from homelessness to permanent housing.”
{¶ 10} As to mother’s mental health, Metzler testified that mother did an initial
mental health assessment, but she indicated to the assessor that she had no mental health
history. Metzler learned this was not true, and that in 2018 the Cleveland Clinic
diagnosed mother with anxiety and depression. Because of mother’s inaccurate report,
no mental health services were recommended or provided. Metzler was unaware that
mother treated with a therapist while she resided at the Beach House.
{¶ 11} Regarding the substance abuse issues, mother was recommended to do
group therapy on a regular basis up to four times a week to address her THC usage.
Metzler testified that mother’s attendance was “spotty, at best.” On cross-examination,
however, Metzler acknowledged that mother successfully completed the substance abuse
services through Unison after he left the case.
4. {¶ 12} Metzler also testified that parenting services were recommended for
mother, but she did not make any progress on those services while he was assigned to her
case.
{¶ 13} Regarding J.J., Metzler testified that he had a history of mental health
issues and alcohol dependence. J.J. was offered mental health services, substance abuse
services, and parenting classes. He resisted participating in these services throughout the
life of the case, only beginning to engage after the agency’s motion for legal custody was
filed. In addition, Metzler noted that J.J. did not work, and his only income came through
plasma donations.
{¶ 14} On the subject of visitation, mother initially was visiting the children in
person, but when her van was repossessed the agency set up weekly phone calls until it
could arrange transportation. The phone calls lasted for approximately three months
before the agency eventually paid $400 per week for a cab service to allow mother to
visit in person. Only the two younger children visited with mother. The two older
children refused to speak or visit with mother at any point during the case. Maternal
grandfather supervised the visits and although the relationship between the adults was “a
little contentious,” grandfather was still willing to make sure that mother had a chance to
spend time with her children. Metzler testified that the agency offered to help mother
relocate closer to the children, whether that was finding another shelter or helping her
with an apartment, but mother refused, stating that she wanted to stay in Toledo, Ohio,
with J.J.
5. {¶ 15} Metzler offered that the biggest impediment to reunification was mother’s
minimization of the safety concerns for the children caused by being homeless. He also
expressed concerns about mother’s cognitive abilities, noting that Social Security
determined she was cognitively disabled when she was 16 years old. Metzler testified
that he would have long conversations with mother leaving him with concerns about her
ability to understand what was being asked of her. He added that although mother
worked a part-time job at Taco Bell, her income was not sufficient to meet her or her
children’s basic needs.
{¶ 16} Turning to the children, Metzler testified that since they have been in the
maternal grandparents’ care, they have gained weight, their teeth are healthier, they are
now enrolled in school, they are engaged with the community, and there have been no
issues with the home or the caretakers. In addition, the children are well-bonded to the
maternal grandparents. In contrast, two of the children refused to speak with mother at
any time, and only one of the four stated that she misses mother. Metzler believed that
legal custody to the maternal grandparents was in the best interest of the children.
{¶ 17} J.J. testified next. He testified that he is currently working through the case
plan services, having begun the parenting classes approximately one month earlier. He
stated that because of all the requirements imposed on him by the agency he is unable to
work, and his only income comes from donating plasma. J.J. also testified that he has
been sober from drugs for years. He battles alcoholism, however, and last had a drink
two months before the court hearing. J.J. disagreed with his therapist’s report that he has
mental health and emotional issues, stating that he takes his prescribed medication
6. regularly and that he was doing fine before experiencing the stress of the agency’s
intervention. Finally, J.J. testified that he loves mother and the children very much, and
he is committed to being with her and fighting for the children.
{¶ 18} The agency then called B.S., the maternal step-grandfather of the children
as a witness. B.S. testified that four years ago Lorain County Child Protective Services
placed the family with him and the maternal grandmother after it removed mother and the
children from a house that B.S. rented to mother. The family was removed because
mother was not sending the children to school and the home was infested with fleas. B.S.
testified that his home is clean, neat, and suitable for the children.
{¶ 19} He also testified that the children are doing well in his custody. They have
a daily routine, are enrolled in school, see medical doctors and therapists, and seem to be
very happy. B.S. is seventy years old and his wife is in a wheelchair due to arthritis, but
he testified that she is able to care for the children while he works operating his business.
B.S. did acknowledge that he recently was in the hospital with kidney stones and an
infection. He stated that he has been dealing with kidney stones his entire life, but this
recent experience was his worst one.
{¶ 20} Finally, B.S. testified that he loves the children and is willing to offer a
permanent placement for them. He also stated that he is willing to facilitate visitation
with mother, and that he has not had any problems with visitation up to that point.
{¶ 21} Alicia Willey, the current caseworker who replaced Metzler, testified next.
At the time of her testimony, she had been the assigned caseworker for approximately
7. two and one-half months. Willey initially provided updates on mother’s mental health,
substance abuse, and parenting services.
{¶ 22} She explained that mother had been engaged in mental health therapy with
Lydia Elick at the Beach House, but Elick withdrew as her counselor and suggested that
mother seek alternative counseling because mother’s six months at the Beach House was
ending soon and it may be difficult for her to obtain transportation to continue to meet
with Elick. In response, mother completed a mental health assessment with Unison on
October 14, 2024.
{¶ 23} Regarding substance abuse services, Willey testified that mother completed
those in August 2024. Mother recently provided a random drug screen, which came back
positive for marijuana, but Willey noted that mother has a medical marijuana card.
Willey did express some concern, however, with mother’s budgeting decisions and her
prioritization of her daily marijuana use when she is only working part-time and is living
in a homeless shelter.
{¶ 24} As to parenting classes, Willey testified that those do not begin through
Unison until after the mental health assessment, and they have not started yet. Willey
noted that mother has not completed any parenting classes throughout the pendency of
the case.
{¶ 25} In general, Willey testified that mother has made minimal, if any, progress
on the case plan since she took over the case. Mother is working part-time at Taco Bell
and is living at a homeless shelter for another month, after which she will be moved to a
8. different homeless shelter in Toledo. Whenever Willey attempts to talk with mother
about the case plan, mother stops responding or deflects from the issues.
{¶ 26} J.J. likewise has not made progress. He completed a substance abuse
assessment, which recommended that he receive outpatient treatment, but he declined to
participate. He also recently tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines.
In addition, he is still living at the homeless shelter and does not have employment.
Finally, he is engaged in mental health services and started parenting classes, although he
has not attended the parenting classes in over a month.
{¶ 27} Willey believed that it would be in the best interest of the children to be
placed in the legal custody of the maternal grandparents. She expounded that the
children have stability and a routine, they are attending school and receiving services
through school, and the two older children are struggling to even want to talk to mother
or see her. She has no concerns with the care provided by the maternal grandparents, and
she believes the maternal grandparents are willing to facilitate visits with mother. She
further testified that she did not believe additional time would allow for reunification
with mother due to the lack of progress that she is making on the issues that led to the
children being removed.
{¶ 28} Cristin Cicco, the Director of Special Education for the Firelands Local
School District, also testified. Cicco stated that the older three children are on
individualized education plans and receive services through the school district. She
explained that they need structure and a routine to be successful, and since engaging with
9. school they have shown great progress. She testified that the youngest child is in a
regular classroom setting and does well.
{¶ 29} The agency’s final witness was Elizabeth Mertz, the guardian ad litem.
Mertz testified that it was her opinion that legal custody to the maternal grandparents
with visitation for mother is in the children’s best interest. She cited the stability and
structure provided by the maternal grandparents as a key factor in the growth of the
children, noting that the children have changed “immensely” since she became involved
in the case. The children also have indicated a desire to remain with the maternal
grandparents and are well-bonded with them, with only one child verbally expressing that
she misses mother and wishes mother would come to live with them. Mertz did not have
any concerns with the maternal grandparents being able to provide long-term care and
support for the children. In contrast, she is concerned that mother lacks the insight to
understand how her choices have contributed to her homelessness and the impact it has
had on the children.
{¶ 30} Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered its judgment entry on
November 7, 2024, granting the agency’s motion and awarding legal custody of the
children to the maternal grandparents. It found that the agency “has made more than
reasonable efforts to attempt to reunify the children with mother,” but despite these
efforts, mother is not in a position to have the children returned to her custody “now or in
the near future.” Further, it found that it is in the best interests of the children to place
them in the legal custody of the maternal grandparents, noting that the children are
“thriving” and “receiving the services and help they need.”
10. II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 31} Mother timely appeals the November 7, 2024 judgment of the juvenile
court, asserting two assignments of error for review:
1. The trial court erred by determining that Wood County Jobs and Family Services made reasonable efforts to reunify mother’s children with her, when the statutory time frame for legal custody was not exhausted, and even if it was, could have been extended because the motion for legal custody was filed approximately 6 months after removal.
2. The trial court’s judgment granting legal custody to maternal grandparents was not based on the manifest weight of the evidence, when mother had substantially completed part of her case plan services before the agency filed for legal custody, approximately six months after the removal.
III. Analysis
{¶ 32} In her assignments of error, mother argues that the trial court erred in
awarding legal custody of the children to the maternal grandparents in that the agency
prematurely moved for legal custody when there was still time remaining under the
statute for her to complete her services and she was demonstrating progress on those
services.
{¶ 33} Mother’s first assignment of error challenges the trial court’s finding that
the agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with her. This court reviews
the reasonable efforts finding under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re
E.H., 2016-Ohio-8170, ¶ 23 (6th Dist.), citing In re Er.P., 2014-Ohio-2831, ¶ 24-25 (6th
Dist.). “In a reasonable efforts determination, the issue is not whether the agency could
have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under
the statute.” Id., quoting In re S.R., 2013-Ohio-2358, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.). “A ‘reasonable
11. effort’ is an ‘honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and the design to defraud or to seek
an unconscionable advantage.’” Id., quoting In re S.R. at ¶ 21, quoting In re Weaver, 79
Ohio App.3d 59, 63 (12th Dist. 1992).
{¶ 34} Here, mother’s contention is not that the agency failed to provide services
to remedy the issues that caused the children to be removed. Rather, she argues that the
agency did not make reasonable efforts because it did not give her enough time to
continue the progress she was making. She specifically notes that she completed the
substance abuse services, and she addressed the housing element by moving into a
homeless shelter and was expecting to be transferred to a different shelter when her time
there expired. In addition, although she did not do follow-up mental health services
through Unison where she had her assessment, she did engage in independent counseling
with Elick at the Beach House. Finally, she argues that the children had only recently
begun counseling through Ohio Guidestone at the time of the hearings, and additional
time would have afforded an opportunity for her to repair her relationship with the older
two children.
{¶ 35} At the outset, although mother is correct that under R.C. 2151.353(G) the
initial award of temporary custody could last up to one year, or up to two years if a
dispositional motion pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 is pending, and under R.C. 2151.353(H)
the agency could seek an extension of the order of protective supervision for an
additional six months beyond the first year after the case was filed, nothing in those
statutes requires the agency to wait until the time limits have expired before moving for
legal custody.
12. {¶ 36} Furthermore, the agency in this case did make reasonable efforts to reunify
the children with mother. The agency created a case plan that included substance abuse,
mental health, and parenting services. The agency set up in-person visits between mother
and the children, and when mother’s van was repossessed, it set up phone visits. Later, it
paid for mother to be transported by taxi so that she could resume visiting the children in
person. It also offered to assist mother in obtaining housing closer to the children but she
refused, opting instead to remain in homeless shelters with J.J. Considering these
actions, the trial court’s finding that the agency made reasonable efforts is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 37} Accordingly, mother’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 38} In her second assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court erred
when it found that legal custody to the maternal grandparents was in the children’s best
interest. In support, she cites the same arguments she raised in her first assignment of
error, namely that she was making progress on her case plan services and time still
remained on the case.
{¶ 39} “A trial court decision regarding legal custody of a child must be supported
by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re S.T., 2025-Ohio-1379, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing
In re K.S., 2022-Ohio-2810, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.). “A preponderance of the evidence is
‘evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is
offered in opposition to it.’” Id., quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1998).
{¶ 40} An appellate court reviews the trial court’s order of legal custody for an
abuse of discretion. In re G.B., 2024-Ohio-5528, ¶ 58 (6th Dist.), citing In re H.H.,
13. 2024-Ohio-686, ¶ 64 (6th Dist.). An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court’s
attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 41} “To determine a child’s best interest, a trial court may consider the factors
set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), ‘a combination of the two, or general
notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the child.’” In re
G.B. at ¶ 60, quoting In re H.H. at ¶ 67. Those factors include, inter alia, the children’s
relationships with mother and the caregivers, the wishes of the children, the need for
legally secure placement, the children’s adjustment to their home, school, and
community, the mental and physical health of all persons involved, and the person more
likely to honor and facilitate visitation rights. See R.C. 2151.414(D) and 3109.04(F)(1).
{¶ 42} Here, all four children are well-bonded with their grandparents, while only
two of them wish to speak with mother. In addition, they have expressed their desire to
stay with the maternal grandparents who provide a stable and structured home
environment. The children also are healthier and gaining weight again. They are
enrolled and making progress in school, where they receive appropriate support services
and are engaged with the school community. Finally, the maternal grandparents are
committed to facilitating visitation with mother. Upon consideration of these factors, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that awarding legal custody to
the maternal grandparents was in the children’s best interests.
{¶ 43} Accordingly, mother’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
14. IV. Conclusion
{¶ 44} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Wood County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division is affirmed. Mother is ordered to pay the costs of this
appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, P.J. CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
15.