[Cite as In re S.L., 2025-Ohio-5493.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: S.L. C.A. Nos. 31309, 31310, I.L. 31533, 31534, 31547, 31548
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 24 06 0406 DN 24 06 0407
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 10, 2025
FLAGG LANZINGER, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, N.L. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her two minor children dependent and
placed them in the temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of S.L., born February 19, 2021; and I.L., born June
15, 2024. The children’s fathers did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Mother has two
older children who are not parties to this appeal but are relevant to the dependency adjudication.
{¶3} Shortly before the birth of I.L., CSB received a referral that Mother had been
actively using methamphetamine during her pregnancy and in the presence of then three-year-old
S.L. Mother denied using methamphetamine and claimed that she had been sober for the past three 2
years. However, she submitted an oral swab, which later tested positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine. CSB collected another oral swab from Mother shortly after the birth of I.L., which
also tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The caseworker attempted to develop
a voluntary safety plan for Mother, but they could not agree on a suitable adult to serve as the
safety plan monitor.
{¶4} On June 20, 2024, CSB filed complaints, alleging that S.L. and I.L. were dependent
children under R.C. 2151.04(B), (C), and (D). Of relevance here, the allegations of dependency
focused on Mother’s history of methamphetamine abuse, which had been the basis of prior
dependency adjudications of her two older children, I.T. and S.H. The complaints also alleged
recent drug use by Mother, pointing to the two drug swabs that tested positive for
methamphetamine and amphetamine. Mother continued to deny recent drug use despite those
positive drug screens.
{¶5} The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing before a magistrate. CSB presented
the testimony of two CSB intake caseworkers, certified records from the prior cases of I.T. and
S.H., drugs test results from Forensic Fluids Laboratories, and the testimony of a Forensic Fluids
scientist who explained the drug test results. Mother presented no evidence at the hearing.
{¶6} Despite repeated statements in Mother’s appellate brief that she tested negative for
drugs at the hospital when I.L. was born, there is no evidence in the record that Mother was tested
for drugs at the hospital, much less that she tested negative for drugs. At the hearing, the only
evidence about Mother’s drug tests came from CSB and Forensic Fluids Laboratories and
demonstrated that Mother submitted oral swabs two days before and three days after the birth of
I.L., both of which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. A caseworker testified
about collecting the oral samples and a Forensic Fluids scientist testified about the testing process. 3
He explained that the samples went through two levels of screening to rule out false positives.
CSB also introduced an exhibit with the Forensic Fluids test results.
{¶7} Following the adjudicatory hearing, the magistrate dismissed the allegations of
dependency under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), and adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent under R.C.
2151.04(D). Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which were later overruled by
the trial court. The trial court adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent and placed them in the temporary
custody of CSB.
{¶8} Mother initially filed interlocutory appeals, which were dismissed by this Court
because the orders appealed were not final. Mother now timely appeals from the trial court’s
adjudicatory and dispositional judgment and raises two assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE CHILDREN AS DEPENDENT, WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NO ADJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY AND THE MOTHER HAD PRESENTED A VALID DRUG TEST SHOWING CLEAN RESULTS.
{¶9} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court’s dependency adjudication
was not supported by the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court
adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D), which defines a dependent child as
one “[t]o whom both the following apply:”
(1) The child is residing in a household in which a parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication that a sibling of the child or any other child who resides in the household is an abused, neglected, or dependent child.
(2) Because of the circumstances surrounding the abuse, neglect, or dependency of the sibling or other child and the other conditions in the household of the child, the child is in danger of being abused or neglected by that parent, guardian, custodian, or member of the household. 4
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2151.04(D).
{¶10} We begin by emphasizing that Mother challenges the trial court’s adjudicatory
finding under only R.C. 2151.04(D)(1), not (D)(2). Insofar as Mother’s stated assignment of error
refers to evidence of a “clean” (negative) drug test result, there is no such evidence in the record.
Moreover, Mother has not developed an argument that the evidence presented at the hearing about
her recent methamphetamine use failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2151.04(D)(2).
{¶11} Instead, Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court had no evidence
before it to support its finding under R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) that Mother committed an act that was
the basis for a prior dependency adjudication of these children’s siblings. Mother seems to be
confused about the language of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) and the adjudications that formed the basis of
the trial court’s statutory finding.
{¶12} In its complaint, in addition to allegations that the older siblings of S.L. and I.L.
had previously been adjudicated dependent, CSB also alleged that S.L. was previously adjudicated
abused, neglected, and dependent. Mother is correct that CSB offered no evidence about a prior
adjudication of S.L. Nonetheless, evidence of a prior adjudication of S.L. would not satisfy the
requirements of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) pertaining to S.L. By its explicit terms, R.C. 2151.04(D)(1)
refers to the prior adjudication of a “sibling” or “any other child” in the household, not the same
child who is the subject of the dependency complaint.
{¶13} In this case, the agency presented undisputed evidence to support its allegations
about the adjudications of I.T. and S.H., the older siblings of both S.L. and I.L. CSB presented,
and the trial court admitted, certified records from the juvenile cases of the older siblings. Those
records demonstrated that the juvenile court had previously adjudicated those children dependent
based, in part, on Mother’s abuse of methamphetamine. I.T. and S.H. were ultimately placed in 5
the legal custody of their respective non-custodial fathers. This evidence established CSB’s
allegations under R.C. 2151.04(D)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re S.L., 2025-Ohio-5493.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: S.L. C.A. Nos. 31309, 31310, I.L. 31533, 31534, 31547, 31548
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 24 06 0406 DN 24 06 0407
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 10, 2025
FLAGG LANZINGER, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, N.L. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her two minor children dependent and
placed them in the temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of S.L., born February 19, 2021; and I.L., born June
15, 2024. The children’s fathers did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Mother has two
older children who are not parties to this appeal but are relevant to the dependency adjudication.
{¶3} Shortly before the birth of I.L., CSB received a referral that Mother had been
actively using methamphetamine during her pregnancy and in the presence of then three-year-old
S.L. Mother denied using methamphetamine and claimed that she had been sober for the past three 2
years. However, she submitted an oral swab, which later tested positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine. CSB collected another oral swab from Mother shortly after the birth of I.L., which
also tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The caseworker attempted to develop
a voluntary safety plan for Mother, but they could not agree on a suitable adult to serve as the
safety plan monitor.
{¶4} On June 20, 2024, CSB filed complaints, alleging that S.L. and I.L. were dependent
children under R.C. 2151.04(B), (C), and (D). Of relevance here, the allegations of dependency
focused on Mother’s history of methamphetamine abuse, which had been the basis of prior
dependency adjudications of her two older children, I.T. and S.H. The complaints also alleged
recent drug use by Mother, pointing to the two drug swabs that tested positive for
methamphetamine and amphetamine. Mother continued to deny recent drug use despite those
positive drug screens.
{¶5} The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing before a magistrate. CSB presented
the testimony of two CSB intake caseworkers, certified records from the prior cases of I.T. and
S.H., drugs test results from Forensic Fluids Laboratories, and the testimony of a Forensic Fluids
scientist who explained the drug test results. Mother presented no evidence at the hearing.
{¶6} Despite repeated statements in Mother’s appellate brief that she tested negative for
drugs at the hospital when I.L. was born, there is no evidence in the record that Mother was tested
for drugs at the hospital, much less that she tested negative for drugs. At the hearing, the only
evidence about Mother’s drug tests came from CSB and Forensic Fluids Laboratories and
demonstrated that Mother submitted oral swabs two days before and three days after the birth of
I.L., both of which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. A caseworker testified
about collecting the oral samples and a Forensic Fluids scientist testified about the testing process. 3
He explained that the samples went through two levels of screening to rule out false positives.
CSB also introduced an exhibit with the Forensic Fluids test results.
{¶7} Following the adjudicatory hearing, the magistrate dismissed the allegations of
dependency under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), and adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent under R.C.
2151.04(D). Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which were later overruled by
the trial court. The trial court adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent and placed them in the temporary
custody of CSB.
{¶8} Mother initially filed interlocutory appeals, which were dismissed by this Court
because the orders appealed were not final. Mother now timely appeals from the trial court’s
adjudicatory and dispositional judgment and raises two assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE CHILDREN AS DEPENDENT, WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NO ADJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY AND THE MOTHER HAD PRESENTED A VALID DRUG TEST SHOWING CLEAN RESULTS.
{¶9} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court’s dependency adjudication
was not supported by the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court
adjudicated S.L. and I.L. dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D), which defines a dependent child as
one “[t]o whom both the following apply:”
(1) The child is residing in a household in which a parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication that a sibling of the child or any other child who resides in the household is an abused, neglected, or dependent child.
(2) Because of the circumstances surrounding the abuse, neglect, or dependency of the sibling or other child and the other conditions in the household of the child, the child is in danger of being abused or neglected by that parent, guardian, custodian, or member of the household. 4
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2151.04(D).
{¶10} We begin by emphasizing that Mother challenges the trial court’s adjudicatory
finding under only R.C. 2151.04(D)(1), not (D)(2). Insofar as Mother’s stated assignment of error
refers to evidence of a “clean” (negative) drug test result, there is no such evidence in the record.
Moreover, Mother has not developed an argument that the evidence presented at the hearing about
her recent methamphetamine use failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2151.04(D)(2).
{¶11} Instead, Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court had no evidence
before it to support its finding under R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) that Mother committed an act that was
the basis for a prior dependency adjudication of these children’s siblings. Mother seems to be
confused about the language of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) and the adjudications that formed the basis of
the trial court’s statutory finding.
{¶12} In its complaint, in addition to allegations that the older siblings of S.L. and I.L.
had previously been adjudicated dependent, CSB also alleged that S.L. was previously adjudicated
abused, neglected, and dependent. Mother is correct that CSB offered no evidence about a prior
adjudication of S.L. Nonetheless, evidence of a prior adjudication of S.L. would not satisfy the
requirements of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) pertaining to S.L. By its explicit terms, R.C. 2151.04(D)(1)
refers to the prior adjudication of a “sibling” or “any other child” in the household, not the same
child who is the subject of the dependency complaint.
{¶13} In this case, the agency presented undisputed evidence to support its allegations
about the adjudications of I.T. and S.H., the older siblings of both S.L. and I.L. CSB presented,
and the trial court admitted, certified records from the juvenile cases of the older siblings. Those
records demonstrated that the juvenile court had previously adjudicated those children dependent
based, in part, on Mother’s abuse of methamphetamine. I.T. and S.H. were ultimately placed in 5
the legal custody of their respective non-custodial fathers. This evidence established CSB’s
allegations under R.C. 2151.04(D)(1).
{¶14} Consequently, Mother’s argument that there was no evidence to establish the
requirements of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) is not supported by the record. Mother’s first assignment of
error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPROVING ELEMENTS OF A CASE PLAN NOT DIRECTED TO ADDRESS THE REASONS REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN.
{¶15} Mother’s second assignment of error challenges some of the requirements of the
case plan. This Court has repeatedly and consistently held that the court-ordered requirements of
the case plan are not final and appealable at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings. See, e.g.,
In re J.M., 2023-Ohio-1206, ¶ 28-30 (9th Dist.); In re T.P., 2015-Ohio-3448, ¶ 28 (9th Dist.); In
re J.G., 2013-Ohio-417, ¶ 40 (9th Dist.); In re B.M., 2012–Ohio–4093, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); In re A.P.,
2011-Ohio-5998, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.).
{¶16} This Court has premised that conclusion on the rationale that the requirements of
the case plan “do not affect the substantial rights of the parties because those issues can be appealed
after the final disposition of the child.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted). In re J.M.,
2023-Ohio-1206, at ¶ 28 (9th Dist.). Specifically, unlike the adjudication that is never relitigated,
the case plan “‘is subject to mandatory periodic review and may be changed at any time during the
case by the agency or the court that issued the dispositional order.’” Id. at ¶ 29, quoting In re T.P.,
2015-Ohio-3448, at ¶ 26 (9th Dist.). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Mother’s
second assignment of error, it will not be addressed. 6
III.
{¶17} Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled. This Court does not reach the merits
of her second assignment of error for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
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.
JILL FLAGG LANZINGER FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR. 7
APPEARANCES:
LESLIE S. GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and AARON B. CAMPBELL, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.