[Cite as In re T.T., 2026-Ohio-710.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NOS. 2025-L-103 2025-L-104 T.T., DEPENDENT CHILD AND Civil Appeals from the V.T., ABUSED AND DEPENDENT Court of Common Pleas, CHILD Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 2024 DP 00532 2023 AB 00826
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: March 2, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
Christopher J. Boeman, Lake County Department of Job & Family Services, 177 Main Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Appellee, Lake County Department of Job & Family Services).
Judith M. Kowalski, 333 Babbitt Road, Suite 323, Euclid, OH 44123 (For Appellant, E.T.).
Mandy J. Gwirtz, 20050 Lakeshore Boulevard, Euclid, OH 44123 (Guardian ad Litem).
Susan T. Seacrist, Seacrist Law Office, L.L.C., 7445 Center Street, Mentor, OH 44060 (Guardian ad Litem).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, E.T. (“Mother”), appeals the judgments of the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental rights and granting
permanent custody of her minor daughters, V.T. and T.T., to the Lake County Department
of Job and Family Services (“LCDJFS”). For the following reasons, we affirm the trial
court’s judgments. {¶2} On August 15, 2023, LCDJFS filed a complaint for temporary custody of
V.T., alleging she was an abused and dependent child. LCDJFS further alleged that in
June 2023, V.T. was born prematurely at 27 weeks of gestation and tested positive for
morphine. Mother was not administered any morphine by the hospital. V.T. remained in
the neonatal intensive care unit at Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital because of her
medical complications, including the loss of a functioning kidney. V.T. needed a caregiver
who could provide human touch and interaction on a frequent basis. Mother was not
regularly visiting V.T. and would not allow other family members to visit. Mother used
methamphetamine during her pregnancy and presented as paranoid and delusional with
confused and disorganized thoughts. LCDJFS contacted V.T.’s maternal grandmother,
who had been given legal custody of Mother’s older daughter, R.T., now emancipated,
but the grandmother was not in a position to care for V.T. Mother could not provide any
information on other family or kin, and she could not identify V.T.’s father. LCDJFS was
concerned with Mother’s mental health, her substance abuse during pregnancy, and
V.T.’s current need for human contact and care.
{¶3} The trial court granted temporary custody of V.T. to LCDJFS at a 72-hour
hearing. Mother did not appear. A family case plan was formulated and adopted by the
trial court. In October 2023, the trial court adjudicated V.T. abused and dependent, and
extended temporary custody to LCDJFS. Mother failed to appear for the hearing.
LCDJFS placed V.T. with a foster parent who could care for V.T.’s specific needs.
{¶4} Thereafter, the trial court held review hearings, and LCDJFS filed a semi-
annual review plan, which the trial court adopted. Mother failed to appear for any of the
hearings.
PAGE 2 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶5} On June 11, 2024, following the birth of Mother’s third daughter, T.T.,
LCDJFS filed a second complaint alleging T.T. is a dependent child and requesting
temporary custody. LCDJFS alleged that on January 25, 2024, Mother was admitted to
Hillcrest Hospital for psychiatric treatment. Prior to her admission, Signature Health
requested Mother be appointed a guardian ad litem because of Mother’s mental health
issues. At that time, Mother had been staying at various locations in Lake County, Ohio,
including a motel.
{¶6} In February 2024, at Akron General Hospital where Mother had been
transferred for psychiatric treatment, Mother gave birth to T.T. T.T. was born prematurely
at 27 weeks gestation with severe medical issues that caused her to be placed on oxygen.
T.T. weighed 1.6 pounds. She was described as “very irritable” and required
occupational, speech, and physical therapy. The hospital reported its concerns to
LCDJFS because Mother would not participate or listen when staff tried to explain T.T.’s
needs. On October 29, 2024, Mother was released from the hospital. She alternated for
two-week periods between living in a motel and staying in the hospital with T.T.
{¶7} The trial court granted LCDJFS temporary custody of T.T. at a 72-hour
hearing. Mother did not attend. An updated case plan including both children was
adopted by the trial court. In April 2024, the trial court appointed Mother a guardian ad
litem, and in July 2024, upon Mother’s application, the trial court appointed Mother
counsel. On August 28, 2024, the trial court held a dispositional hearing for T.T., which
Mother did not attend. Mother’s counsel attended but did not present any evidence. The
trial court adjudicated T.T. a dependent child and extended temporary custody to
LCDJFS. LCDJFS placed T.T. in a therapeutic foster home.
PAGE 3 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶8} As relevant to the instant appeal, an inquiry into the children’s possible
Indian or Native American Ancestry appears to have been conducted and is marked as
“No” in the February 2024, August 2024, and July 2025 semi-annual review reports filed
by LCDJFS.
Motions for Permanent Custody
{¶9} On February 6, 2025, LCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of V.T.,
pursuant to R.C. 2151.413, 2151.414, 2151.415, and 2151.419, alleging V.T. has been
in the temporary custody of LCDJFS for 12 or more consecutive months out of a 22-month
period.
{¶10} On the same day, LCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of T.T.,
pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A) and 2151.414(E), alleging T.T. has been in the temporary
custody of LCDJFS for seven months, it has been five months since she was adjudicated
dependent, and she cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of
time and/or should not be placed with either parent.
Permanent Custody Hearing
{¶11} The permanent custody hearing was set for April 2025; however, after
Mother failed to appear, the trial court continued the hearing to July 10, 2025.
{¶12} At the one-day permanent custody hearing for both children, LCDJFS
introduced several witnesses: T.T.’s foster father, B.G.; V.T.’s foster mother, J.W.; and
LCDJFS social worker Joy Biggs. LCDJFS also entered into evidence court records of
R.T.’s custody case. Prior to the hearing, Mother’s counsel notified the court Mother
might have to leave early because she was not feeling well and possibly had a
transportation issue. Mother did leave during Biggs’ testimony after informing the court
PAGE 4 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 that her bus was arriving. Mother’s counsel did not present any evidence or testimony at
the hearing.
{¶13} B.G. and his wife are T.T.’s foster parents. At the time of the hearing, they
had an eight-year-old daughter and a son who was born the day before the hearing. T.T.
was placed with them when she left the hospital, approximately 13 months prior. T.T.
was 17 months old at the time of the hearing. B.G. described T.T. as “laid back” and
“calm.” He noted she is behind on her growth curve for children her age and she is very
small. When T.T. was first released from the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit into
their care, she was on continuous oxygen. They had oxygen compressors in their home
and portable oxygen tanks. For the first six months, T.T. had at least one medical
appointment a week. T.T. had surgery on her lungs and aorta in December 2024, and
one month later she no longer required continuous oxygen. B.G. explained T.T. uses a
daily inhaler and is on a protein supplement.
{¶14} B.G. further testified he believes T.T. is well adjusted with B.G.’s daughter
and the family’s companion animals. T.T. has weekly visits with Mother and V.T. and
occasionally has play dates with V.T. Mother gave T.T. gifts around the holidays and her
birthday. While B.G. and his family cannot permanently adopt T.T., they are willing to
care for her until a new foster family is found. At the time of the hearing, they had just
met with a potential foster family who was interested in adopting her.
{¶15} J.W. testified that V.T. was unofficially placed with her on August 15, 2023,
and officially placed with her on September 22, 2023, when V.T. was released from the
hospital. After receiving the call on August 15, J.W. began visiting V.T. at the hospital
every day. J.W. described V.T. as “wonderful,” “really active, pleasant,” and “very
observant.” V.T. continues to have medical issues from her premature birth, including PAGE 5 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 problems with her eyes, kidneys, and speech. V.T. is also in the lower percentile for
height and weight. J.W. described V.T. as “consistently sick since being released from
the hospital,” which often requires emergency hospital care for breathing assistance.
J.W. and V.T. visit J.W.’s family every Sunday, and V.T. has friends and a best friend in
day care. J.W. would like to adopt V.T. J.W. was willing to also foster T.T., however, T.T.
is unable to attend day care and J.W. is a single, working parent. V.T. has been visiting
with Mother and T.T. once a week. J.W. is open to V.T. having a relationship with T.T.
and tries to schedule a visit for T.T. and V.T. once a month. J.W. sends Mother updates
on V.T., to which Mother sometimes responds. J.W. is willing to continue to share
updates via email with Mother if LCDJFS is granted permanent custody.
{¶16} Biggs, the LCDJFS social worker for the family, testified the father(s) remain
unidentified and Mother could not provide any identifying information. Mother reported
the children have the same father, and although she can recognize him, he is a
“shapeshifter” who looks different every time she sees him. Mother described a
“shapeshifter” as a person who can change physical characteristics, including
appearance and size. Biggs was also Mother’s case worker 15 years ago when Mother
voluntarily relinquished custody of R.T. to LCDJFS. Legal custody of R.T. was eventually
granted to R.T.’s maternal grandmother. At that time, Mother had a history of mental
illness and non-compliance with medications, and she could not provide adequate
parental care for R.T. Biggs opined that Mother’s issues are substantially the same now
as those she encountered while working on R.T.’s case.
{¶17} Biggs further testified LCDJFS became involved with V.T. when Mother
began exhibiting aggressive behaviors in the hospital. V.T. has bonded with her foster
mother. LCDJFS became similarly involved in T.T.’s case when the hospital grew PAGE 6 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 concerned about T.T.’s care and Mother’s ability to meet T.T.’s needs. LCDJFS
contacted known family members before placing T.T. with her current foster family. T.T.’s
foster parents had training by professionals who taught them how to hold T.T. before she
was released from the hospital.
{¶18} Biggs also testified as to Mother’s progress on the case plan. Mother
completed a drug and alcohol assessment at Signature Health. She tested negative and
was recommended individual counseling for dual diagnosis, which she has attended.
Mother is not screened frequently for drugs and alcohol because it was not the primary
concern. While Biggs was not concerned whether Mother was currently abusing
substances, she reported Mother has recently made comments regarding how
“beneficial” drug use was for her and her unborn child (V.T.). Mother made comments
such as, “it saved their lives,” “that’s what she needed to do during pregnancy to save
them both.” Because Mother self-reports, it is difficult to ascertain whether she is
medication compliant. Mother has been diagnosed as schizoaffective, she has medical
needs, and she reported suffering from difficulty walking, breathlessness, pain in her legs,
and mobility issues. Mother would like an electronic mobility device or scooter to assist
her. Mother’s mental health impacts her ability to care for the children because she has
disorganized thoughts. She is not able to understand the children’s needs even when the
needs are explained and information is given. For instance, Mother construed T.T.’s
struggle to hold her bottle as an attempt to aggravate Mother. Mother also does not
appear to understand certain medical conditions, such as believing a mass in T.T.’s lungs
was “from the weather” because T.T. was born in February and V.T. did not have the
same issue because she was born in June; and believing she contracted diabetes and a
“nervous belly” from being startled in her sleep during a stay at a women’s shelter. PAGE 7 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶19} Mother also participates in Crossroads Early Head Start services, which
includes a home visitor who supervises Mother’s visits with the children. Mother does not
always appreciate the home visitor’s suggestions and comments. Biggs described one
visit where the home visitor was discussing with Mother how well V.T. played with toy
food for her age. Mother disagreed, stating she “thought it was babyish” and V.T. was
trying to aggravate her. Mother did ask the home visitor questions, such as the age-
appropriateness of certain toys and activities. Mother did not initially attend her scheduled
visits with V.T. She began sporadically attending visitations with V.T. after T.T. was born.
Each child had a half-hour visit with Mother. In the fall of 2024, T.T. was medically allowed
to be around other children, and 1-hour and 45-minute visitations were held with both
children and Mother. Mother’s cancellations became less frequent, and in January 2025,
she started attending the visitations regularly. Biggs described the visits as “typically not
unsafe in nature” and “there’s not a ton of interaction.” Mother asks the children to get
their own diaper bags because Mother cannot move easily. Sometimes Mother plans
activities or brings toys. At other times, Mother appears irritated, and she becomes
frustrated when the children refuse to follow her directions. Visitation time never
progressed because Mother failed to make any progress obtaining suitable housing and
understanding the children’s needs. V.T. will reach for her foster mother when she sees
her but does not do so when she sees Mother.
{¶20} Mother does not have stable, clean, and safe housing. Mother’s
homelessness has been an issue since she was evicted from her apartment in November
2023. LCDJFS assigned Mother a caseworker solely for housing. At the time of the
hearing, she was staying in a motel. After T.T. was born, Mother alternated staying in the
hospital with T.T. and staying in a motel for two weeks at a time. Several months ago, PAGE 8 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 Mother went to a women’s shelter. Mother told Biggs she left the shelter because she
does not “want to be there.” Mother attempted to work with foundations that assist with
housing, such as Project Hope, but she did not want to follow their rules. Mother also has
a history of evictions, which affects her eligibility for housing assistance, and she has
issues paying the fees for housing applications. Mother feels caught in a cycle of being
ineligible for adequate housing because she does not have custody of the children and
being unable to regain custody of the children because of her lack of adequate housing.
T.T. remains unable to attend day care and needs a permanent home because of her
medical issues. Mother told Biggs she planned to hire a nanny to help her take care of
the children. Mother’s sole source of income is from Social Security disability payments
and death benefits from her father. During the past year and a half, Mother did not seek
any employment.
Permanent Custody Granted to LCDJFS
{¶21} On August 7, 2025, in a thorough judgment entry, the trial court found
granting permanent custody of V.T. to LCDJFS is in V.T’s best interest. Specifically, the
court found V.T. has been in the custody of LCDJFS for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period; LCDJFS made reasonable efforts to make it possible for
V.T. to return safely home; LCDJFS diligently sought family members to care for V.T.;
V.T. is bonded with her foster family; Mother has not demonstrated that she is in a position
to provide V.T. with a secure permanent placement or that she has a consistent desire to
care for V.T.; Mother still has significant mental health and housing issues; and V.T. is in
need of a permanent placement so her long-term care can be more adequately planned.
The trial court granted LCDJFS’s motion for permanent custody, divested Mother of her
parental rights, and granted permanent custody of V.T. to LCDJFS. PAGE 9 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶22} On the same day, also in a thorough judgment entry, the trial court found
granting permanent custody of T.T. to LCDJFS is in T.T.’s best interest. In relevant part,
the trial court found T.T. cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or
should not be placed with either parent; T.T. has been in the temporary custody of
LCDJFS since June 11, 2024, and was adjudicated a dependent child on August 28,
2024; Mother’s past history with her other children and current instability demonstrate
T.T. cannot and should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time; despite
LCDJFS’s diligent efforts, no other family members have been identified; and T.T. is in
need of a permanent placement so her long-term care can be more adequately planned.
Further, Mother has failed to continuously and substantially remedy the conditions
causing T.T. to be placed outside the home; T.T. has extensive medical needs; Mother
has not been able to overcome her issues despite being assisted by LCDJFS; and
Mother’s chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual disability, physical
disability, and occasional chemical dependency issues are so severe she is unable to
provide an adequate permanent home now or in the near future. The trial court granted
LCDJFS’s motion for permanent custody, divested Mother of her parental rights, and
granted permanent custody of T.T. to LCDJFS.
{¶23} Mother timely appealed both judgments and raises four assignments of
error for our review:
{¶24} “[1.] The Lake County Juvenile Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant
when it failed to inquire as to whether either of the children have Indian or Native American
ancestry.
{¶25} “[2.] The decision of the Lake County Juvenile Court was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. PAGE 10 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶26} “[3.] The evidence was insufficient to support permanent custody of the
child to the Lake County Department of Job and Family Services.
{¶27} “[4.] The Juvenile Court erred to the prejudice of the Mother by not granting
a continuance of the permanent custody trial.”
{¶28} We address Mother’s assignments of error out of turn and/or jointly for ease
of discussion.
Standard of Review
{¶29} “‘It is well established that a parent’s right to raise a child is an essential and
basic civil right.’” In re T.B., 2008-Ohio-4415, ¶ 29 (11th Dist.), quoting In re Phillips,
2005-Ohio-3774, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.), citing In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). “‘The
permanent termination of parental rights has been described as the family law equivalent
of the death penalty in a criminal case.’” Id., quoting Phillips at ¶ 22, citing In re Hoffman,
2002-Ohio-5368, ¶ 14. The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined, based upon these
principles, that a parent must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the
law allows. Id., citing Hayes at 49.
{¶30} The Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the appropriate standard of review for
appellate challenges to a trial court’s granting of a motion for permanent custody in In re
Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703. In that case, the Court observed:
Given that R.C. 2151.414 requires that a juvenile court find by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements are met, we agree with those appellate courts that have determined that the sufficiency-of-the- evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards of review are the proper appellate standards of review of a juvenile court’s permanent- custody determination, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that are presented by the parties. . . .
Sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence are distinct concepts and are “‘both quantitatively and qualitatively different.’” Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio PAGE 11 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. We have stated that “sufficiency is a test of adequacy,” Thompkins at 386, while weight of the evidence “‘is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief’” (emphasis sic), id. at 387, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990). “Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” Id. at 386. “When applying a sufficiency-of- the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when ‘“the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.”’” Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 2007-Ohio-4918, ¶ 3, quoting Thompkins at 386, quoting Black’s at 1433.
But “even if a trial court judgment is sustained by sufficient evidence, an appellate court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Eastley at ¶ 12. When reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Id. at ¶ 20. “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21. “The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). “‘If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment.’” Id. at fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 603, at 191-192 (1978).
In re Z.C. at ¶ 11, 13-14; accord In re B.M.H., 2025-Ohio-5180, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.).
Manifest Weight and Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶31} In her second and third assignments of error, Mother contends the trial
court’s decisions to grant LCDJFS permanent custody of V.T. and T.T. are not supported
by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence because there
was evidence Mother was case compliant and working towards the case plan goals.
{¶32} Mother’s general and ambiguous contention that there was insufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s decisions is belied by the record. LCDJFS introduced PAGE 12 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 witness testimony and documentary evidence showing Mother has struggled and
continues to struggle with psychiatric, psychological, and physical illness, as well as an
intellectual disability. Both children were born prematurely with severe medical issues
and are developmentally delayed. Mother was unable and continues to be unable to meet
their extensive needs.
{¶33} While Mother argues the evidence reflects she was case compliant and
could satisfy the case plan goals if given more time, there is no evidence supporting that
assertion. Mother has not had an active role in the underlying case. Mother did not
participate in or attend hearings until mid-2024. Mother did not consistently participate in
visitations with the children until January 2025. In April 2025, the permanent custody
hearing had to be rescheduled because Mother failed to appear due to “mental issues.”
In July 2025, at the continued permanent custody hearing, Mother left half-way through
the hearing to “catch a bus” and did not present any testimony or evidence. Further, she
refused to participate in certain housing assistance programs because she “did not want
to follow their rules.” And, while Mother followed the case plan somewhat by attending
her counseling and parenting classes, she did not progress in her visitation time, her
parenting skills, or successfully reach the case plan goals and obtain stable housing and
employment. Fundamentally, there is no evidence Mother will ever be able to satisfy
those goals.
{¶34} In thorough judgment entries, the trial court applied the R.C. 2151.414
analysis as required and supported its findings under each relevant statutory factor. We
recognize the gravity of the court’s decisions and do not doubt Mother’s love for her
children, but we cannot say there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
determinations. PAGE 13 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶35} Nor can we say the trial court lost its way and created such a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the judgments must be reversed and a new trial ordered. As
our review of the evidence and testimony reveals, the trial court’s determinations are not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother did not present any evidence or
testimony to contradict the overwhelming evidence that she is struggling with illness and
unable to provide a permanent home for the children now or within a reasonable time.
Even if the evidence was susceptible to more than one interpretation, a reviewing court
must interpret it in a manner consistent with the finder of fact’s judgment. See State v.
Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123 (1986) (“an appellate court may not substitute its own
judgment for that of the finder of fact”).
{¶36} Mother’s second and third assignments of error are without merit.
Continuance of the Permanent Custody Hearing
{¶37} In her fourth assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court erred to
her prejudice by failing to grant a continuance when she had to leave mid-hearing.
{¶38} Pursuant to Juv.R. 23, “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative
to secure fair treatment for the parties.” “‘The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter
that is entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.’” In re M.A.S., 2019-
Ohio-5190, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981), syllabus.
“[A]n appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless the action
of the court is plainly erroneous and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” Id., quoting
State ex rel. Buck v. McCabe, 140 Ohio St. 535, 538 (1942); accord In re B.M.B., 2024-
Ohio-1214, ¶ 16 (11th Dist.). “An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s ‘“failure to exercise
sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.”’” In re K.S.W., 2023-Ohio-3763, ¶ 36
PAGE 14 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62 (2d Dist.), quoting Black’s
Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004).
{¶39} A review of the record reveals Mother never requested a continuance when
she abruptly left the hearing mid-way through Biggs’ testimony. Mother stated, “I got to
go, my bus is coming. Sorry, I didn’t know it was a long day.” The court noted for the
record that the hearing notice provided Mother with advance warning that the hearing was
scheduled for the entire day.
{¶40} We cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for
a continuance that was never made. As already reviewed, this occurred at the continued
permanent custody hearing due to Mother’s failure to appear at the first scheduled
hearing. In addition, Mother rarely and sporadically attended other court hearings.
Fundamentally, Mother has not demonstrated any prejudice or proffered any testimony
or evidence she would have introduced had the hearing been continued. “‘Denials of
continuances have been repeatedly affirmed in permanent custody hearings where there
is no showing that a grant of the continuance likely would have changed the outcome of
the case.’” B.M.B. at ¶ 20, quoting K.S.W. at ¶ 41 (upholding denial of a continuance
where the appellant “failed to put forth any offer of proof of the evidence and/or testimony
she would have presented had she been at the hearing or how the outcome of the
proceeding would have been different had she attended”).
{¶41} Mother’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.
Indian or Native American Ancestry
{¶42} In her first assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court committed
plain error because there is no record the trial court inquired into whether the children are
of Indian or Native American ancestry as required by law. PAGE 15 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶43} At the outset, we note Mother did not raise this as an issue in the trial court,
thus she has forfeited all but plain error review on appeal. See In re L.T., 2025-Ohio-
1719, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.).
{¶44} Federal regulations pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”)
provide:
“State courts must ask each participant in an emergency or voluntary or involuntary child-custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child. The inquiry is made at the commencement of the proceeding and all responses should be on the record. State courts must instruct the parties to inform the court if they subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child.” In re J.H., 2025-Ohio-811, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.), quoting 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a); see also 25
U.S.C. 1911(b) (“[i]n any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or
termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the
reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the
contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe”); see also Ohio
Adm.Code 5101:2-53-02(A) (“Failure to identify Indian children can nullify court
proceedings that have not been conducted in accordance with ICWA.”).
{¶45} “[T]he party invoking the ICWA bears the burden of establishing that the
ICWA is implicated.” In re L.R.D., 2019-Ohio-178, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.). “To meet this burden,
the party asserting the applicability of the ICWA must do more than simply raise the
possibility that a child has Native American ancestry.” Id. at ¶ 21. “Having Native
American ancestry, by itself, does not make one an ‘Indian child’ for purposes of the
ICWA. . . . Rather, the party invoking the act must demonstrate that the child meets the
definition of an ‘Indian child’ under the act.” Id.
PAGE 16 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶46} Contrary to Mother’s assertion, there is evidence in the record that an ICWA
inquiry was made at some point. Each semi-annual review filed by LCDJFS and adopted
by the trial court indicates the children are not of Indian or Native American ancestry.
Further, the ICWA states the inquiry is to be made “at the commencement of the
proceedings,” 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a), which includes prior hearings. See L.T., 2025-Ohio-
1719, at ¶ 16 (5th Dist.). Because Mother did not provide this court with the transcripts
from those hearings, we must presume the trial court conducted such an inquiry at an
earlier hearing. In re K.Y., 2025-Ohio-1117, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.) (“Without a transcript to
review, we presume the trial court conducted an inquiry at the commencement of these
proceedings.”); L.T. at ¶ 17 (“in the absence of a transcript of the initial hearing wherein
Father was present, we must presume Father was asked by the trial court about Native
American ancestry”).
{¶47} Crucially, Mother does not contend either of the children meets the definition
of an “Indian child” under the ICWA nor does she point to any evidence in the record
supporting such a contention. See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.)
(case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial
court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the
proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶
46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child
had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a
manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.).
Thus, Mother failed to carry her burden to demonstrate any error occurred, much less
one that rose to plain error.
PAGE 17 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 {¶48} Mother’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶49} The judgments of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, are affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.
PAGE 18 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error
are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, are affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant, E.T.
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 19 OF 19
Case Nos. 2025-L-103, 2025-L-104