Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re E.A.

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 906
• Docket Number: 2025CA00141

• Judges: Hoffman

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.9K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Permananet Custody - UCCJEA - Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Reasoanble Efforts to Reunify - Best Interest of the Child

Combined Opinion

                        by [William Hoffman](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8104/william-hoffman/)

[Cite as In re E.A., 2026-Ohio-906.]

COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: E.A. Case No. 2025CA00141

Opinion and Judgment Entry

Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case
No. 2024JCV00572

Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: March 18, 2026

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman, Craig R. Baldwin, Kevin W. Popham, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: Richard D. Hixson, for Counsel for Appellant-Mother; Brandon
Waltenbaugh, Stark County Job and Family Services, for Appellee; Nicholas Doughty,
Guardian ad Litem
OPINION

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant N.D. (hereinafter “Mother”) appeals the judgment entered by the

Stark County Common Pleas Court, Family Court Division, awarding permanent custody

of her child E.A. (hereinafter “Child”) to Appellee Stark County Department of Job and

Family Services (hereinafter “Agency”).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Mother lost custody of one of her children in New Hampshire because the

child had special health needs, and Mother failed to care for the child. Mother then fled

to Ohio with the Child, who was born on August 13, 2021, and her other children in an

attempt to avoid losing custody of her children. The Agency became involved with the

family, concerned with Mother’s mental health and the fact the children were not enrolled

in school or attending doctor’s appointments. On May 28, 2024, the Child was found to

be dependent and neglected, and was placed in the temporary custody of the Agency.

The Child was initially placed in foster care, and eventually placed with her maternal aunt

in New Hampshire.

{¶3} A case plan was developed for Mother. Mother failed to comply with the

portion of the case plan requiring a parenting evaluation. Mother failed to complete her

drug and alcohol assessment as required by the case plan. Mother completed a few

Color Code drug screens in compliance with the case plan, but after she tested positive

for THC, she failed to appear for further screens.

{¶4} In July of 2024, Mother moved back to New Hampshire. Mother failed to

comply with her case plan in her New Hampshire case, which had similar objectives to
her case plan in Ohio. While she completed a drug assessment in New Hampshire,

Mother did not follow through with mental health treatment after being diagnosed with

schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mother did not have stable housing in New

Hampshire.

{¶5} Mother stopped visiting the Child in July of 2024. Prior to this date, Mother

participated in supervised visits. The aide who supervised the visits reported the visits

did not go well due to Mother’s mental health. Mother would often speak in Spanish so

the workers would be unable to understand what was happening during the visits.

Siblings who were older than the Child expressed to Mother their contentment with the

stability in foster care, where they received three meals a day plus snacks. After Mother

stopped visiting the Child, she only saw the Child on one occasion when she happened

to run into the Child with her current custodian.

{¶6} The caseworker assigned to the case was unable to meet with Mother face

to face after Mother returned to New Hampshire. The caseworker spoke with Mother on

the telephone to remind Mother of her responsibilities under her case plan, but during the

calls, Mother became upset and threatened to sue the Agency. The caseworker

maintained contact with the caseworker assigned to Mother’s case in New Hampshire,

and would have accepted compliance with the New Hampshire services as compliance

with the Ohio case plan, but Mother completed no services in New Hampshire other than

a drug assessment.

{¶7} The Agency moved for permanent custody of the Child. The case

proceeded to a hearing in the trial court. Mother did not appear for the hearing, but was

represented by counsel who appeared for the hearing. Following the hearing, the trial
court found Mother had abandoned the Child by failing to visit for a period exceeding

ninety days, and found the Child could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable

period of time. The trial court found permanent custody to be in the Child’s best interest,

and granted permanent custody of the Child to the Agency.

{¶8} It is from the September 25, 2025 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER UNDER OHIO’S UNIFORM CHILD

CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT.

II. THE AGENCY FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO

REUNIFY THE FAMILY PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

RIGHTS AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT

REASONABLE EFFORTS WERE MADE.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR

CHILDREN [SIC], AS SUCH A FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
I.

{¶9} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over this case based on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act (hereinafter “UCCJEA”). We disagree.

{¶10} R.C. 2151.23(A)(1) grants the juvenile court exclusive original jurisdiction

concerning any child who, on or about the date specified in the complaint, is alleged to

be an abused, neglected, or dependent child. R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) grants the juvenile

court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the custody of a child who is not a ward of another

court of Ohio. R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) provides the juvenile court shall exercise its jurisdiction

in child custody matters in accordance with R.C. 3127.01 to 3127.53 of the Ohio Revised

Code, which is Ohio’s codification of the UCCJEA.

{¶11} R.C. 3127.18 provides in pertinent part:

(A) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if a

child is present in this state and either of the following applies:

(1) The child has been abandoned.

(2) It is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the

child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with

mistreatment or abuse.

(B) If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled

to be enforced under this chapter and a child custody proceeding has not

been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under sections

3127.15 to 3127.17 of the Revised Code or a similar statute of another
state, a child custody determination made under this section remains in

effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction

under sections 3127.15 to 3127.17 of the Revised Code or a similar statute

of another state. If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not

commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under sections 3127.15

to 3127.17 of the Revised Code or a similar statute of another state, a child

custody determination made under this section becomes a final

determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the

child.

{¶12} We find the facts of this case satisfy R.C. 3127.18(A)(2). The Child was

present in Ohio when the case commenced. The complaint detailed concerns about

Mother’s mental health, transient nature, drug use, failure to enroll her children in school

and to provide access to medical care, and failure to comply with a safety plan to remedy

the Agency’s concerns. The complaint stated the caseworker discussed the case with

Mother’s caseworker in New Hampshire, who reported Mother was diagnosed with

schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and was not engaged in treatment. Mother had a

history of moving to another State when children’s services became involved, and the

Agency had been involved with Mother in the past but closed cases due to Mother moving.

An active criminal warrant for Mother was pending from Ashtabula County. The facts of

the complaint established the Child was threatened with mistreatment.

{¶13} Further, at the shelter care hearing Mother stipulated to a finding of

dependency, thus admitting removal of the Child from her home was necessary to prevent
immediate or threatened physical or emotional harm to the Child, the Child had no parent

able to care for her, and continued residence with Appellant was contrary to the best

interest of the Child. Although a party cannot waive a court’s subject matter jurisdiction,

stipulation to the truth of facts necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction may

suffice to confer jurisdiction upon the court through estoppel. In re Palmer, 12 Ohio St.

3d 194, 196 (1984). We find the facts stipulated to by Mother sufficient to confer

jurisdiction upon the court pursuant to R.C. 3127.18(A)(2).

{¶14} There is no competing order regarding the Child in New Hampshire.

Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 3127.18(B), Ohio became the home state of the Child moving

forward.

{¶15} The first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶16} In her second assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court erred in

finding the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with the Child. We

disagree.

{¶17} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the trial court is not obligated by R.C.

2151.419 to make a determination the Agency used reasonable efforts to reunify the

family at the time of the permanent custody hearing unless the agency has not established

reasonable efforts have been made prior to that hearing. In re C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶

1. The trial court is only obligated to make a determination the Agency has made

reasonable efforts to reunify the family at "adjudicatory, emergency, detention, and

temporary-deposition hearings, and dispositional hearings for abused, neglected, or
dependent children, all of which occur prior to a decision transferring permanent custody

to the state." Id. at ¶ 41.

{¶18} In this case, the record reflects the magistrate made reasonable-efforts

findings at various points throughout the case on May 28, 2024, August 6, 2024,

November 21, 2024, and April 18, 2025. Consequently, the Agency did not need to prove

at the permanent custody hearing it made reasonable reunification efforts. Id.

{¶19} In addition, we find the record of the permanent custody hearing reflects the

Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and Child. A case plan was

established which required Mother to complete a parenting evaluation, complete a drug

and alcohol assessment, and engage in the Color Code system of drug testing. Mother

did not comply with the case plan. While the caseworker never met with Mother face-to-

face, this failure was a consequence of Mother returning to New Hampshire. The

caseworker attempted to engage with Mother via telephone, although the phone calls

were unproductive. The caseworker spoke regularly with Mother’s caseworker in New

Hampshire, and would have been willing to accept any progress Mother made on her

New Hampshire case plan as progress on Mother’s Ohio case plan.

{¶20} The second assignment of error is overruled.

III.

{¶21} In her third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court’s finding

permanent custody was in the Child’s best interest is not supported by clear and

convincing evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree.

{¶22} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court
schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody

of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long term foster care.

{¶23} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) authorizes the juvenile court to

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or

more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or

more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,

1999.

{¶24} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial

court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial

court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding

the best interest of the child.

{¶25} Because R.C. 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to find by clear and

convincing evidence the statutory requirements are met, 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 which are presented by the parties. In re Z.C.,

2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 11. “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof

which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such

certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will

produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to

be established.” Id. at ¶ 7, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph

three of the syllabus.

{¶26} Mother did not assign error to the trial court’s findings the Child was

abandoned and the Child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period

of time. Rather, she challenges the second prong of the analysis, which requires the

juvenile court to determine by clear and convincing evidence it is in the best interest of

the child to grant permanent custody to the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D). R.C.

2151.414(B)(1).

{¶27} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing,

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) mandates the trial court must 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 parents 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; (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; and (e) whether any of the factors in division (E)(7)

to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶28} The caseworker testified at the hearing the Child is placed with her maternal

aunt in New Hampshire, along with some of her siblings. The Child has resided in her

aunt’s home since January of 2025. The Child has speech delays. A caseworker in New

Hampshire monitored the placement and provided the Agency updates on a monthly

basis. The Child is doing well in the placement and is bonded with everyone in the home.

The Child has contact with three additional siblings placed with other relatives in New

Hampshire. Mother has not visited the Child since July of 2024. Prior to July of 2024,

Mother’s visits with the Child and her siblings did not go well. Mother suffers from

schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for which she has not engaged in treatment, and has

eight additional children. The maternal aunt and uncle wish to adopt the Child. The

caseworker testified she believed the Child would benefit from adoption. We find the trial

court’s finding permanent custody is in the best interest of the Child is supported by clear

and convincing evidence, and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶29} The third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶30} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Family Court

Division, is affirmed. Costs are assessed to Appellant.

By: Hoffman, P.J.

Baldwin, J. and

Popham, J. concur