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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re S.P.

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 815
• Docket Number: C-250641

• Judges: Moore

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (11.1K)

• PDF

Syllabus

PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD — LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT — ABANDONMENT: Where Mother failed to assert in her objection to the magistrate's decision that the magistrate's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, and she did not advance a plain-error argument on appeal, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The juvenile court's decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that permanent custody was in the children's best interest where the record and testimony showed that the children had been in the agency's care for approximately 16 consecutive months, and Mother (1) failed to visit the children for nearly three years, (2) refused to sign a release of information so that she could be referred for services, including making a referral so that Mother could continue supervised visits, (3) failed to remedy the concerns regarding her housing, including having working utilities, and (4) failed to verify her income. The juvenile court's finding that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that she did not remedy the issues that initially caused the children to be removed from her care.

Combined Opinion

                        by [Carla D. Moore](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8118/carla-d-moore/)

[Cite as In re S.P., 2026-Ohio-815.]

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
           FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
               HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: S.P. and D.P. : APPEAL NO. C-250641
TRIAL NO. F/01/2714 Z
:

                                        :       JUDGMENT ENTRY

    This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
    For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 3/11/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as In re S.P., 2026-Ohio-815.]

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
           FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
               HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: S.P. and D.P. : APPEAL NO. C-250641
TRIAL NO. F/01/2714 Z
:

                                    :              OPINION

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 11, 2026

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy A. Bradbury,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Alexandria Doty,
Assistant Public Defender, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem for the minor children,

Cynthia S. Daugherty, for Appellant Mother.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Judge.

   {¶1}   After the Hamilton County Juvenile Court adjudicated S.P., D.P., and

another sibling who is not the subject of this appeal dependent in September 2017,

they were remanded to Mother’s custody under protective supervision based on the

juvenile court’s finding that, at that time, the children were not at risk of harm while

in Mother’s care. The protective-supervision order, however, was terminated in

September 2018 due to allegations that Mother had no working utilities in her home.

   {¶2}   In May 2019, an adult sister of the children petitioned for custody. A

June 11, 2019 entry reflected that the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family

Services (“HCJFS”) had petitioned for emergency custody of the children and was

again involved with the family based on the sister’s testimony and the juvenile court’s

report to 241-KIDS that the children were living in “conditions that put their health at

immediate risk.”

   {¶3}   At the hearing on the motion, the sister testified that Mother’s home

lacked utilities, it was condemned, and the front door did not lock. The magistrate

granted interim custody of the children to the sister.

   {¶4}   On January 14, 2021, the juvenile court granted custody of S.P. and D.P.

to their sister because Mother’s housing situation had not changed since the children

were originally placed with their sister. Mother filed a motion for custody of the

children in November 2021. An August 2021 entry, however, reflected that her housing

situation remained unchanged.

   {¶5}   The children were eventually removed from their sister’s care due to

allegations of abuse and dependency. She ultimately was unable to resume custody

due to her subsequent incarceration on an unrelated criminal matter. The children

were again placed in the temporary custody of HCJFS and eventually committed to

                                       3
            OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the agency’s permanent custody based on both parents’ failure to engage in or

substantially complete case-plan services.

   {¶6}   Only Mother appeals the juvenile court’s judgment granting HCJFS

permanent custody of the children, arguing that the juvenile court erred in granting

HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody. She asserts that the court’s findings that (1)

the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should

not be placed with either parent, and (2) permanent custody was in the children’s best

interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) were not supported by clear and convincing

evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons stated

herein, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

                     I. Factual and Procedural History

   {¶7}   On December 9, 2021, HCJFS was granted a telephonic ex parte order

of emergency custody of S.P. and D.P. after receiving a report that the sister had

physically abused S.P.

   {¶8}   HCJFS also filed a complaint seeking temporary custody of S.P. and

D.P. on that same day, alleging that both children were abused, neglected, and

dependent. According to the affidavit supporting the complaint, the sister had beaten

S.P. with a belt, which left marks and bruises on her and a hemorrhage in her left eye,

and caused her pain when she sat. The affidavit stated that the children “have [a]

lengthy history involving JFS dating back to 2014 due to medical and educational

neglect,” and that Father was incarcerated.

   {¶9}   The affidavit further alleged that Mother was diagnosed with

narcissistic personality disorder, had a history of educational and medical neglect of

the children, and had refused to sign a release of information (“ROI”) or engage in

services.

                                         4
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶10} The magistrate granted HCJFS interim custody of S.P. and D.P., and the

children were placed in a foster home. Mother disagreed with the magistrate’s order

and asserted that the children should have been placed with her.

   {¶11} On March 22, 2022, Father, having been released from incarceration,

filed a petition for custody of S.P. and D.P.

                              A. The Case Plan

   {¶12} The case plan, filed on May 16, 2022, required Mother’s visits with the

children to be supervised due to concerns with Mother’s mental health and instability.

Mother and Father were expected to monitor what and who the children were exposed

to and not allow those who presented a threat to have access to the children, and to

identify and remove the children from unsafe environments.

   {¶13} The case plan stated that Mother had neither seen the children since

December 2020 nor met with the caseworker. The case plan further reflected that

Mother had refused to sign an ROI to continue visits with the children at an

appropriate agency.

B. HCJFS Dismisses and Refiles Its Complaint for Temporary Custody

   {¶14} On April 19, 2022, HCJFS dismissed its complaint without prejudice

and refiled its motion for interim custody, supporting affidavit, and complaint.

Following a hearing, the court again granted HCJFS interim custody of S.P. and D.P.

   {¶15} On April 22, 2022, the children’s adult brother and his wife filed a

petition for custody of both children and requested an emergency hearing. The

magistrate found that the children were not at imminent risk of harm and denied the

emergency hearing. On May 2, 2022, Mother filed a visitation complaint.

   {¶16} On September 27, 2022, the magistrate adjudicated S.P. abused and

both children dependent. During that hearing, Mother stipulated that her housing

                                        5
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

situation remained the same as when the sister had been granted custody of the

children. On December 19, 2022, the magistrate granted HCJFS’s motions for

temporary custody of the children and the first extension of temporary custody.

C. HCJFS Moves to Modify Temporary Custody to Permanent Custody

   {¶17} On March 8, 2023, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody

to permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(A). The complaint alleged that the

children were not bonded to Mother, that she had abandoned the children as she had

not visited them since December 2021, that the children were not bonded to Father

due to his previous incarceration and S.P.’s refusal to visit with him, and that the sister

was not in a position to care for the children due to her uncontrolled emotions around

the children and her incarceration on criminal charges.

   {¶18} The complaint highlighted Mother’s “lengthy history with HCJFS

concerning medical and educational neglect for both children,” her history of “housing

struggles,” her acknowledgement that “as recently as December 2022 that her housing

was not suitable for placement of the children,” and her refusal to engage in services,

including signing an ROI, completing a diagnostic assessment of functioning (“DAF”),

and visiting with the children.

   {¶19}   The complaint further stated that the children were bonded to their

foster family, that their behavior and grades had improved while living with the foster

family, and that the foster family wished to adopt them. The complaint noted D.P.’s

cognitive delays, individualized education plan, and the progress he had made while

with the foster family. The complaint reflected that the children had been in the

agency’s temporary care for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. It

stated that a legally secure permanent placement for the children could not be

achieved without a grant of permanent custody.

                                        6
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶20} The children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a report in May 2023 in

support of HCJFS’s permanent-custody motion.

D. The Magistrate Conducts an In-Camera Interview with the Children

   {¶21} On April 24, 2023, counsel for Father filed a motion to grant a second

extension of temporary custody to HCJFS. At Father’s request, the magistrate

conducted an in-camera interview of both children on June 15, 2023. The magistrate’s

June 15, 2023 entry generally reflected that both children expressed their wishes as to

permanent placement. On June 28, 2023, the magistrate appointed an In re Williams

attorney for the children based on the children’s statements during the in-camera

interview, indicating that their wishes differed from those of their GAL. See In re

Williams, 2004-Ohio-1500, ¶ 16-21, 25, 29 (the child at issue was a party to the

parental-termination proceedings and had the right to independent counsel to

represent her legal interests and protect her constitutional and other legal rights). That

same day, the adult brother appeared before the court and withdrew his petition for

custody of both children.

                     E. HCJFS Semi-Annual Reports

   {¶22} A June 2022 semi-annual report (“SAR”) stated that Mother had not

engaged in any services during that review period; she had not visited the children

since December 2021, still refused to sign an ROI, did not have a working phone, had

not maintained contact with HCJFS, and had not demonstrated any behavioral

changes. The SAR filed in December 2022 stated more of the same.

   {¶23} The June 2023 SAR reflected that, although Mother would contact the

caseworker, the 241-KIDS hotline, and the school regarding the children’s medication,

she would not respond to the caseworker’s phone calls or text messages. The report

stated that Mother continued to refuse to sign an ROI or discuss services with the

                                        7
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

caseworker, and she was asked to complete a DAF, take parenting-enrichment classes,

and complete intake for visitation. Mother’s last visit with the children was reportedly

in July 2022, when she attended one of Father’s visits.

   {¶24} The November 2023 SAR stated that Mother had not visited the

children since July 2022, that her housing and income had not been verified, and that

she had not signed an ROI or completed a DAF. The report stated that Mother would

leave the court before the caseworker could speak with her about the case.

        F.    The Hearing on the Permanent-Custody Motion

   {¶25} The hearing on HCJFS’s permanent-custody motion commenced on

January 18, 2024, but it was continued after the children’s sister requested that

Mother be appointed a GAL. The magistrate appointed a GAL, and in November 2024,

appointed counsel for Mother at the request of Mother’s GAL.

   {¶26} HCJFS filed its May 2024 SAR, which reported that Mother had not had

contact with HCJFS, had not visited the children, and had asked the caseworker to

stop sending her letters. It further reported that Mother’s mental health remained a

concern, and HCJFS did not know if Mother was in treatment. The October 2024 SAR

stated more of the same but added that Mother had not communicated with the

children’s GAL.

   {¶27} The hearing on the permanent-custody motion resumed on February

14, 2025.

                    1. The Caseworker’s Testimony

   {¶28} The caseworker testified that HCJFS had become involved due to

Mother’s unstable, untreated mental health. The caseworker was assigned to the case

in December 2021. She explained that Mother’s failure to complete an ROI or DAF

prevented the agency from making referrals for services. The caseworker further

                                       8
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

explained that an ROI was needed to make a referral so Mother could continue

visitation, as the caseworker could no longer supervise visits due to the agency’s

limited number of visits it could supervise for a family. The caseworker testified that

she attempted to explain why the ROI was necessary, but Mother would respond in a

“[v]ery nasty” manner. The caseworker testified that she had been unable to

communicate with Mother since Mother stopped visiting the children in 2022, later

adding that Mother refused to speak with her. The caseworker stated that Mother

never explained why she would not engage with the agency. The caseworker recalled

times when Mother visited the children and was “rude and disrespectful,” including

yelling at her, to the point where she informed Mother that she would end the visit if

her behavior did not change.

    {¶29} As to Mother’s housing, the caseworker recalled visiting Mother’s home

and seeing a board blocking the steps leading to the front door, old mattresses leaning

against a side door, and an old stove outside. The caseworker, however, did not have

an opportunity to see inside the home. The caseworker explained that she was required

to make three attempts monthly to assess Mother’s home. She further testified that

the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (“SACWIS”) records

showed that Mother historically had no water or heat in the home. The caseworker

stated that the agency was unable to verify Mother’s income.

    {¶30} The caseworker testified that S.P. and D.P. were doing well in their

respective placements,1 and that their caregivers met the children’s needs and wished

to adopt them. She explained that both children were receiving case-management

services for their respective medical and educational needs, and that neither parent

1 While the children were initially placed in the same home, they were placed in separate foster

homes prior to the hearing on the permanent-custody motion.

                                           9
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

had attended medical appointments or educational meetings for either child.

                            2. Mother’s Testimony

   {¶31} Mother testified that she had a three-bedroom home with furniture in it

for the children. Mother admitted she was not employed and explained that she would

get financial support from family members if the children were returned to her.

Mother testified that she did not have running water at her residence at that time, but

that she would bring water into the home for multiple purposes, such as bathing and

washing dishes.

   {¶32} Mother recalled last seeing D.P. in November 2024 when she attended

one of Father’s visits, and S.P. in June 2022. Mother testified that the caseworker

informed her that the caseworker would not supervise Mother’s future visits, and that

Mother was told the ROI needed to be signed to continue visits with the children.

Mother testified that she did not sign because she did not feel comfortable doing so.

   {¶33} Mother did not know her mental-health diagnoses, and her overall

testimony regarding her mental health was incoherent.

G. The Magistrate Grants HCJFS’s Motion for Permanent Custody2

   {¶34} The magistrate determined that the children had been in the agency’s

custody for 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period under R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) because the children had been in HCJFS’s custody from the time

when they were removed from the sister’s custody on December 9, 2021. The

magistrate turned to whether any of the best-interest factors under R.C.

2151.414(D)(1) applied.

2 The magistrate’s entry addressed Father and the children’s prior custodian, however, only
references to Mother are included for the purposes of this appeal as only Mother has appealed.

                                         10
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

    1. The Children’s Interactions and Interrelationships—R.C.
                         2151.414(D)(1)(a)

   {¶35} The magistrate noted that “[i]t was clear to the Court that Mother and

Father love their children” but found that “the children have suffered by not having a

consistent and ongoing relationship with either parent throughout the case.” The

magistrate considered Mother’s admission that she did not visit the children between

early 2022 and early 2025 and that, before that period, Mother refused to sign an ROI

so that she could be referred for supervised visits at a court-approved facility “as is

standard and common practice” because HCJFS could not continue to supervise the

visits. The magistrate found that Mother never arranged visits to the children or made

requests to visit them between early 2022 and early 2025. The magistrate further

found that Mother had sporadic contact with HCJFS beginning in mid-2022.

   {¶36} The magistrate found that neither of the children’s parents had attended

the children’s school meetings, exhibited “adequate or accurate knowledge about the

needs of the children, the interventions in place to assist the children, or the ongoing

planning for these needs,” and that Mother “refused to engage with the agency such

that she could participate.”

   {¶37} The magistrate stated that HCJFS had facilitated placements with the

children’s adult siblings, including the brother, with whom the children visited for a

period, but the brother discontinued those visits. The entry alluded to the children’s

previous placement with their adult sister, which ended due to allegations of physical

abuse. The entry noted that the children “were placed together for a time but

reportedly have done better when placed separately,” and they are bonded to their

current caregivers, who have adequately addressed each child’s special needs and want

to keep the children in their care.

                                       11
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

         2. The Wishes of the Child—R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b)

   {¶38} While noting that “[b]oth children have at times vacillated regarding

their desire for their long-term placements,” the magistrate found that the children’s

GAL supported a grant of permanent custody. S.P. stated that she wanted her caregiver

to adopt her in November 2024, and D.P. stated that he wanted to remain in his

current placement at about the same time. The magistrate further noted that neither

child had changed their position before trial.

 3. The Custodial History of the Children—R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c)

   {¶39} The magistrate found that D.P. and S.P. had been “outside the care of

their parents or former legal custodian, for 41 months without interruption,” which

represented “over a quarter of [D.P.’s] life” and “over a third of [S.P.’s] life.” The

magistrate added that the children were previously placed in the agency’s custody on

October 14, 2016, and remained there until January 14, 2021, when custody of the

children was granted to their sister.

1. The Children’s Need for a Legally Secure Permanent Placement—R.C.
   2151.414(D)(1)(d)

   {¶40} The magistrate concluded that a legally secure placement could not be

achieved without a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS because (1) Mother had

visited the children only from December 2021 until early or mid-2022, refused to sign

an ROI, and failed to consistently engage in case-plan services, (2) Mother only visited

the children in March of 2025 because Father invited her to attend one of his visits,

(3) Mother never gave HCJFS a reason for her refusal to work towards reunification

nor did she provide an explanation at trial, (4) Mother’s mental health “is virtually an

unknown” as she failed to engage in a DAF or any other mental-health services and

she “disavows any mental health concerns,” (5) Mother’s housing “is also virtually an

                                      12
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

unknown” as she did not permit HCJFS to inspect her home to determine whether it

was safe for the children, whether there was space and furniture for the children, and

whether anyone else lived in the home, and (6) Mother reported that she was working

but failed to show proof of income. The magistrate reiterated Mother’s failure to

participate in any of the children’s educational or health-care meetings, and that the

children had spent most of their lives “in and out of substitute care” due, in part, to

“concerns for Mother’s mental health.”

1. Whether Factors Enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) applied—
   R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e)

   {¶41} The magistrate found that the R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) factor applied

because Mother had abandoned the children. Although the magistrate initially found

that the children had been in the agency’s care for at least 12 months of a consecutive

22-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the magistrate’s entry stated,

           From the evidence adduced, the Magistrate finds that clear and

   convincing evidence established the following:

   The children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable

   time.

   The children should not be placed with either parent.

   The children’s continued residence in or return to the home would be

   contrary to their best interest and welfare.

   It is in the best interest of the children to be committed to the

   permanent custody of Hamilton County Job and Family Services.

Based on the foregoing, the magistrate found that placing the children in HCJFS’s

permanent custody was in their best interest.

                                       13
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

            H. Mother Objects to the Magistrate’s Decision

     {¶42} In her objection to the magistrate’s decision, Mother (1) asserted that

the magistrate’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2)

challenged the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusion that the children could not

or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time or that returning

the children to Mother’s care would be contrary to their best interest and welfare.

Mother argued that there was no clear and convincing evidence to show that she had

a significant mental-health issue that would affect her ability to parent the children,

or that “the children were negatively affected by Mother’s inconsistent visits.” Mother

further argued that she “had an adequate place of residence for the children to live,

and plumbed-water access in the residence is not an absolute requirement to meet the

basic needs of the children,” where Mother had “plenty of stored water in the house

for any basic needs,”3 and that she had sufficient income to meet the children’s basic

needs.

     {¶43} On July 16, 2025, Mother’s GAL filed a response to Mother’s objection.

The GAL argued that the evidence presented at trial supported the magistrate’s

decision to grant permanent custody to HCJFS and that it was not in Mother’s best

interest to have the children returned to her legal custody.

                     I. The Juvenile Court’s Judgment

                 1. The Court Denies Mother’s Objection

     {¶44} The juvenile court rejected the arguments raised in Mother’s objection.

As to the magistrate’s finding that “the children have suffered by not having a

consistent and ongoing relationship with either parent throughout the case,” the court

3 Mother made the same argument during the hearing on the sister’s petition for custody of S.P.

and D.P.

                                          14
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

found that Mother had not visited the children for over two years. The court also found

that Mother had abandoned the children due to her failure to visit them. The court

further determined that Mother’s challenge to the magistrate’s finding that “Mother

never gave HCJFS a reason for her refusal to work towards reunification,” and her

assertion that HCJFS was “merely speculating that Mother had mental health issues”

were not well-taken because Mother testified that she did not want to sign a ROI,

“which led to Mother not visiting with the children for over two years and not engaging

in any case plan services.”

   {¶45} The juvenile court addressed Mother’s challenge to the magistrate’s

finding that “neither parent has adequate or accurate knowledge about the needs of

the children, the interventions in place to assist the children, or the ongoing planning

for these needs.” The court considered the caseworker’s testimony that both children

had individualized services, that S.P. struggled with depression and suicidal ideations,

and that D.P. was being assessed for autism. The court reiterated the fact that Mother

went without seeing the children for over two years.

   {¶46} The juvenile court disagreed with Mother’s assertions that the

magistrate’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding that

Mother had not engaged in any case-plan services since the children were removed

from their sister’s custody and committed to HCJFS’s temporary custody, the court

reiterated Mother’s failure to visit the children “for a significant amount of time.” The

court added that HCJFS was unable to gain access to Mother’s home to assess its

suitability and noted Mother’s testimony that the home had no running water, that she

was not employed, and that she would rely on family for financial support for the

children.

                                       15
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

1. The Juvenile Court Approves and Adopts the Magistrate’s Decision

    {¶47} Upon the juvenile court’s independent review of the record, it found that
   

the magistrate properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the

law. The court determined that the evidence supported the magistrate’s decision. The

juvenile court reiterated much of the magistrate’s findings as to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)

and the magistrate’s best-interest analysis pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e) in its

analysis, making a few additional findings as to the best-interest factors as reflected

below.

     {¶48} As to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a), the court found that Mother’s visits did not

progress past a supervised setting, and that the children, though in separate

placements, are “close and visit with each other.” As to R.C.2151.414(D)(1)(c), the court

found that the children had been out of the care of both parents and their sister since

December 2021.

     {¶49} Regarding R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), the juvenile court found that Mother

failed to complete a DAF, “attend therapy classes, participate in Med Som,” and attend

visitation with the children. The court found that the caseworker “had sporadic contact

with Mother throughout the case” despite the caseworker sending letters and

attempting to “pop up” at Mother’s home. It reiterated Mother’s failure to remedy the

issues regarding the suitability of her home and to verify her income.

     {¶50} The court found that nine-year-old D.P. had been in a specialized foster

home since 2023, was diagnosed with ADHD, was being assessed for autism, attends

weekly individual therapy, and is prescribed medication. Eleven-year-old S.P.—who is

placed with a nonkinship relative—is engaged in services, attends therapy, and has a

mentor to address her diagnoses of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.

The court noted that the children’s respective caregivers “have kept up with the

                                        16
               OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

children’s appointments and services for their individual needs.”

   {¶51} The court’s entry further reflected that the children were removed from

their previous placement due to physical abuse, and that an older sibling filed a

petition for legal custody but withdrew it.

   {¶52} The court concluded that a legally secure permanent placement could

not be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS as the children’s

sister, the previous legal custodian, was incarcerated, Mother had not visited with the

children for a significant amount of time and had not completed any case-plan

services, Father testified that he was not in a position to take the children at the time

of the hearing and had requested a six-month extension to obtain stable housing and

income, and no relatives had been deemed appropriate to care for the children at the

time of the hearing.

   {¶53} As to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), the court found that Mother abandoned

the children under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) based on the time she went without visiting

the children, and that the sister also abandoned the children.

   {¶54} The court found that HCJFS had met its burden to show, by clear and

convincing evidence, that a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s

best interest. The juvenile court, having denied Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s

decision, approved and incorporated the magistrate’s decision in its entry.

   {¶55} This appeal followed.

                                 II. Analysis

   {¶56} Mother asserts in a single assignment of error that the juvenile court’s

decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight

of the evidence.

                                          17
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                          A. Standard of Review

   {¶57} R.C. 2151.413(A) provides that, after the juvenile court adjudicates a

child abused, neglected, or dependent under R.C. 2151.353(A)(2), an agency may file

a motion to commit the child to its permanent custody. To terminate parental rights

and grant permanent custody to the agency, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) requires that the court

determine at the hearing by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest

of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion

for permanent custody and that any of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-

(e) apply. See In re N.M.P., 2020-Ohio-1458 ¶ 15-16; In re B.H., 2024-Ohio-423, ¶ 37

(1st Dist.). In determining the best interest of a child, the juvenile court must consider

the nonexhaustive list of relevant factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). See In re

B.H. at ¶ 37; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

   {¶58} In reviewing a juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights

under R.C. 2151.414, this court applies a sufficiency of the evidence and/or a manifest

weight of the evidence standard of review, depending upon the nature of the

arguments raised. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 11. “Sufficiency of the evidence and

manifest weight of the evidence are distinct concepts[.]” Id. at ¶ 13.

   {¶59} While Mother raises insufficiency of the evidence on appeal, she did not

do so in her objection to the magistrate’s decision below, nor does she advance a plain-

error argument on appeal. “Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign

as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion . . .

unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Juv.R.

40(D)(3)(b).” In re G.W., 2024-Ohio-1551, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.), quoting Juv.R.

40(D)(3)(b)(iv). Because Mother failed to raise her insufficiency argument below, we

will not consider the argument on appeal. Similarly, because Mother fails to advance

                                       18
                OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

a plain-error argument on appeal, we will not do so on her behalf. See In re C.C., 2024-

Ohio-5013, ¶ 8, 10-11 (1st Dist.) (holding that this court need not create a plain-error

analysis where an appellant fails to develop one).

B. The Juvenile Court’s Decision Was Not Against the Manifest Weight
of the Evidence

    {¶60} When reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, we

must “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the

witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [juvenile]

court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the

judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 16

(1st Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12.

                                 1. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)

    {¶61} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides that a child is considered to have entered

the temporary custody of an agency based on the date when the child was adjudicated,

or the date that is 60 days after the child was removed from their home, whichever is

the earlier date.

    {¶62} The children were placed in HCJFS’s interim custody on December 9,

1. On September 27, 2022, S.P. was adjudicated abused, and both children were

adjudicated dependent. Accordingly, the children entered HCJFS’s temporary custody

on February 9, 2022, which is 60 days after the children were removed from the

previous custodian’s care.4 Therefore, the children had been in the agency’s custody

4 R.C. 2151.414(B) provides that “a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody

of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated . . . or the date that is sixty days after
the removal of the child from the home.” Here, the earlier date is 60 days after the children were
removed on December 9, 2021, as the adjudication on the agency’s complaint was not made until
September 27, 2022.

                                                19
               OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

for over 12 consecutive months under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).5

    {¶63} We next consider the best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-

(e).

        2. The Children’s Interactions and Interrelationships

    {¶64} Mother first addresses the court’s consideration of the children’s

interactions and interrelationships under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). As to her failure to

visit the children for nearly three years, Mother asserts that the ROI was not explained

to her, and that the caseworker told her she would not supervise Mother’s visits.

    {¶65} We reject Mother’s explanation for failing to visit the children, as the

case plan initially alerted the court to Mother’s refusal to sign the ROI to continue

supervised visits with the children, and the caseworker testified that she explained to

Mother that she could not be referred to a visitation facility without first signing the

ROI.

                            3. The Children’s Wishes

    {¶66} As to the wishes of the children under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), Mother

asserts that the children expressed that they wished to be returned to her custody, that

the children previously lived with her, and that she remained in contact with the

children via telephone when she did not visit the children. This argument is meritless,

however, as the record shows that, although the children were appointed an In re

Williams attorney, the GAL ultimately reported that both children wished to remain

in their respective placements. Further, no evidence to the contrary was presented.

5 While R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) considers whether a child has been in custody for 12 months of a

consecutive 22-month period, “nothing in the plain language of the statute requires a public agency
to wait until a child has been in its custody for [22] months before filing a motion for permanent
custody.” In re K.K., 2025-Ohio-4376, ¶ 81 (8th Dist.), quoting In re T.R., 2025-Ohio-2531, ¶ 34
(8th Dist.), citing In re N.M.P., 2020-Ohio-1458, ¶ 23. Therefore, this factor is met although the
children had been in the agency’s custody for approximately 16 months.

                                           20
            OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Further, the juvenile court agreed with the magistrate’s decision that the children’s

desire to remain with their respective foster families had not changed as of the date of

the hearing on the permanent-custody motion.

4. Placement Could Not Have Been Achieved Without a Grant of
                    Permanent Custody

   {¶67} Mother next argues that the children could have been placed with her

within a reasonable amount of time or should have been placed with her. See R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a). She contends that placement could have been achieved without a

grant of permanent custody because she had financial support and “was registered

with a temp service for work and income.” See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d). Mother asserts

that, had she been given additional time to complete case-plan services, the children

could have been returned to her.

   {¶68} Mother had sufficient time—from the date when the children were

placed in HCJFS’s custody on December 19, 2021, until March 6, 2023, when HCJFS

filed its permanent-custody motion—to engage in case-plan services. The hearing on

the agency’s motion was continued numerous times between October 3, 2023, when it

was initially scheduled, and February 14, 2025, when it finally commenced. Mother,

however, continued to fail to engage in case-plan services. Further, Mother’s GAL

reported that returning the children to Mother’s care was not in Mother’s best interest.

   {¶69} There is nothing in the record to suggest that the juvenile court lost its

way or created a manifest injustice by granting HCJFS’s motion for permanent

custody. Mother’s sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.

                               III. Conclusion

   {¶70} Where the record is clear that Mother failed to engage in case-plan

services, the juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody of the children to

                                      21
            OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

HCJFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the

juvenile court’s judgment.

                                                             Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., concur.

                                     22