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 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re J.L.

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 807
• Docket Number: 2025 CA 00131

• Judges: Popham

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Permanent Custody

Combined Opinion

[Cite as In re J.L., 2026-Ohio-807.]

COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: J.L. Case No. 2025 CA 00131

Opinion And Judgment Entry

Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
No. 2024 JCV 01163

Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry:March 10, 2026

BEFORE: WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN, P.J., ROBERT G. MONTGOMERY, J., KEVIN W.
POPHAM, J.; Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: JAMES B. PHILLIPS, for Appellee; KATHALEEN S. O’BRIEN, for
Appellant

OPINION

Popham, J.,

{¶1} Father appeals the September 10, 2025, judgment entry of the Stark County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating his parental rights and granting

permanent custody of J.L. to Stark County Job and Family Services (“SCJFS”). For the

reasons below, we affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

{¶2} B.C. is the mother (“Mother”) of J.L., who was born on September 29, 2024.

J.S.L. is the father (“Father”) of J.L.
{¶3} Mother was convicted of felony child endangering for causing physical

injuries to J.L.’s sibling. While Mother was serving her sentence, she gave birth to J.L.

On October 1, 2024, SCJFS initially filed a complaint. At that point in time, paternity had

not been established for Father. On October 2, 2024, the trial court held an emergency

shelter care hearing and placed J.L. into the temporary custody of SCJFS. On October

11, 2024, SCJFS filed a first amended complaint.

{¶4} The amended complaint alleged, in part, as follows: Mother was convicted

of felony child endangering after J.L.’s sibling had multiple fractures of her arms and legs

that were determined to be abusive; Mother’s release date from prison is not until March

23, 2027; Father has a criminal history that includes assault, aggravated menacing, theft,

criminal damaging, disorderly conduct, and arson; and Father has a history with SCJFS

and previous concerns included drug abuse and homelessness.

{¶5} On October 30, 2024, the magistrate held a hearing – at which Father

appeared. On December 2024, the magistrate held an adjudicatory hearing – at which

Father appeared and stipulated to a finding of dependency.

{¶6} On January 30, 2025, SCJFS notified the trial court that genetic testing had

been completed and confirmed that Father was the biological father of J.L. Accordingly,

Father was added as a case plan participant. Father’s case plan required him to

complete a parenting assessment at Lighthouse Family Center and follow all

recommendations from the service providers; to attend all required appointments and

participate in the required appointments; to complete a drug and alcohol assessment at

CommQuest Recovery Services and follow all recommendations from the service

providers; and to submit to random drug screens as requested by SCJFS. SCJFS
proposed that Father would have twice monthly supervised visits with J.L. However,

those visits never began because Father was arrested.

{¶7} On April 30, 2025, a dispositional hearing was held - at which the trial court

adopted and approved the amended case plan and ordered J.L. to remain in the

temporary custody of SCJFS. At both the December 20, 2024, adjudicatory hearing and

the April 30, 2025, dispositional hearing, the trial court found SCJFS made reasonable

efforts to prevent removal, eliminate continued removal, or make it possible for the child

to return safely to the home.

{¶8} On May 29, 2025, SCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of J.L. The

motion outlined the issues remaining with Mother and Father, including - Mother is

currently serving a three-year prison sentence for child endangering after physically

abusing J.L.’s sibling; J.L.’s sibling was placed in the permanent custody of SCJFS;

Father was sentenced to three years in prison for burglary and obstruction of official

business; Father’s scheduled release date is February of 2027; and Father has never

visited the child.

{¶9} Prior to the hearing on SCJFS’ motion for permanent custody, Father filed

a motion to extend temporary custody.

{¶10} On September 9, 2025, the trial court conducted a trial on SCJFS’ motion

for permanent custody. The following testimony was adduced at the September 9th trial.

{¶11} Hannah Thomas (“Thomas”) is the caseworker assigned to J.L. Thomas

testified that J.L. has been in the temporary custody of the agency since October 1, 2024.

Thomas confirmed that the court conducted regular review hearings and found the

agency made reasonable efforts to finalize permanency planning for the child.
{¶12} Thomas testified to Father’s case plan and his progress on the plan. Father

is currently incarcerated at Richland Correctional Institution after being convicted of

burglary and obstruction of justice. His earliest release date is February of 2027. Father’s

case plan objectives included completing a Lighthouse Parenting Assessment, and a drug

and alcohol assessment through an agency provider. However, since Father was

arrested in February of 2025, he has been unable to complete any case plan services.

Thomas testified that Father has a history with the agency, as another child was removed

from Father’s care in 2014 due to drug use and homelessness. Father was unable to

complete the case plan with that child because he was arrested for arson and sentenced

to four years in prison.

{¶13} Thomas testified that, even if Father were to be released from prison

tomorrow, he would still have to complete extensive case plan services. Thomas stated

there would not be time for Father to complete those services. Thomas concluded that

Father cannot safely provide care and support for J.L., and Father has not done anything

to reduce the risk he poses to J.L.

{¶14} Father has never visited the child. When Father established paternity of the

child in January, the agency was attempting to set up visits with him; however, Father

was arrested and was unable to start visitation. Thomas confirmed that Father has not

seen, or had any contact with, J.L. for a period in excess of ninety days.

{¶15} On cross-examination, Thomas testified that she sent at least three letters

in the last six months to Father while he has been in Richland County Correctional

Institution. These letters contained case plan updates, case review information, and her

contact information. Father never contacted Thomas after she sent the letters. Thomas
visited Father while he was in the Stark County Jail prior to being convicted and discussed

case plan services with him. Thomas testified Father never informed her of any parenting

classes available in prison. However, the agency requires parents, especially parents

who have a history with the agency, to have a parenting assessment completed locally at

Lighthouse. Thomas understood that Father was able to apply for judicial release in one

month from the date of the permanent custody hearing. Despite this timing, Thomas does

not believe Father would have sufficient time to complete case plan services.

{¶16} Father testified that he is eligible to file a motion for judicial release in one

month. If the sentencing court grants his motion for judicial release, Father would engage

in case plan services and visit with J.L. He believes it would be in the best interest of J.L.

for him to engage in case plan services after his release from prison.

{¶17} Thomas testified during the best interest portion of the trial. J.L. is

developmentally on target. J.L. has some medical issues from a dislocated hip with which

she was born. The foster parents are taking care of these medical issues. J.L. has been

in her current foster home since removal and is placed with her biological sibling. Thomas

stated J.L. is very bonded to her foster parents and her sibling. The foster parents seek

to adopt J.L. Thomas testified there is no bond between J.L. and Father, because Father

has never met J.L. Thomas testified it is in the best interest of J.L. for permanent custody

to be granted to SCJFS.

{¶18} Father testified that he believes it is in J.L.’s best interest to build a bond

with him and his family.
{¶19} The GAL testified that J.L. is extremely bonded to the foster parents and to

her sibling and, further, that is in the best interest of J.L. for permanent custody to be

granted to SCJFS.

{¶20} On September 10, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry containing

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found Father abandoned the child,

and, notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist

Father with remedying the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the

home, Father failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the conditions causing the

child to be placed outside the home.

{¶21} Accordingly, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that

J.L. cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable time and should not be placed with

Father within a reasonable time. Further, the trial court found it is in the best interest of

J.L. for permanent custody to be granted to SCJFS.

{¶22} Father appeals the September 10, 2025, judgment entry of the Stark County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and assigns the following as error:

{¶23} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY

TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS

SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT

GROUNDS EXISTED FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY AND SUCH DECISION WAS

AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”

{¶24} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY

TO STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS

SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY

AND SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”

Permanent Custody

{¶25} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re

Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

An award of permanent custody must be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C.

2151.414(B)(1).

{¶26} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954). “Where the degree of proof required to

sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record

to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the

requisite degree of proof.” Id. If some competent and credible evidence going to all the

essential elements of the case supports the trial court’s judgment, an appellate court must

affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E. Morris

Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978).

{¶27} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to

the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal Co., Inc., v. Cleveland, 10

Ohio St.3d 77 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is “crucial in a

child custody case, where there may be much evident in the parties’ demeanor and

attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415,

419 (1997).
{¶28} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth 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 of the filing of a motion for permanent custody of a child by

a public children services agency.

{¶29} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the 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, has not been in the temporary custody

of the children services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive

twenty-two month period, and the child cannot be placed 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;

(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; or

(e) the child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from whose

custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an abused, neglected,

or dependent child on three separate occasions by any court in this state or another

state.
{¶30} 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, a trial court

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

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

the best interest of the child. In this case, as to Father, the trial court made a finding

pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (reasonable time) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b)

(abandonment).

Manifest Weight

{¶31} In both of his assignments of error, Father argues the trial court’s decision

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The standard of review for manifest

weight in a civil case is identical to the standard in a criminal case - a reviewing court is

to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider

the credibility of witnesses and determine “whether in resolving conflicts in evidence, the

jury [or finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice

that the conviction [or decision] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).

{¶32} Because the finder of fact is in the best position to weigh the credibility of

the witnesses and observe their demeanor, a reviewing court will always be mindful of

the presumption in favor of the trial court’s factual findings. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-

Ohio-2179.
I.

Reasonable Time

{¶33} In his first assignment of error, Father contends the trial court’s

determination that J.L. could not or should not be placed with him in a reasonable time to

be against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶34} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all relevant

evidence before determining the child cannot be placed with either parent within a

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. The statute also specifically

provides that if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing

that one or more of the factors listed in (1)-(15) exist, the court shall enter a finding that

the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be

placed with either parent. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the

child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. See In re William S., 75

Ohio St.3d 95 (1996). The trial judge in this case relied on two of these factors: R.C.

2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(10).

{¶35} R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applies when “notwithstanding reasonable case

planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems

that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed

continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to

be placed outside the child’s home.” In making such a determination, “the court shall

consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for
the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental

duties.” Id.

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) – Failure to Remedy

{¶36} We find clear and convincing evidence in the record that R.C.

2151.414(E)(1) applies because Father failed to substantially remedy the conditions that

caused J.L. to be placed into the custody of SCJFS, and that Father is unable to provide

an adequate permanent home for J.L.

{¶37} As soon as paternity was established for Father, SCJFS provided Father

with a case plan that outlined the steps he needed to complete to be reunited with J.L.

However, Father was quickly arrested. Thomas discussed the potential ways in which

Father could complete his case plan while he was locally incarcerated. However, once

Father was transferred to prison, SCJFS letters sent to Father went unanswered.

{¶38} Father contends that since his counsel will soon be able to file a motion for

judicial release and because he would immediately be willing to work on case plan

services, the trial court’s finding that J.L. cannot or should not be placed with him within

a reasonable time is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

{¶39} The first date that Father is eligible to file a motion for judicial release is a

month after the permanent custody hearing. The trial court judge in the underlying

criminal case has discretion to deny or grant the motion. To be sure, judicial release is

certainly not guaranteed. Further, Thomas testified that, even if Father were to be

judicially released, Father would not have sufficient time to complete his case plan

services, particularly given his criminal history and his history with SCJFS.
{¶40} Father was unable to make any progress on his case plan due to his

incarceration, and will be unable to do so until his release date. Father’s own actions led

to his incarceration, thus demonstrating Father’s unwillingness to provide an adequate

permanent home for J.L. Father’s incarceration has prevented him from caring for J.L.

and from learning how to care for J.L. Thomas’ testimony established that Father will not

be able to care for J.L. within a reasonable time, if ever, and, further, that Father has no

bond with J.L. because he has never met her or had any contact with her. Thomas

concluded that Father cannot provide safe care and support for J.L., and Father has not

done anything to reduce the risks he poses to J.L.

{¶41} While Father advocated for an extension of time, waiting for Father to be

released from prison to begin and substantially complete a case plan, learn how to care

for J.L., and reunify with J.L., would take this matter past its sunset date. In re O.S., 2025-

Ohio-4867, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.). As noted above, even if Father is judicially released from

prison when first eligible, he would still not be able to substantially complete a case plan

given the extensive services required on his case plan due to his criminal history and

given the fact that he previously had a child removed from his care by SCJFS.

{¶42} We find that clear and convincing evidence was presented to the trial court

that J.L. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable period of time because he

did not remedy the conditions that caused J.L.’s initial removal, and Father could not

provide a permanent home for J.L.

R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) - Abandonment

{¶43} We also find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial

court’s determination that Father abandoned J.L. A child is presumed abandoned when
the child’s parent “ha[s] failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than

ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that

period of ninety days.” R.C. 2151.011(C).

{¶44} The evidence shows that Father never met J.L. Father was added to the

case plan after paternity was established. However, very quickly after his case plan was

established, Father was arrested and was ultimately sent to prison. Father was locally

incarcerated from February of 2025 to May of 2025, and has been in prison since May of

1. He did not have any contact with J.L. while he was locally incarcerated or since he

has been imprisoned, in total a period of more than ninety days. Father was therefore

presumed to have abandoned J.L., and it became his burden to rebut that presumption

pursuant to R.C. 2151.011(C).

{¶45} Father argues he rebutted the abandonment presumption because his

incarceration prevented him from having contact with J.L. “Incarceration, however, does

not rebut the presumption of abandonment.” In re M.A., 2024-Ohio-3432, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.),

citing Matter of M.G., 2023-Ohio-696, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.).

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) - Abandonment

{¶46} Father also challenges the trial court’s finding pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(b) that he abandoned J.L. As detailed above, there is clear and

convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Father abandoned J.L.

{¶47} Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶48} In his second assignment of error, Father contends the trial court’s

determination that the best interest of the child would be served by granting permanent
custody to SCJFS is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. Father

points to the fact that he desires to complete case plan services, and his testimony that

he believes it is in the best interest of the child to be placed with family.

{¶49} We have frequently noted, “[t]he discretion which the juvenile court enjoys

in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child

should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact

that court’s determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy

Children, 2000 WL 1700073, * 3 (5th Dist. November 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 95

Ohio App.3d 309, 316 (8th Dist. 1994).

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

R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including,

but not limited to the following: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the child’s need for a

legally secure placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a

grant of permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11)

of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.

{¶51} The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D), as well as

other relevant factors. There is not one element that is given greater weight than the

others pursuant to the statute. In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513. In re Schaefer made it

clear that a trial court’s statutory duty, when determining whether it is in the best interest
of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency, does not include finding by clear and

convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement. Id. R.C.

2151.414 “requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has

been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make

the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an

all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor

more heavily than others.” Id. at ¶ 64.

{¶52} The focus on the “best interest” determination is upon the child, not the

parent, as R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically prohibits the court from considering the effect a

grant of permanent custody would have upon the parents. In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d

309, 316 (8th Dist. 1994).

{¶53} We find the trial court did not commit error in finding that granting permanent

custody to SCJFS is in the best interest of the child.

{¶54} Thomas testified it is in the best interest of J.L. for permanent custody to be

granted to SCJFS. J.L. is happy at her current foster home and is bonded with the family.

J.L. is living with her biological sibling, who she is also bonded with. The GAL testified

that J.L. is extremely bonded to her foster family and sibling, and that it is in the best

interest of J.L. for permanent custody to be granted to SCJFS.

{¶55} We find the trial court properly considered and weighed the factors in R.C.

2151.414(D) and the trial court’s conclusion that the granting of permanent custody to

SCJFS is in the best interest of the child is supported by competent and credible evidence.

Further, the trial court did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice
such that the decision must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Father’s second

assignment of error is overruled.

{¶56} Based on the foregoing, Father’s assignments of error are overruled.

For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

Costs to Appellant/Father, J.S.L.

By: Popham, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Montgomery, J., concur