The opinion
[Cite as In re J.H., 2025-Ohio-811.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NOS. 2024-A-0087
2024-A-0088
J.H., JR., J.H., D.H., D.H., AND A.H., 2024-A-0089
DEPENDENT CHILDREN 2024-A-0090
2024-A-0091
Civil Appeals from the
Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 2021 JC 00059
2021 JC 00060
2021 JC 00061
2021 JC 00062
2021 JC 00063
OPINION
Decided: March 10, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
Matthew S. Ziccarelli, Ziccarelli Law, 8754 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For
Appellant, Jaiontai M. Henton).
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Mary M. Stanford, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Appellee, Ashtabula
County Children Services Board).
Tabitha L. Stewart, P.O. Box 185, Rock Creek, OH 44084 (Guardian Ad Litem).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Jaiontai M. Henton, appeals the granting of appellee, Ashtabula
County Children Services Board’s, Motion to Modify Temporary Custody to Permanent
Custody, with respect to the minor children, J.H., Jr., J.H., D.H., D.H., and A.H. For the
following reasons, we affirm the decision of the Ashtabula County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division.
{¶2} On July 8, 2021, Ashtabula Children Services filed a Verified Complaint for
Protective Supervision alleging that the children were dependent pursuant to R.C.
2151.04(C). The juvenile court granted Ashtabula Children Services protective
supervision and ordered a no contact order between the children and Henton. Following
adjudication, the children were found to be dependent.
{¶3} On July 27, 2021, Henton was arrested for the rape of the children’s half-
siblings.
{¶4} On October 21, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the children to remain in
their mother’s custody under the protective supervision of Ashtabula Children Services.
{¶5} On March 22, 2022, Henton and the children’s mother were charged with
intimidation of a witness.
{¶6} On March 23, 2022, Ashtabula Children Services filed a Verified Complaint
for Emergency Temporary Custody alleging that the children were dependent pursuant
to R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), which the juvenile court accepted as a Post-Dispositional
Motion to Modify Protective Supervision to Temporary Custody. The juvenile court
granted Ashtabula Children Services temporary custody of the children.
{¶7} Henton pled guilty on May 9, 2022, and was sentenced to fifteen to eighteen
and one-half years in prison. The mother pled guilty on June 6, 2022, and was sentenced
to thirty-six months in prison.
{¶8} On June 20, 2023, Ashtabula Children Services filed its Motion to Modify
Temporary Custody to Permanent Custody.
2
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091
{¶9} On June 28, 2024, a permanent custody hearing was held. Henton was
present at the hearing but did not present evidence.
{¶10} On October 2, 2024, the juvenile court granted Ashtabula Children Services
permanent custody of the children.
{¶11} In its permanent custody motion, Ashtabula Children Services alleged that
the children had been in temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive
twenty-two month period pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(D)(1) and, alternatively, that the
children could not be placed with either parent for a reasonable time or that the children
should not be placed with either parent pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(A). The juvenile court
found both claims to be valid.
{¶12} With respect to the best interest of the children pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(D)(1), the juvenile court made the following findings: The children have been
residing in a foster home since their removal on May 3, 2022. The children’s caseworker
and guardian ad litem have observed them in their placement and testified that they are
closely bonded with their foster mother. The children are in need of a legally secure
placement, and this cannot be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to
Ashtabula Children Services. The parents have been convicted of crimes against the
children and/or their siblings and were incarcerated at the time Ashtabula Children
Services moved for permanent custody. The guardian ad litem recommended granting
permanent custody to Ashtabula Children Services. Reasonable efforts were made
throughout the history of the case to prevent the removal of the children from their home.
{¶13} On October 30, 2024, Henton filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal he raises
the following assignments of error:
3
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091
[1.] The trial court committed plain error by failing to conduct any
inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act as required by 25 U.S.C.
1911 and 25 C.F.R. § 23.107.
[2.] The trial court erred when it committed permanent custody to
Ashtabula County Children Services Board and terminated
appellant’s parental rights without identifying all possible paternal
relatives.
{¶14} Under the first assignment of error, Henton argues the juvenile court failed
to comply with federal regulation requiring it to conduct an inquiry into whether the children
were Native American.
{¶15} Federal regulations pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act 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.
25 C.F.R. 23.107(a); 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) (“[f]ailure to identify Indian children can nullify court
proceedings that have not been conducted in accordance with ICWA”).
{¶16} Contrary to Henton’s assignment of error, the juvenile court did not fail to
comply with the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The juvenile court’s March
24, 2022 Judgment Entry, issued after the shelter care hearing on Ashtabula Children
Services’ Verified Complaint for Emergency Temporary Custody (following the mother’s
arrest), states: “The parties have determined that ICWA is not applicable to the minor
4
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091
children. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all parties are under an ongoing obligation to
update the Court with knowledge or information regarding the ICWA status of the minor
children.” Present at this hearing were representatives of Ashtabula Children Services,
the guardian ad litem, Henton (via video from the Ashtabula County Jail), counsel for
Henton, the mother (via video from the Ashtabula County Jail), and counsel for the
mother. At no point in these proceedings has any party suggested that the children may
be “Indian” children for the purposes of the Act.
{¶17} The authorities cited by Henton in support of his argument simply do not
apply in the present circumstances. In In re L.M., 2024-Ohio-5549 (12th Dist.), the court
of appeals found plain error and reversed a grant of permanent custody “[b]ecause there
is no indication in the record that the juvenile court even attempted to make the necessary
ICWA inquiry, and because there is no indication that Mother was ever put on notice of
the potential for ICWA to apply.” Id. at ¶ 21. Similarly, in In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-2136
(10th Dist.), the court of appeals reversed and remanded the decision upon finding that
the juvenile court did not comply with the regulations: “[o]ther than the magistrate’s sole
question directed at [the mother] at the temporary custody hearing, there is no indication
in the record that the juvenile court made any inquiry of any participant in any proceeding
that 25 C.F.R. 107 requires.” Id. at ¶ 47. The A.G. decision does not support Henton’s
claim that “the inquiry must be made at any proceeding defined in 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a),
which would be any emergency, voluntary, or involuntary custody proceeding.” Trial Brief
of Appellant at 8. Such an interpretation is, moreover, contrary to the plain language of
the regulation, which mandates that the inquiry occur “at the commencement of the
proceeding” coupled with an instruction for “the parties to inform the court if they
5
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091
subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian
child.” This is precisely what the juvenile court did in the present case. Finally, we note
that federal regulations define a “child-custody proceeding” as an “action … that may
culminate in … [f]oster-care placement, … [t]ermination of parental rights, …
[p]readoptive placement, … [or] [a]doptive placement.” 25 C.F.R. 23.2. The foregoing
definition does not suggest that the inquiry must be or should be made at the
commencement of each discrete stage of the proceeding or action, but at the
commencement of a proceeding understood broadly as the process that could ultimately
“culminate” in a child’s placement outside the home.
{¶18} The first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶19} In the second assignment of error, Henton argues that the juvenile court
incorrectly granted permanent custody to Ashtabula Children Services without first
identifying all possible paternal relatives who may have been interested in obtaining
custody of the children. Because there were paternal relatives who were not investigated
for potential placement, Henton contends that the court could not find it in the children’s
best interest to grant permanent custody to Ashtabula Children Services. We disagree.
{¶20} In Ohio, permanent-custody motions are governed by R.C. 2151.414. It is
well-established that “the [permanent custody] statute does not require a juvenile court to
consider relative placement before granting the motion for permanent custody.” In re
A.C.H., 2011-Ohio-5595, ¶ 44 (4th Dist.); In re S.S., 2023-Ohio-1663, ¶ 35 (6th Dist.) (“in
satisfying its duty to determine whether permanent custody to the agency is in a child’s
best interest, the juvenile court was not required to determine whether maternal great-
grandmother or any other relative was available for placement”). “As the Ohio Supreme
6
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091
Court has explained, while courts must conduct a thorough statutory analysis weighing
multiple factors to determine a child’s best interest, they are not required to find that
termination is the ‘only option’ or that no suitable relative placement exists.” In re C.J.F.-
O., 2024-Ohio-6056, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.), citing In re Shaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513, ¶ 64. Or as
this Court has stated: “While a children services agency should strive to place a child with
a willing and suitable relative, … we will not impose a duty on the agency to search for
and examine every possible relative, especially those that have never indicated a desire
to be considered as a placement option.” In re Brown, 2004-Ohio-3337, ¶ 14.
{¶21} The second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to grant Ashtabula Children Services’ Motion to Modify
Temporary Custody to Permanent Custody is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
7
Case Nos. 2024-A-0087, 2024-A-0088, 2024-A-0089, 2024-A-0090, 2024-A-0091