The opinion
[Cite as In re K.S., 2026-Ohio-1134.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: D.H. C.A. Nos. 31424
K.S. 31425
M.H. 31426
31634
31635
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. DN 23 07 0605
DN 23 07 0606
DN 23 07 0607
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 31, 2026
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellants Mother and Father appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that awarded legal custody of their children to a maternal great
aunt and uncle (“Aunt” and “Uncle”). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of K.S., born September 15, 2019; M.H., born
August 10, 2021; and D.H., born January 1, 2023. Father is the biological father of M.H. and D.H.
The paternity of K.S. has not been established.
{¶3} Mother and Father have multiple criminal convictions for various offenses, and
both are registered sexual offenders. Their sexually oriented crimes arose out of the same incident
2
involving Mother’s minor stepsister. In addition, both parents have a child welfare history
involving their children. Summit County Children’s Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”)
intervened in both 2019 and 2020 regarding K.S. based on Mother’s incarceration, cognitive
delays, parenting issues, and use of methamphetamine. The agency became involved again in
2021 regarding K.S. and M.H. based on concerns that Mother and Father were using
methamphetamine and engaged in a domestically violent relationship, that their infant was not
gaining weight appropriately, and that Father was having contact with both children in violation
of his rules of parole. The specifics of CSB’s involvement with the family are unknown. Mother
retained legal custody of K.S. and M.H., and D.H. was born thereafter.
{¶4} In 2023, CSB discovered ongoing concerns in the children’s home. Father was
incarcerated. Mother’s home was filthy and unsafe. She tested positive for methamphetamine
use, applied inappropriate discipline and exhibited a lack of parenting skills with the children, and
exposed the children to dangerous individuals. K.S., who was almost four years old at the time,
was unable to speak in complete sentences and exhibited other developmental delays. CSB
removed the children from Mother’s home and filed complaints alleging dependency, neglect, and
abuse.
{¶5} After an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found the children to be neglected
and dependent. Thereafter, the trial court awarded temporary custody to CSB, which placed the
siblings in the home of Aunt and Uncle. The juvenile court adopted the agency’s case plan as an
order. Father was directed to notify the caseworker if he was interested in visitation or placement
of the children; and to abide by all conditions of his parole, including mental health and anger
management treatment, sexual offender programming, and substance use screenings. Mother’s
case plan objectives derived from her parenting assessment recommendations and included dual
3
diagnosis mental health and drug abuse treatment, intimate partner violence education in a
therapeutic setting, a psychiatric evaluation, attaining and maintaining sobriety from all
intoxicating substances, random drug and alcohol screens, successful completion of the Nurturing
Parent program through The Bair Foundation (“Bair”) and following all recommendations arising
therefrom, and demonstrating the ability to provide for the children’s basic needs.
{¶6} At the first review hearing, the evidence demonstrated that Mother continued to test
positive for methamphetamine use and was struggling at visits to apply appropriate parenting
techniques. Father had had no visits with the children because he had not yet completed six months
of sexual offender programming as required by the terms of his parole. By the second review
hearing, Mother had begun making some progress in treatment and she had a job. She had let
Father move in with her, however. Both the caseworker and guardian ad litem were concerned
because, as Father was precluded from having any contact with the children while on parole, his
residence in Mother’s home posed a barrier to reunification of the children with Mother.
{¶7} In advance of the one-year sunset date, CSB moved for legal custody to Aunt and
Uncle. Mother and Father each moved alternatively for legal custody or a first six-month extension
of temporary custody. After hearing the parties’ motions 14 months into the case, the magistrate
issued a decision granting legal custody of the three children to Aunt and Uncle. Both parents
filed objections.
{¶8} The juvenile court overruled Mother’s and Father’s objections, denied their
motions for a first six-month extension of temporary custody, placed the children in the legal
custody of Aunt and Uncle, and left visitation in the discretion of the legal custodians. Mother and
Father appealed, each raising two interrelated assignments of error. As the parents consolidated
4
their respective assignments of error, and all four implicate overlapping issues, this Court
consolidates them to facilitate our review.
II.
MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO GRANT LEGAL CUSTODY TO [AUNT
AND UNCLE] WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN.
MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MOTHER’S MOTION FOR A SIX-
MONTH EXTENSION AS SHE PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT THE GRANTING OF THE EXTENSION WAS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN, THAT MOTHER HAD MADE
SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS ON HER CASE PLAN
OBJECTIVES DURING THE FIRST YEAR AND THERE WAS A STRONG
LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHILDREN WOULD BE PLACED IN MOTHER’S
LEGAL CUSTODY DURING THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION.
FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR IN
DENYING THE PARENTS’ MOTION FOR SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF
TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND FINDING THAT IT WAS IN THE
CHILD[REN]’S BEST INTEREST TO BE PLACED IN THE LEGAL CUSTODY
OF RELATIVES.
FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PLAIN
ERROR IN GRANTING LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO
RELATIVES AS THE COURT’S DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY [A]
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶9} Mother and Father argue in their respective consolidated assignments of error that
the juvenile court erred by awarding legal custody of the children to Aunt and Uncle. This Court
disagrees.
{¶10} Our standard of review for such challenges is well settled:
5
On appeal, an award of legal custody will not be reversed if the judgment is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence
entails the greater weight of the evidence, evidence that is more probable,
persuasive, and possesses greater probative value. In other words, when the best
interest of the child is established by the greater weight of the evidence, the trial
court does not have discretion to enter a judgment that is adverse to that interest.
(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) In re M.F., 2016-Ohio-2685, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.).
{¶11} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight
of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the
credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder
of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]
must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.)
Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence, this Court “must always
be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶12} “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse, the juvenile court’s
determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a parent or a relative is based
solely on the best interest of the child.” In re K.H., 2016-Ohio-1330, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). The statutory
scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but
Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best
interest of the child. In re B.B., 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.), quoting In re N.P., 2004-Ohio-
110, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.). In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors
enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 2008-Ohio-5003, ¶ 9
(9th Dist.), citing In re T.A., 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.).
{¶13} The best interest factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the child,
the child’s wishes, the custodial history of the child, the child’s need for permanence, and whether
any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) are applicable. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see
6
also In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). In addition, the juvenile court may also look to
the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A., 2017-Ohio-1, ¶ 17 (9th
Dist.). While some factors overlap with those above, others include the child’s adjustment to his
or her environment; the mental and physical health of all persons involved; the parents’ history of
providing support and honoring companionship orders; certain indicia of violence, abuse, or
neglect in any household involved; and whether a parent plans to or has established a residence
outside of Ohio. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).
{¶14} In considering the evidence adduced at the hearing, this Court notes that the matter
proceeded before the magistrate over the course of three days. Unfortunately, the recording
equipment failed on the second day of the hearing, when the agency caseworker testified. The
parties submitted affidavits of the evidence from that day. No party objected to the affidavits
submitted by any other parties. The juvenile court considered the affidavits along with the
transcripts of the first and third days of the hearing. This Court does likewise.
{¶15} The children were in Mother’s legal custody until CSB removed them. The oldest,
K.S., was not yet four years old, while M.H. was still under two. D.H. was six months old. The
children spent the next 20 months, a large portion of their lives, in the care of Aunt and Uncle.
{¶16} Mother takes advantage of her opportunity to visit with the children four hours a
day, two to three times a week. The children share a strong bond with Mother. They are also
closely bonded with Aunt, Uncle, and a young adult cousin who lives in that home with them. The
children have only seen Father twice since their removal: once during the sole visit authorized by
Father’s parole officer, and once when Mother allowed Father to join her without permission for
a visit in a park. There was no evidence of a bond between the children and Father. The children
interact as typical siblings, occasionally fighting amongst themselves.
7
{¶17} K.S. has some developmental delays, particularly related to speech issues. While
living with Mother, and at almost four years old, the child was not speaking in full sentences. She
has an individualized education program (“IEP”) and recently began a second year in preschool in
lieu of starting kindergarten. Mother admitted that she had never contacted K.S.’ teachers to
discuss the child’s IEP, delays, or progress.
{¶18} The caseworker and guardian ad litem testified that the children are thriving in the
care of Aunt and Uncle. The relatives meet the children’s basic and special needs. They have a
solid and supportive relationship with Mother, encouraging her relationship with the children and
facilitating visitation. Aunt and Uncle testified that they believe it is important for the children to
spend time with Mother and they will continue to provide opportunities for liberal visitation. Both
testified that they will abide by any court order regarding visitation for both parents.
{¶19} After spending a significant portion of their lives in CSB’s temporary custody, the
children need a legally secure permanent placement. Father was in prison at the time of the hearing
and was precluded by the rules of his parole from having contact with the children until approved
by his parole officer. His sexual offender programming was slated to last two to four years, during
which time Father’s opportunity for access to the children would be restricted. The evidence
demonstrated that Father was not a viable candidate for custody for the foreseeable future.
{¶20} CSB removed the children from Mother’s care based on multiple issues impacting
her ability to provide a safe and stable environment for them. Mother’s parenting assessment
identified deficiencies that the agency’s case plan was designed to address. Specifically, Mother
struggles with mental health, substance abuse, intimate partner violence, parenting, and basic
needs issues. She also has significant cognitive delays. Accordingly, CSB linked Mother to
8
service providers who were competent to assist her in addressing her case plan objectives in
consideration of her delays.
{¶21} Mother participated in services, and the guardian ad litem testified that he gave her
“one hundred percent for effort.” Nevertheless, Mother made minimal progress and continued to
struggle in overcoming the problems underlying the children’s removal from her home. For
example, despite consistently attending mental health and substance abuse programming at
Community Health Center, Mother denied her established issues in both areas, demonstrated poor
insight and judgment, and tested positive for intoxicating substances intermittently throughout the
cases. Although Mother took her prescribed medications for “[a]nger and anxiety and drama[,]”
she testified that her only mental health diagnosis was grand mal seizures. She believed that she
was managing her anger effectively because she had not killed her father despite the reasons he
had given her to do so.
{¶22} The caseworker and guardian ad litem testified that Mother demonstrated an
ongoing lack in judgment by allowing Father to live with her during the cases despite the order
prohibiting his contact with the children and prior incidents of intimate partner violence between
the parents. Mother testified that she let Father live with her because her home was close to his
job and the location where he obtained his medications. Mother demonstrated no understanding
that Father’s presence in her home was a barrier to her reunification with the children. Father left
Mother’s home only because he was imprisoned after violating the terms of his parole by having
unauthorized contact with the children. Mother testified that she would not let Father return to her
home after his release from prison, reasoning that she planned to move and her new home would
not be close to Father’s job or medication provider.
9
{¶23} Throughout the cases, Mother reported to her service providers that she did not
have any substance abuse issues. Although she tested positive for methamphetamine and
marijuana use at various times, she always denied the validity of those results. She failed to submit
to four requested drug screens during the month prior to the hearing. Mother was unable to
demonstrate sustained sobriety for longer than four months. Although she admitted she understood
that the recommendation for “full abstinence” meant refraining from use of legal intoxicating
substances like alcohol and marijuana, she continued to use those substances. This caused great
concern for the caseworker and guardian ad litem who testified that alcohol and marijuana
impairment exacerbated Mother’s parenting skills deficits caused by her cognitive delays.
{¶24} Mother’s case plan required her to address her past trauma associated with intimate
partner violence. Although she consistently attended counseling appointments, she refused to
address her history of relationships with perpetrators of violence. Mother alluded to an ongoing
strained relationship with her father due to his behavior. Moreover, there were incidents of
violence in her relationship with Father, a man she continued to house until he was remanded to
prison. Mother admitted that her cyclical history of domestic violence “looks bad.” She testified
that she would avoid further incidents by “stay[ing] single” if she regained custody of the children
because she now recognizes the “red flags” of domestic violence. She identified those as “[b]eing
choked in front of your kid[,]” and “[h]aving your dad at your house with a pocketknife waving it
around the house.” Mother did not explain what signs or behaviors might indicate that a
relationship could become violent before violence actually occurred.
{¶25} CSB facilitated parenting education for Mother. Although she received a certificate
after completing a 12-week parenting program at Greenleaf, Mother struggled to apply effective
parenting techniques with the children. The caseworker referred Mother to an intensive, hands-
10
on, one-on-one parenting program at Bair. Ideally, Mother would have made progress addressing
her mental health and substance abuse issues before focusing on parenting deficits to give her a
greater opportunity for success. After Mother failed to make the desired progress regarding mental
health and substance abuse in a timely manner, however, the caseworker made the referral to Bair
while there was still time for Mother to engage and receive a benefit from those services. The Bair
program was designed for completion in 12 weeks. After four months, however, Mother had
completed only half the program. She struggled with comprehension and retention of information
despite the service provider’s modeling appropriate behaviors, repetition, redirection, and
reinforcement. While the Bair specialist testified that Mother was making some progress, she
admitted that Mother was not able to consistently apply techniques learned during one visit to
subsequent visits.
{¶26} Finally, Mother was required to demonstrate that she was able to meet the
children’s basic and special needs. Mother admitted that she did not know the specifics of K.S.’
delays and IEP. She could not articulate when it would be necessary to seek medical attention for
a child, stating only that a child should go to the hospital if the child’s temperature was “about 81”
because that was a high temperature that could lead to a seizure.
{¶27} Although she had been working at Taco Bell, Mother lost that job after someone
complained about her sexual offender status. Mother receives $900 per month in social security
disability income, which just covers her rent and utilities. Mother does not qualify for subsidized
housing due to her sexual offender status. She alluded to having found a new home she would
keep secret from Father, but she did not explain when she planned to move. The caseworker and
guardian ad litem had no information about Mother’s potential new housing and could not testify
as to the propriety of that home.
11
{¶28} The guardian ad litem opined that it would be in the children’s best interest to place
them in the legal custody of Aunt and Uncle. He testified that Mother had much more to learn
before she could effectively parent and that he did not believe that Mother would attain those skills
within another six months. His biggest concerns centered on Mother’s lack of insight into her
mental health and substance abuse issues; her poor judgment evidenced by her relationships with
violent partners and sexual offenders, including Father and another man living with Mother when
CSB removed the children; and her failure to take accountability for the issues underlying the
agency’s involvement. Mother’s lack of understanding as to the reasons for CSB’s intervention
was evidenced by her testimony that the agency removed the children because her home was
cluttered and she owned a big dog the caseworker believed was aggressive.
{¶29} Based on a thorough review of the record, this is not the exceptional case where the
trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding legal
custody to Aunt and Uncle. Despite engaging in services, Mother has been unable to learn and
apply parenting skills necessary to provide a safe, stable, and appropriate environment for the
children. She has made minimal progress addressing mental health and substance abuse issues.
She has not addressed the role of intimate partner violence in her life and the potential harm those
circumstances pose for the children. She cohabited with Father even though his presence in her
home posed a barrier to her reunification with the children. Although Mother testified that she
would not let Father return to her home after his release from prison, she never demonstrated
throughout the cases that she could sever their relationship.
{¶30} On the other hand, the children are well acclimated to the home they share with
Aunt and Uncle. They enjoy a strong bond with Aunt and Uncle who are willing and able to
provide for the children’s needs in a safe, stable, and permanent environment. Aunt and Uncle
12
have a good relationship with Mother. They support and nurture her relationship with the children.
They understand the parents’ residual rights and responsibilities and agree to honor all court orders
relating to visitation. The guardian ad litem supports an award of legal custody to Aunt and Uncle
as being in the children’s best interest. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court’s judgment
is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶31} Mother and Father also argue that the juvenile court erred by failing to grant their
motions for a six-month extension of temporary custody. This Court disagrees.
{¶32} The juvenile court has authority to grant a first six-month extension of temporary
custody only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the extension is in the best interest
of the child, that “there has been significant progress on the case plan of the child, and there is
reasonable cause to believe that the child will be reunified with one of the parents . . . within the
period of extension.” R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). All three statutory requirements must be met to
substantiate an extension of temporary custody, thereby delaying timely custodial permanence.
See In re A.P., 2022-Ohio-276, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.).
{¶33} The evidence cited above demonstrates that legal custody to Aunt and Uncle meets
the best interest of the children. Neither parent presented clear and convincing evidence to
contradict that finding. Aunt and Uncle are appropriate current and future caregivers for the
children, while neither parent demonstrated that an extension of temporary custody would be in
the siblings’ best interest.
{¶34} As to case plan compliance, Father does not argue that he made progress on his
objectives. Rather, he focuses on Mother’s compliance. As explained above, however, Mother
failed to make significant progress on her case plan objectives. Despite participation in services,
Mother had minimal success addressing her mental health, substance abuse, and parenting issues.
13
She failed to acknowledge her history of intimate partner violence during treatment. She lacked
understanding regarding K.S.’ special needs and struggled to demonstrate the ability to provide
for the children’s ongoing basic needs. Under these circumstances, Mother and Father failed to
meet their respective burdens of proving significant case plan compliance.
{¶35} Finally, there was no reasonable cause to believe that the children would have been
reunified with Mother or Father within the period of extension. Father was incarcerated and made
no progress toward reunification. Mother engaged consistently in various services but lacked
insight into the issues underlying the children’s removal; failed to demonstrate an improvement in
judgment, particularly relating to her association with people who posed a risk to the children’s
well-being; and struggled to learn and apply basic parenting techniques. The specialist from Bair
testified that Mother could not demonstrate skills learned one week in later visits with the children.
The guardian ad litem recognized Mother’s efforts but opined that she would not successfully
assimilate the parenting skills necessary to provide an appropriate home for the children during
the next six months. Accordingly, the parents failed to present clear and convincing evidence that
reunification was reasonably likely to occur within the period of an extension of temporary
custody.
{¶36} For the above reasons, this Court concludes that the juvenile court did not err by
denying the parents’ motions for a six-month extension of temporary custody and granting CSB’s
motion for legal custody to Aunt and Uncle. Accordingly, Mother’s and Father’s respective first
and second assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶37} Mother’s and Father’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
14
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellants.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RONALD T. GATTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.