In re C.F.

2026-Ohio-1457 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · April 23, 2026 · No. 115689

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services permanent custody of minor child C.F. and terminating the parental rights of Mother L.Y. The court addressed whether the permanent-custody decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence, including the child’s best interests and the statutory requirements under R.C. 2151.414.

Holdings

  1. Under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv), a party who fails to object to a factual finding or legal conclusion in a magistrate's decision may not assign adoption of that finding or conclusion as error on appeal, except for plain error.
  2. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the juvenile court's permanent-custody judgment, and any allegedly erroneous subsidiary factual finding would not require reversal where the judgment was independently supported by the remaining evidence.
  3. The juvenile court's determination that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in C.F.'s best interest was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the juvenile court's factual findings concerning Mother's parenting services, sobriety, and referral for a second substance-abuse assessment were supported by sufficient evidence.
  2. Whether the juvenile court's determination that permanent custody was in C.F.'s best interest was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
  3. Whether Mother's failure to object to factual findings in the magistrate's decision limited appellate review to plain error.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (19)

  • In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶¶ 7, 11, 13-14(followed)
  • Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus(followed)
  • State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997)(followed)
  • In re T.R., 2025-Ohio-2531, ¶¶ 24-25(followed)
  • In re S.M., 2025-Ohio-5144, ¶ 15(followed)
  • Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2016-Ohio-5900, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.)(followed)
  • Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus(followed)
  • In re T.T., 2024-Ohio-2914, ¶ 17(followed)
  • In re J.T., 2004-Ohio-5797, ¶ 36 (2d Dist.)(followed)
  • In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶¶ 53, 59 (8th Dist.)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…