In re N.K.

2026-Ohio-1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2026) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District · March 26, 2026 · No. 2025 CA 0075, 2025 CA 0076

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a juvenile court judgment granting Licking County Job and Family Services permanent custody of two children. The mother challenged the denial of a continuance, the findings that the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time, and the best-interest determination. The appellate court rejected the assignments of error, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its permanent-custody findings were supported by the evidence.

Holdings

  1. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mother's request for a continuance because the counselor's written statement was admitted by stipulation, the mother made no proffer of additional material testimony, and the request was speculative.
  2. The juvenile court properly determined that the children could not be placed with the mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her because clear and convincing evidence supported findings concerning failure to remedy the conditions leading to removal, severe mental illness or chemical dependency, lack of commitment or unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home, withholding medical care, and other relevant factors.
  3. The juvenile court's determination that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in the children's best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the mother's request for a continuance to obtain live testimony from her mental-health counselor.
  2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the determination under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(E) that the children could not be placed with the mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her.
  3. Whether the juvenile court's determination under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) that permanent custody was in the children's best interest was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (18)

  • In re D.A., 2023-Ohio-2823, ¶ 41 (5th Dist.)(followed)
  • Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983)(followed)
  • In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990)(followed)
  • Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)(followed)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)(followed)
  • In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 (6th Dist. 1991)(followed)
  • In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶¶ 7-8, 11(followed)
  • Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954)(followed)
  • State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990)(followed)
  • Ford v. Osborne, 45 Ohio St. 1, 12 N.E. 526 (1887)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…