In re A.M.

2025 Ohio 4435 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District · September 23, 2025 · No. 23AP-540

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals decision reviews the termination of a biological father's parental rights following a juvenile court's finding that his child was dependent and granting permanent custody to Franklin County Children Services. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect or dependence on the date the complaint was filed, which is a necessary prerequisite for awarding permanent agency custody. The opinion emphasizes the constitutional protections afforded to parents and the requirement that dependency determinations focus on the child's condition rather than solely on parental fault.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Beatty Blunt
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
September 23, 2025
Docket number
23AP-540
Procedural posture
Appeal from Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch judgment finding A.M. a dependent child and granting permanent custody to FCCS.
Precedential value
published
Parties
T.G. v. Franklin County Children Services
Disposition
reversed

Topics

family lawappellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewdue processtermination of parental rights

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court’s finding of dependency and neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence as required by R.C. 2151.04(C).

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not provide clear and convincing evidence that A.M. was a dependent child as of the filing of the complaint; therefore the judgments adjudicating A.M. as a neglected/dependent child and granting permanent custody to FCCS are reversed.

Key quotations

The permanent termination of parental rights has been described as “ ‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.’ ” (¶ 48)
[P]arents have a constitutionally‑protected fundamental interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. (¶ 47)

Factual background

Father T.G. is the biological father of A.M., a child born in 2017. After DNA testing confirmed paternity, Father made weekly visits to A.M., later moved to therapeutic supervised visits. FCCS sought permanent custody, alleging neglect and dependency. The trial court found A.M. dependent and granted FCCS permanent custody.

Procedural history

The trial court adjudicated A.M. as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C) and terminated the parental rights of both parents, granting permanent custody to FCCS. The appellant challenged the adequacy of the evidence supporting the dependency finding.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…