[Cite as In re J.T., 2023-Ohio-4681.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

In re: J.T., R.T. Court of Appeals No. L-23-1181

Trial Court No. 21286034

 

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Decided: December 21, 2023

* * * * *

Janna E. Waltz, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney for, appellee.

Laurel Kendall, for appellant.

* * * * *

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant-father, James T., appeals the judgment of the Lucas County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated his parental rights 

and awarded custody of the minor children, J.T. and R.T., to appellee Lucas 
2.

County Children Services (“LCCS”). For the reasons that follow, the juvenile 

court’s judgment is affirmed.

II. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} James T. is the father of J.T., born in 2013, and R.T., born in 2017.

1

 

The present matter was initiated on September 2, 2021, when LCCS filed a 

complaint in dependency, abuse, and neglect.

{¶ 3} The complaint alleged that on August 20, 2021, LCCS received a 

referral that the children were residing with their mother and mother’s boyfriend, 

both of whom had substance abuse problems, with mother using 

methamphetamine and recently overdosing on heroin, and her boyfriend using 

methamphetamine and marijuana. The referral also stated that R.T. had been 

observed holding a torch lighter and in possession of a THC vape pen. It further 

detailed that mother and her boyfriend had left the children unsupervised all day 

while mother and her boyfriend were intoxicated. Finally, the referral stated that 

EMS and law enforcement had been notified that R.T. had ingested substances. 

LCCS investigated the referral and confirmed some of the allegations and 

determined others were inaccurate.

{¶ 4} According to the complaint, mother admitted to LCCS that she had a 

history of heroin use and was still using marijuana. Mother also claimed that she 

1

J.T. and R.T.’s mother has not appealed the juvenile court’s termination of her

parental rights.
3.

completed services at Aurora House and had been sober since 2019. The children 

told LCCS that mother did not use drugs but they had seen father use needles.

{¶ 5} Regarding father, the complaint alleged that he had an active warrant 

arising out of charges in Toledo Municipal Court for making false alarms and 

misuse of the 911 System. A Toledo Police report stated that father had called 911 

and falsely reported that R.T. had ingested methamphetamine. Father had also 

recently been released from prison in Michigan on parole.

{¶ 6} In addition, the complaint alleged that a custody dispute existed 

between mother and father. Father claimed that he had been given custody of the 

children while mother was undergoing treatment for substance abuse. Father then 

went to prison, and the children lived with relatives in Michigan until two months 

before the referral. At that time, according to father, the children began living 

with mother. Mother alleged that the children had been living with her since 

February 2021. LCCS was unable to confirm custody.

{¶ 7} Finally, the complaint alleged that both mother and father failed to 

complete a drug screen as requested.

{¶ 8} At a shelter care hearing on September 2, 2021, the juvenile court

ordered that the children would remain in mother’s home and LCCS would 

provide protective supervision. Further, due to concerns about domestic violence, 

mother’s boyfriend was ordered to vacate mother’s residence and the court issued 

an order prohibiting mother’s boyfriend from having any contact with the children.
4.

{¶ 9} The juvenile court ordered that: (1) mother and father undergo a dual 

diagnostic assessment and substance abuse screening; (2) J.T. be enrolled in 

school immediately and R.T. to be enrolled in protective day care; and (3) J.T. and 

R.T. not be removed from the jurisdiction.

{¶ 10} On September 14, 2021, the juvenile court issued an ex parte order

determining that LCCS was to take shelter care custody of the children, and the 

children were placed in an emergency foster home. 

{¶ 11} The next day, LCCS moved for an emergency shelter care hearing 

and requested interim temporary custody of the children. LCCS alleged that 

mother had failed to provide a urine screen, and LCCS had not been able to make 

contact with her since the shelter care hearing on September 2, 2021 despite 

several attempts. A neighbor told an LCCS caseworker that mother’s boyfriend 

continued to reside with mother, and mother’s boyfriend told the caseworker that 

mother had not told him the juvenile court had ordered him to vacate the 

residence. LCCS also alleged that father admitted to using fentanyl approximately 

40 days earlier, and the children had been residing in Michigan, outside the court’s 

jurisdiction, with father and father’s girlfriend, Abbie McIntosh.

{¶ 12} The juvenile court held a hearing on LCCS’s motion the same day

and ordered the children be placed in the interim temporary custody of LCCS. 

The court appointed Mary Beth Orr as the children’s guardian ad litem, and both 

parents were granted level 1 visitation with the children at LCCS. Further, the 
5.

court ordered father to clear his warrants and that mother and father comply with a 

case plan. 

{¶ 13} Under the case plan, the goal was reunification, and father was to 

undergo substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, secure stable housing, 

and comply with the terms of his parole. In October 2021, however, father was 

removed from the case plan after he expressed that he did not want to engage with 

his LCCS caseworker.

{¶ 14} At the adjudication and disposition hearing on November 18, 2021, 

the juvenile court continued LCCS’s temporary custody of the children and 

ordered father to provide a urine screen to LCCS immediately following the 

hearing. 

{¶ 15} On December 1, 2021, the juvenile court granted father’s motion for 

an expedited interstate home study for placement of the children with McIntosh, 

but the home study was later denied because father had been living with McIntosh.

{¶ 16} At a review hearing on March 10, 2022, the juvenile court noted that 

father had not complied with and had been removed from the case plan, but father 

had been participating in weekly Zoom calls with the children, and he had cleared 

his warrants. The children were doing well in their foster placement, and no 

appropriate kin placement had been found.

{¶ 17} On July 14, 2022, LCCS moved for permanent custody of J.T. and 

R.T. LCCS alleged that father had been linked with providers since January 2022 

but had not made progress on his case plan. It alleged that father provided positive 
6.

drug screens on March 8, March 22, March 23, March 30, April 6, April 14, and 

April 27, 2022. Additionally, father had been charged with possession of 

paraphernalia in March 2022, causing his parole to be extended an additional 90 

days. LCCS asserted that J.T. and R.T. could not be placed with either parent 

within a reasonable period of time due to the circumstances listed in R.C. 

2151.414(E)(1), R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), and R.C. 2151.414(E)(4).

{¶ 18} In August 2022, LCCS moved for an order extending temporary 

custody for an additional six months and withdrew its motion for permanent 

custody. Father had progressed in his mental health and substance abuse 

treatment, and he moved to Toledo in August 2022 to facilitate in-person visits 

with J.T. and R.T. 

{¶ 19} At a review hearing on September 16, 2022, the juvenile court noted 

that father had completed a dual assessment and was engaged in dual services. 

The court also noted that father had started level 2 visitation at LCCS. The court 

found that the children should remain in the temporary custody of LCCS.

{¶ 20} On December 6, 2022, McIntosh appeared at a review meeting, 

reporting that father would not be attending the meeting and his whereabouts were 

unknown. A few weeks later, on December 22, 2022, LCCS moved for permanent 

custody of J.T. and R.T. again. In its motion, LCCS alleged that father was not 

compliant with the terms of his probation in Michigan and had an active warrant.

{¶ 21} On March 7, 2023, McIntosh filed a motion seeking legal custody of 

the children. Father filed a motion for an expedited home study regarding 
7.

McIntosh the next day, and LCCS filed an objection to father’s motion. On April 

18, 2023, father moved to extend temporary custody. The next day, at a hearing in 

which father failed to appear, the juvenile court denied father’s motion for an 

expedited home study.

{¶ 22} The juvenile court held a hearing on May 17, May 23, June 2, and 

June 9, 2023 on father’s motion to extend temporary custody, McIntosh’s motion 

for legal custody, and LCCS’s motion for permanent custody. On May 17, 2023, 

LCCS caseworker Hannah Beaudrie, and the children’s guardian ad litem, Orr, 

were present with counsel. In addition, an attorney for J.T. and R.T. was present. 

Abbie McIntosh appeared pro se. Although father appeared with counsel on May 

17 and June 9, father was not present on May 23 or June 2. Father’s counsel 

appeared on his behalf on the dates he was absent.

{¶ 23} At the outset of the hearing, the juvenile court considered a motion 

to withdraw from father’s attorney. His attorney told the court that she had not 

had substantial compliance from father. She had been unable to reach father for 

the past couple of months despite trying to contact him numerous times through 

different means. She also noted that she was his third attorney on this case. The 

court denied the motion but gave father’s attorney time to consult with father 

before beginning the hearing.

{¶ 24} The juvenile court then heard testimony from the following: 

Beaudrie, the LCCS caseworker who had worked with the family since October 

2021; Anthony Cardenas, an LCCS employee specializing in finding children’s 
8.

family members for potential placement; Zahraa Saab, father’s clinical therapist; 

and Mary Beth Orr, the children’s guardian ad litem. The relevant testimony and 

the events occurring during the three hearing dates are summarized below. For 

clarity, the testimony is organized by the chronological events of the case rather 

than the order the testimony was given.

{¶ 25} Beaudrie testified that the case plan established in September 2021

identified several services for father, including substance abuse, mental health, 

housing, and compliance with his probation. Beaudrie testified that father did not 

initially comply with the case plan.

{¶ 26} Father did, however, visit his children beginning in October 2021

according to Beaudrie’s testimony. Initially, his visits were over videoconference 

because the terms of his parole prohibited him from leaving Michigan, but after 

his parole ended, he visited the children in person at LCCS.

{¶ 27} Father began receiving some of the services from his case plan in 

January 2022. He was linked to Team Wellness in Southgate, Michigan for 

mental health services. Zahraa Saab, a clinical therapist at Team Wellness, 

testified that she began seeing father for therapy in January 2022 for trauma, 

depression, and substance use treatment. Father had weekly therapy sessions, 

mostly over the phone, with Ms. Saab. Father also saw a psychiatrist, Dr. Xavier 

White, at Team Wellness for medication.

{¶ 28} Father’s Team Wellness records, admitted as an exhibit, stated that 

father disclosed to Ms. Saab that he had been sexually assaulted on October 7, 
9.

2021, and one of the issues that Ms. Saab was addressing with father was trauma. 

Although father had given Ms. Saab permission to discuss his assault with the 

LCCS caseworker, Ms. Saab testified that she had not done so.

{¶ 29} Beaudrie testified that in March 2022, LCCS put father on a onehour call for his visits, requiring him to call LCCS one hour ahead of the 

scheduled visit to confirm he would attend. LCCS puts a parent on a one-hour call 

to prevent the children from going to a visit and not getting to see the parent. 

Father continued to be on a one-hour call for several months.

{¶ 30} Beaudrie also stated that in March 2022, father was charged with 

paraphernalia and his probation was extended. That same month, he also began 

receiving substance abuse services—suboxone services—through Dr. Saab2in 

Dearborn, Michigan.

{¶ 31} Although father did have several positive drug tests in spring 2022, 

Beaudrie testified that father then began to make good progress with his services. 

In August 2022, LCCS withdrew its motion for permanent custody filed in July 

2022 and moved to extend temporary custody. Father moved from Michigan to 

Toledo in August 2022 to facilitate his visits with his children, and he began 

completing drug screens for LCCS in Toledo then as well. Before father’s move 

to Toledo, LCCS had accepted drug screenings conducted through Dr. Saab, 

2 Father was treated by two individuals with the same last name: Dr. Saab, who 

prescribed father suboxone in 2022, and Zahraa Saab, father’s clinical therapist. 

For clarity, father’s suboxone provider is referred to as Dr. Saab, and father’s 

clinical therapist is referred to as Ms. Saab.
10.

father’s suboxone provider, as well as screenings father completed as a condition 

of his probation in Michigan.

{¶ 32} Things began to change for father in fall 2022, around the time of

the anniversary of his sexual assault. According to Ms. Saab, on September 30, 

2022, father told her that he had been clean for six months and was in a good 

place. Saab believed father had improved at that point. Beaudrie, however, stated 

that father tested positive for cocaine in September 2022 in an LCCS drug screen.

{¶ 33} Beaudrie also testified that father’s last appointment at Dr. Saab’s 

office for suboxone was on October 26, 2022. Father told Beaudrie that he was 

planning to receive suboxone services through Hill Clinic in Toledo instead, but 

Beaudrie testified that father never actually received services from Hill Clinic.

{¶ 34} Team Wellness likewise reported that father’s last appointment was 

in October 2022. Ms. Saab testified that she and father’s caseworker at Team 

Wellness attempted to reach out to father many times, but father did not answer 

their calls. As a result, Team Wellness closed out his case for noncompliance.

{¶ 35} On November 3, December 8, and December 9, 2022, father failed 

to complete drops for his drug screening with LCCS.

{¶ 36} In November 2022, father’s visits with J.T. and R.T. became less 

regular. He visited the children on November 7, then December 7, and then his 

visits ceased. Beaudrie testified that LCCS removed father from the schedule in 

January 2023 due to his failure to appear for visits.
11.

{¶ 37} Also in November 2022, Beaudrie attempted to conduct a home visit 

at father’s Toledo address. But when she arrived, she was informed that father no 

longer resided there.

{¶ 38} Around the same time, Beaudrie learned from McIntosh that father 

had been sexually assaulted about a year earlier, in October 2021. Beaudrie 

testified that she did not speak with father about the rape, its impact, or any 

additional services father may need as a result. She explained that father was 

already connected with mental health providers, so she believed that his therapist 

was the best person to either provide treatment or identify additional necessary 

treatment. Beaudrie agreed that it was possible father may have made better 

progress on his case plan if father had received additional treatment to address the 

incident.

{¶ 39} In December 2022, father was admitted into Samaritan Behavioral 

Health, a mental health hospital, for inpatient treatment following a suicide 

attempt. According to his medical record, which was admitted as an exhibit, at the 

time of his admission, father tested positive for fentanyl and cocaine. Father also 

admitted to using cocaine 20 times in the previous 30 days. He was diagnosed 

with opioid dependence, depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, polysubstance 

dependence, and major depressive disorder. Beaudrie testified that to her 

knowledge, father was admitted into a mental health institution three times during 

the pendency of the case.
12.

{¶ 40} On January 10, 2023, father was discharged from the hospital. 

Before he was discharged, a medication appointment was scheduled on father’s 

behalf with Team Wellness for January 17, 2023. Team Wellness records indicate 

that father was a no-show for that appointment.

{¶ 41} In February 2023, father reengaged with Team Wellness for mental 

health services, but according to Ms. Saab, father was not compliant with his 

treatment. Father missed seven out of fifteen appointments with Team Wellness, 

many of which were telephone appointments, over the next two months. Ms. Saab 

testified that when she asked father why he was missing appointments, father said 

that he was “good.”

{¶ 42} On March 3, 2023, father completed a psychiatric evaluation with 

Team Wellness, and Dr. White’s evaluation report indicated father was evasive 

and avoidant, drug seeking, and reported no substance abuse issues. The 

psychiatrist recommended inpatient services, case management services, and 

psychotropic drugs. As of May 16, more than two months after the 

recommendations had been made, father had not yet followed through with any of 

the recommendations.

{¶ 43} On February 15, 2023, father resumed weekly visits with J.T. and 

R.T. Beaudrie testified that J.T. requested to change the time of his visits with his 

father so he would not have to miss his sporting activities after school. 

Accordingly, the LCCS scheduler set the visits for noon, over J.T.’s school lunch 

period. Beaudrie testified that she had no role in setting the visit time—it was up 
13.

to the scheduler—and she could not say whether J.T.’s sports schedule made him 

unavailable for all five weekday evenings. Father told Beaudrie that noon visits 

were difficult for him to attend due to work, and Beaudrie conveyed father’s 

request to change the visit time to the scheduler, who was working on it. Father 

did appear for some of the noon visits.

{¶ 44} When father’s visits first resumed, LCCS required father to be at the 

place of the visit one hour before the visit time (LCCS refers to this as a parent 

being “on a show”) due to his prior missed visits. Beaudrie testified in the five 

weeks that father was on a show, he missed one visit out of five. LCCS then 

agreed to allow father to call in advance to confirm his attendance at visits to 

accommodate his work schedule and travel time for the visits. Beaudrie testified 

that father completed his last visit with his children on March 22, 2023. After 

father missed the next three visits, he was removed from the schedule. At the time 

of Beaudrie’s testimony on May 16, 2023, father had not requested to resume his 

visits.

{¶ 45} Ms. Saab from Team Wellness testified that her last therapy session 

with father was on March 31, 2023. Her appointment notes stated that her 

sessions with father had been very surface level and his attendance was scattered. 

Ms. Saab also noted that she and Dr. White were questioning whether Team 

Wellness could provide an appropriate level of care for father. Ms. Saab testified 

that although in 2022 she had believed father was receiving sufficient treatment 

for his trauma, mental health, and substance use based on his progress at that time, 
14.

she now believed that he needed inpatient care and more specialized care in 

trauma. 

{¶ 46} Father began receiving suboxone services from Metro Hybrid Clinic 

in Michigan in December 2022. Beaudrie testified that father had been compliant 

with that service at the time of the hearing, but on March 29, 2023, father did not 

appear for a scheduled drug screen at Metro Hybrid Clinic.

{¶ 47} In addition, Beaudrie testified that father’s last completed drug 

screening for LCCS was in September 2022, when he tested positive for cocaine. 

Father appeared for a screen at LCCS’s facility in February 2023 and one in 

March 2023, but he did not go and he refused to complete a swab because the 

results could not be contested. Beaudrie also testified that father’s drug screens 

conducted by Metro Hybrid Clinic were a concern for LCCS because they were 

scheduled drops rather than random drops.

{¶ 48} According to Beaudrie, father also did not comply with the terms of 

his probation as required by the case plan. She testified that a Michigan court had 

issued a bench warrant for father with a $10,000 bond for failing to appear for a 

hearing in April 2023. 

{¶ 49} Beaudrie further noted that father had not demonstrated that he 

secured independent housing as required by his case plan. She did not know 

where father was residing at the time of the hearing. Beaudrie explained that 

father’s contact with her had been irregular throughout the case, and the last time 
15.

she saw him was in March 2023 and the last time she had spoken to him was by 

phone in April 2023.

{¶ 50} Beaudrie believed that father was not able to provide a safe, stable, 

or permanent environment for J.T. and R.T. based on father’s failure to make 

significant progress in case plan services to address the concerns. LCCS had 

ongoing concerns about father’s substance abuse and mental health, and father had 

not demonstrated he had stable housing.

{¶ 51} In addition, Beaudrie stated her belief that father would not be able 

to significantly remedy his problems given an extension of time to receive case 

plan services. She testified that father needed inpatient substance abuse treatment, 

which was in her experience approximately 30 days. After discharge, a patient 

must next complete intensive outpatient services, which generally take 10 to 16 

weeks. After that, a patient must complete aftercare services for an additional 12 

to 16 weeks. As such, Beaudrie testified that there was insufficient time in the 

case for father to demonstrate active sobriety.

{¶ 52} LCCS did not have a plan for a permanent placement according to 

Beaudrie. The children’s foster caregivers were not certified to adopt, and they 

had not yet decided whether they would consider adopting J.T. and R.T. In the 

past, the foster parents had expressed that they did not intend to adopt, but they 

notified LCCS that they were reconsidering at the time of the hearing. The foster 

parents had agreed to keep the children until a permanent placement was found for 

them.
16.

{¶ 53} LCCS had not been able to identify any appropriate relatives despite 

conducting a search into the children’s family and contacting several relatives. 

Anthony Cardenas, an LCCS employee whose job was to find family members of 

kids in foster care, testified that he had done a search of both sides of the 

children’s family but had not identified anyone, though a cousin had very recently 

come forward expressing an interest in custody of the children.

{¶ 54} Beaudrie did not consider McIntosh a suitable option because father 

had been living with McIntosh in her home on and off throughout the case, and 

father was still using McIntosh’s address for probation purposes. LCCS was 

concerned with the type of contact that McIntosh would permit father to have with 

the children. 

{¶ 55} LCCS also had concerns with McIntosh stemming from a report it 

received from a caseworker from another agency who worked with the foster 

parents. The report, dated March 16, 2023, stated that J.T. had been coached to 

tell a caseworker that he wanted to live with McIntosh. J.T. told the caseworker 

that his father was going to marry McIntosh and she was going to be his 

stepmother. The caseworker was surprised because J.T. had never before 

expressed a wish to live with McIntosh. Later that evening, J.T. confessed to one 

of his foster parents that he had been coached by father to say those words, and 

doing so made his stomach hurt. LCCS was concerned with this report in part 

because of J.T.’s statement that father and McIntosh were to marry, which 

suggested that father and McIntosh continued to be in a relationship.
17.

{¶ 56} According to Beaudrie, it was not in the children’s best interests for 

the court to grant McIntosh legal custody of the children because of her ongoing 

relationship with father. Rather, she believed it was in the children’s best interests 

for LCCS to have permanent custody of the children

{¶ 57} Although father attended the hearing on May 17, father did not 

appear on May 23 or June 2, 2023. On May 23, father’s attorney explained that 

she had just learned that father had been admitted into a mental health institution, 

and she requested a continuance so that father could be at the hearing. LCCS 

objected, arguing that the case had been continued many times already and 

father’s timing in seeking inpatient treatment was suspect. The juvenile court 

denied the request for a continuance, and the hearing proceeded in father’s 

absence.

{¶ 58} Ms. Saab testified that father had been admitted into Henry Ford 

Kingswood, a psychiatric hospital, on May 22, 2023. According to Ms. Saab, 

father was being treated for major depressive disorder, opioid use disorder, and 

PTSD. In addition, father had expressed interest in going to a residential treatment 

center for substance use after leaving Kingswood.

{¶ 59} Ms. Saab further testified that as of the date of her testimony, May 

23, 2023, father still needed additional treatment for trauma. She believed that if 

father received the right treatment, he could potentially be ready to reunify with 

his children in three or four months. She also recognized, however, that he may

require more substantive long-term treatment to make significant progress. He 
18.

had made some progress, but Ms. Saab could not say how much more treatment he 

needed. She explained, “Maybe we only touched the surface. It’s hard to say at 

this moment.” Ms. Saab acknowledged that she did not know how long father 

would need treatment for substance abuse because she did not have enough 

experience in that area to give an opinion.

{¶ 60} On June 2, 2023, father’s counsel informed the court that to the best 

of her knowledge, father would not be appearing in court for the hearing that day. 

Father’s counsel represented that all she knew about father’s whereabouts was that 

he had been in treatment.

{¶ 61} Finally, Orr, the guardian ad litem, testified. In addition to 

submitting her report, Orr testified that she did not believe that it would be in the 

best interest of the children to be reunified with father. Orr, who attended several 

of father’s visits with the children, expressed concerns about father’s parenting at 

visits. For example, Orr noted that father would bring food to the noon visits. 

R.T. had been in therapy for food fixation, and father had ignored Orr’s request to 

bring in healthier foods in accordance with that therapy. Father had not addressed 

R.T.’s inappropriate behavior on another occasion, and father had encouraged the 

children to fight back rather than to run away or get an adult if they got into an 

altercation at school.

{¶ 62} Orr also did not recommend that McIntosh be granted legal custody 

of J.T. and R.T. based on McIntosh’s on-again, off-again relationship with father. 

Orr also cited an incident in which McIntosh had unexpectedly appeared at J.T.’s 
19.

baseball game. When J.T. saw her, McIntosh told him not to tell his foster parents 

that she was there. At the hearing, McIntosh clarified that when she said that, J.T. 

had then pointed behind her, where his foster parents had been standing, and 

McIntosh had told J.T. she was just kidding and apologized. Orr testified that 

even if McIntosh’s explanation was true, she did not think McIntosh’s actions had 

been appropriate. Orr emphasized that she did not think joking about J.T. hiding 

things from his foster parents was okay, and J.T. should not have been put in such 

a position.

{¶ 63} Orr testified that the children had expressed a desire to be in a 

permanent home situation. J.T. and R.T. had previously asked to live with father, 

but they had changed their minds. Orr testified that both children struggled when 

father was inconsistent with visitation. J.T. told Orr that he was afraid his father 

would use drugs. Thus, Orr stated that J.T. wanted to be adopted by his foster 

parents, in part because he wanted to stay in his current school system with his 

friends and continue playing sports. R.T. told Orr he did not want to live with his 

dad and wanted to live with relatives of his foster family.

{¶ 64} The children were doing well in their placement according to both 

Beaudrie and Orr. Both J.T. and R.T. were receiving regular counseling, and they 

were bonded to their caregivers. Orr testified that J.T. was doing “exceptionally 

well” in school and was on the honor roll.

{¶ 65} In his closing argument at the hearing, father’s counsel requested 

that the juvenile court not award permanent custody of the children to LCCS, but 
20.

instead grant an extension of time for father to successfully complete his treatment

and reunite with the children. Father had been progressing in his treatment until 

he had been triggered by the anniversary of a traumatic event, and he had recently 

resumed treatment. The case still had nearly four months before the two-year 

mark, and father contended he could potentially be well enough to reunify with the 

children in that time. Further, father pointed out that although LCCS argued that 

permanency was in the children’s best interests, LCCS had not yet identified a 

permanent placement.

{¶ 66} Alternatively, father argued in favor of granting legal custody to 

McIntosh, whom father alleged had no criminal history, was financially sound, 

and had an appropriate home. Father contended the children’s best interests 

would be better served if the children were in the custody of McIntosh than if the

they had to start over with an unknown person. Father also represented that there 

was no evidence that McIntosh had been in a relationship with father since 

December 2022.

{¶ 67} McIntosh presented similar arguments, providing some details about

the stable home she could provide the children as well as her prior parenting 

experience. McIntosh argued that she was invested in the children, asserting that 

she had attended nearly every hearing and meeting in this case. McIntosh denied 

being in a relationship with father and said had not been for some time. She 

asserted that she would not allow father to be around the children if he were 
21.

unstable, explaining she had never previously allowed him in her home when he 

was using.

{¶ 68} J.T. and R.T.’s attorney argued in favor of granting permanent 

custody to LCCS. In support, she stated that the children had told her that they 

were tired of being in this situation, they did not believe that father could be 

consistent and stable, and they feared if they were to be reunited with father that 

they would end up in foster care again. She pointed out that father had not been 

consistent with visiting the children or with his treatment. 

{¶ 69} Further, the children’s attorney echoed the concerns expressed by 

Beaudrie and Orr regarding McIntosh. She asserted that McIntosh did not have a 

long-term relationship with the children and had only known them for about three 

to four months, and she was concerned about the level of involvement McIntosh 

had in this case based on such a short relationship. The children’s attorney also 

suggested McIntosh’s failure to seek legal assistance was another mark against 

her.

{¶ 70} The juvenile court took the matter under advisement.

{¶ 71} Following the permanent custody hearing, the juvenile court entered 

its judgment terminating father’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody 

of the children to LCCS. As to father, the court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that the children cannot be placed with him within a reasonable time or 

should not be placed with him. Specifically, it found under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) 

that notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by LCCS, father
22.

failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that 

caused the children to be placed outside of the family home. The court determined 

that although father was in substantial compliance with his case plan for a period

of time, he was no longer in compliance. It noted that father stopped engaging in 

services for several months and that he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for 

an attempted suicide and had been admitted to an inpatient treatment center during 

trial.

{¶ 72} The juvenile court also found under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) that father 

suffers from such severe chemical dependency and chronic mental illness that he 

was unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children at that time, 

and that it is highly unlikely that father will remedy his chemical dependency and 

chronic mental illness within one year from the trial date. In addition to the 

circumstances the court cited to support a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the 

court noted that father failed to provide samples for drug screening, hindering 

LCCS from monitoring his sobriety and progress. The court recognized that father 

had many mental health, substance abuse, and trauma-related issues, but explained 

that the children did not have to wait indefinitely for him to address those issues.

{¶ 73} The juvenile court also found that granting legal custody to 

McIntosh was not in the children’s best interest. First, neither McIntosh nor father 

made any argument to explain why McIntosh’s relationship with the children 

should be preserved. McIntosh, who had known the children for five months 

before the children went into care nearly two years earlier, had not established the 
23.

children were bonded to her or had asked to live with her. The court stated that 

McIntosh’s actions in appearing uninvited at J.T.’s baseball game and joking with 

him to lie to his foster parents about her presence were inappropriate. 

{¶ 74} Next, the juvenile court explained that McIntosh’s relationship with 

father made her an unsuitable choice for custody of the children. Even if 

McIntosh and father were no longer romantically involved, McIntosh allowed 

father to live with her when he needed support throughout the case. The court 

expressed concern that McIntosh would continue to allow father to do so, 

exposing the children to father’s struggles, which had a negative impact on the 

children. It also noted that McIntosh had the opportunity to admit evidence and

call witnesses to support her motion, but she had only called Beaudrie, who opined 

against McIntosh having custody of the children. 

{¶ 75} Accordingly, the juvenile court found under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) 

that it was in the best interest of the children to award permanent custody to LCCS 

for adoptive placement and planning. The court noted that the children were

bonded with their foster family and doing well, the children desired permanency 

and neither child wanted to live with father.

III. Assignments of Error

{¶ 76} Father has timely appealed the judgment terminating his parental 

rights and now asserts three assignments of error for our review:

1. The trial court’s finding that father did not remedy the 

issue which caused the removal such that the children could not be 
24.

placed with him within a reasonable time or should not be placed 

with him pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2) was not 

supported by clear and convincing evidence when time remained on 

the case.

2. The trial court’s finding that father demonstrated a lack of 

commitment to the children by failing to regularly support or visit 

them when able to do so, or otherwise demonstrating an 

unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the 

children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) was not supported by clear 

and convincing evidence.

3. The court’s denial of legal custody to Ms. McIntosh, a 

potential third party custodian, was not supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.

IV. Analysis

A. The juvenile court’s decision terminating father’s parental 

rights is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 77} Father’s first and second assignments of error challenge the juvenile

court’s decision to terminate his parental rights.

“A trial court’s determination in a permanent custody case will not be 

reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re 

A.H., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, citing In re AndyJones, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-1167, 03AP-1231, 2004-Ohio-3312, ¶ 28. 
25.

“Reversal is proper only where its determined, after weighing the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences including the credibility of the witnesses, that the juvenile 

court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the 

judgment must be reversed.” In re S.S., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1219, 2023-

Ohio-1663, ¶ 27, citing In re T.J., 2021-Ohio-4085, 180 N.E.3d 706, ¶ 40 (6th 

Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

{¶ 78} The juvenile court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh 

the evidence and evaluate the testimony. In re A.H. at ¶ 11, citing In re Brown, 98 

Ohio App.3d 337, 342, 648 N.E.2d 576 (3d Dist.1994). “Thus, in determining 

whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, 

every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in 

favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.” In re S.S. at ¶ 28, quoting In re 

W.M., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1016, 2022-Ohio-1978, ¶ 42.

{¶ 79} To terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child 

to a public services agency under R.C. 2151.414, the juvenile court must find, by 

clear and convincing evidence, both of the following: (1) one of the enumerated 

factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) permanent custody is in the 

best interests of the child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). To be clear and convincing, the

evidence must be sufficient for the trier of fact to form a firm belief or conviction 

as to the facts sought to be established. In re T.J., 2021-Ohio-4085, 180 N.E.3d 

706, ¶ 36 (6th Dist.), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 

(1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. The clear and convincing standard 
26.

requires more than a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross at paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶ 80} In this case, father contests the juvenile court’s finding that R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies. He does not separately contest the court’s 

determination that permanent custody to LCCS is in the best interest of the 

children.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) provides that a trial court may grant permanent 

custody of a child to the agency if it finds that, in addition to the placement being 

in the best interest of the child,

The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the 

temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies 

or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a 

consecutive twenty-two-month period, * * * and the child cannot be 

placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or 

should not be placed with the child’s parents.

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot be placed 

with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed 

with either parent if any of sixteen factors are met.

Here, the juvenile court found that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4) 

applied to father. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) states,

Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home 

and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by 
27.

the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially 

caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed 

continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions 

causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. In 

determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those 

conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, 

psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative 

services and material resources that were made available to the 

parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them 

to resume and maintain parental duties.

R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) states,

Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual 

disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is 

so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent 

home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year 

after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or 

for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised 

Code.

R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) states,

The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward 

the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with 
28.

the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an 

unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.

Notably, the juvenile court “only needed to find that one [R.C. 

2151.414(E)] factor applied to support its holding.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 

2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50; In re Za.G., 6th Dist. Williams Nos. WM19-019, WM-19-020, WM-19-021, WM-19-022, 2020-Ohio-405, ¶ 102. 

{¶ 81} Father first contends that the juvenile court’s finding under 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that the children could not be placed with him within a 

reasonable time is not supported by clear and convincing evidence because father 

has made substantial progress with his substance abuse and mental health services. 

In support of this argument, father asserts that: (1) LCCS recognized father’s 

success with dealing with his substance abuse issues; (2) he complied with case 

plan services; (3) he responded constructively to the relapse he went through 

around the first anniversary of being sexually assaulted; and (4) time remained on 

the case for father to demonstrate that custody could be returned to him. 

{¶ 82} While father made some progress on his case plan services for a 

time, he experienced a significant relapse that lasted months, during which he 

resumed significant drug use, attempted suicide, and sought admittance to a 

mental health hospital in December 2022. 

{¶ 83} After his discharge on January 10, 2023, father took a month to 

reestablish his mental health services. He was not compliant with his mental 

health treatment over the next two months, missing nearly half of his appointments 
29.

with his therapist and psychiatrist. Ms. Saab considered the sessions he did attend 

to be “surface level,” and his psychiatrist noted that father was evasive and 

avoidant, drug-seeking, and reported no substance abuse issues. Dr. White and 

Ms. Saab recommended more intensive treatment, including inpatient treatment, to 

father in March 2023. Father, however, did not act on their recommendation for 

two months, and he stopped attending formal therapy sessions altogether after his 

appointment with Ms. Saab on March 31, 2023. And when father did seek an 

admission to a psychiatric hospital (his third such hospitalization during the case’s 

pendency), he chose to do so the day before the second hearing date on LCCS’s 

motion for permanent custody. As a result, father lost the opportunity to testify at 

the hearing.

{¶ 84} As for Ms. Saab’s testimony that father would potentially need only 

three to four months of treatment for his trauma to be well enough to reunify with 

his children, she expressly limited her opinion to father’s treatment for trauma, not 

his substance abuse. She acknowledged that she was not qualified to give an 

opinion on the time necessary to treat an opioid addiction. She also testified that it 

was difficult for her to say how much treatment father still needed for trauma, 

clarifying that his mental health team “may have only scratched the surface.” 

{¶ 85} In addition to mental health issues, father also had substance abuse 

issues to address in his case plan. Throughout the 21-month history of the case, 

father had only about five months, from approximately May 2022 to September 

2022, in which he dropped at a random drug screening and was not positive for 
30.

any substance other than suboxone. Most recently, on his admission to the mental 

health hospital in December 2022, father tested positive for fentanyl and cocaine 

and admitted to using cocaine 20 out of the previous 30 days. Father did not 

provide drops to LCCS in February and March 2023, he has not been undergoing 

random screenings with his suboxone provider or through his probation, and he 

failed to appear for his scheduled screen with his suboxone provider at the end of 

March.

{¶ 86} Indeed, at the time of the hearing, father’s substance abuse issues 

still required significant long-term treatment. Ms. Saab testified that after he was 

discharged from the hospital, father planned to seek residential substance abuse 

treatment. Beaudrie testified that residential treatment for opioid addiction is 

typically 30 days, which is then followed by intensive outpatient services for 

approximately 10 to 16 weeks, and then aftercare services for an additional 12 to 

16 weeks. Beaudrie testified that only after the completion of all three forms of 

treatment would father have reached a point in his sobriety when he could be 

reunified with his children. Accordingly, even if all of father’s substance-abuse 

treatment went as well as possible and father did not experience any additional 

relapses, father would not be ready to reunify with his children for at least six to

nine months.

{¶ 87} Beyond the treatment father still required for his mental health and 

substance abuse issues, father also failed to establish he had independent housing

as required by his case plan. The only person who testified during the hearing 
31.

concerning father’s current residence was Beaudrie, and she testified that she did 

not know where father was living because he was not in regular communication 

with her.

{¶ 88} Accordingly, the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) 

that father failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the 

conditions causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home is not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, the court’s findings under 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) and (E)(4) need not be considered. In re A.E., 6th Dist. 

Lucas No. L-23-1043, 2023-Ohio-2310, ¶ 68.

{¶ 89} Accordingly, father’s first and second assignments of error are not 

well-taken.

B. Father lacks standing to challenge the denial of McIntosh’s motion 

for legal custody

{¶ 90} Next, father argues that because an adoptive home had not been 

identified for J.T. and R.T. at the time of the hearing, the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion for legal custody. However, “[a

parent’s] standing in [an appeal of a juvenile court’s order terminating parental 

rights] is limited to challenging whether the court improperly terminated her 

parental rights. [The parent] has no standing to challenge whether the court erred 

in failing to grant custody of the child to a third party.” In re J.S., 6th Dist. Lucas 

No. L-14-1055, 2014-Ohio-3130, ¶ 25, citing In re R.V., 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L10-1278, L-10-1301, 2011-Ohio-1837, ¶ 15-16. Father’s standing is limited to 
32.

challenging the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, and therefore he 

does not have standing to challenge the juvenile court’s denial of McIntosh’s 

motion for legal custody. Accordingly, father’s third assignment of error is not 

well-taken.

V. Conclusion

{¶ 91} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Father is ordered to pay the 

costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J. ____________________________

CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.