[Cite as In re J.G., 2018-Ohio-5222.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: J.G. 

 B.G. 

 D.G. 

 

 

C.A. No. 29106 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE Nos. DN16-06-000507 

 DN 16-06-000508 

 DN 16-06-000509 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: December 26, 2018 

 

 CARR, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, J.J. (“Father”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights to his three minor 

children and placed them in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board 

(“CSB”). This Court affirms. 

I 

{¶2} Father is the biological father of J.G., born February 8, 2010; B.G., born 

December 21, 2012; and D.G., born September 28, 2015. The children’s mother (“Mother”) did 

not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶3} On June 27, 2016, CSB filed complaints to allege that the three children were 

dependent because Mother was living with the children in an inoperable van and was not 
2 

 

otherwise meeting their basic daily needs. CSB was also concerned about Mother’s mental 

health. 

{¶4} The children were later adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary 

custody of CSB. The initial case plan goal for the children was reunification with Mother, but 

Mother failed to achieve any stability in her life. Instead, she continued to struggle with mental 

health and substance abuse problems and gave birth to three more children, including a set of 

twins, during the next two years. Although CSB had attempted to place J.G., B.G., and D.G. in 

the legal custody of an aunt, the aunt later informed the agency that she could not provide the 

children with a permanent home. 

{¶5} At the time this case began, Mother and Father had ended their romantic 

relationship and Father was incarcerated for convictions of grand theft, breaking and entering, 

and receiving stolen property. Father remained incarcerated throughout most of this case 

because, shortly after he was released from his incarceration on those convictions, he was 

convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to another 18 months in prison. Consequently, 

reunification with Father was not possible and Father visited with the children only a few times 

during this case. 

{¶6} Because CSB was unable to find any other suitable relatives and neither parent 

was able to provide a stable home for the children, CSB eventually moved for permanent 

custody. At the commencement of the hearing, Father informed the trial court that he was due to 

be released from his most recent term of incarceration. He requested a six-month extension of 

temporary custody to allow him more time to work on the reunification requirements of the case 

plan. The trial court explained that the case had almost reached its two-year sunset date, 

however, and denied Father’s request for an extension. Following an evidentiary hearing, the 
3 

 

trial court terminated parental rights and placed J.G., B.G., and D.G. in the permanent custody of 

CSB. Father appeals and raises one assignment of error. 

I. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR 

IN DENYING FATHER A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY 

CUSTODY. 

{¶7} Father’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred by placing the 

children in the permanent custody of CSB rather than granting a six-month extension of 

temporary custody. As the trial court explained at the hearing, however, it lacked authority to 

extend temporary custody because it had been almost two years since CSB filed its complaints in 

this case. R.C. 2151.353(G) provides that “the court shall not order an existing temporary 

custody order to continue beyond two years after the date on which the complaint was filed or 

the child was first placed into shelter care, whichever date is earlier[.]” 

{¶8} Even if there had been more time to extend temporary custody, the trial court 

would have had authority to extend temporary custody only if it also found that Father had made 

“significant progress” on the case plan and that there was reasonable cause to believe that the 

children would be reunified with him or otherwise permanently placed during the extension 

period. R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). Father repeatedly testified that the children’s situation was 

Mother’s fault and that he did not know that she was on drugs because they had split up. His 

argument ignores the fact that he had not been involved in his children’s lives for many years. 

Father was incarcerated for many months before this case began and remained incarcerated 

throughout most of this two-year case. He rarely saw the children and, although he claimed to 

have completed some parenting and anger management programs in prison, he refused to sign 
4 

 

information releases to allow CSB or the guardian ad litem to verify that he had completed those 

programs. 

{¶9} Moreover, the trial court was required to conduct a best interest analysis to 

determine whether to place the children in the permanent custody of CSB or to extend temporary 

custody. When determining the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D), the juvenile 

court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and interrelationships of the 

children, their wishes, the custodial history of the children, and the need for permanence in the 

children’s lives. See In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834 and 24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11. 

{¶10} Father was incarcerated throughout most of this case and his interaction with the 

children was minimal. When Father was able to visit, the oldest child was reluctant to attend 

because he was afraid of Father. The children were closely bonded to each other and their 

current foster family, however, and they were doing well in that home. The older two children 

had expressed their desire to stay with the foster parents, who were interested in adopting all 

three children. The youngest child was too young to express his wishes, but the guardian ad 

litem expressed her opinion that permanent custody was in the best interest of all three children. 

{¶11} The children had been in temporary placements for nearly two years and were in 

need of a stable permanent placement. Because CSB had been unable to find a suitable relative 

who was willing and able to provide the children with a permanent home, the trial court 

reasonably concluded that permanent custody was in their best interests. Father’s assignment of 

error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶12} Father’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 
5 

 

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 Appellant. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

SCHAFER, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 
6 

 

APPEARANCES: 

BRENDON J. KOHRS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

AMBER CROWE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. 

CHRISTOPHER VANDEVERE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE CORGAN, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. 

HOLLY FARRAH, Guardian ad Litem.