[Cite as In re J.G., 2020-Ohio-4701.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LUCAS COUNTY 

In re Adoption of J.G., K.W. Court of Appeals No. L-20-1023 

 L-20-1024 

 

 Trial Court No. 2018 ADP 000142 

 2018 ADP 000143 

 

 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

 Decided: September 30, 2020 

* * * * * 

 John F. Potts, for appellant. 

 David T. Rudebock, for appellee 

* * * * * 

MAYLE, J. 

{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellants, T.B. and D.B., appeal the January 6, 

2020 judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, denying 

their petition to adopt their great-grandchildren, J.G. and K.W. Appellee, Lucas County 
2. 

Children’s Services (“LCCS”), has filed a brief urging us to affirm the trial court 

judgments. For the following reasons, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and 

remand this matter to the probate court for further proceedings. 

I. Background 

{¶ 2} J.G. (born in 2012) and K.W. (born in 2016) are the biological children of 

Jo.G. On December 12, 2017, Jo.G.’s parental rights were terminated and permanent 

custody of the children was granted to LCCS. The children have been in foster care with 

a distant cousin, B.G, since August of 2016. 

{¶ 3} On September 5, 2018, T.B. and D.B., the children’s maternal greatgrandparents, filed a petition for adoption. LCCS objected to their petition. It argued 

that B.G. has taken good care of the children, has been a consistent, stable presence in 

their lives, and has expressed an interest in adopting them, while T.B. and D.B. have 

never held custody of them, have not maintained consistent contact, have not represented 

a consistent, stable presence in their lives, have not approached LCCS to be studied for 

adoption, and have not presented LCCS with an approved adoptive home study. It 

maintained that the children’s placement with T.B. and D.B. would not be the “least 

detrimental alternative” for the children and would not be in their best interest. LCCS 

also expressed concern that T.B. and D.B. intended to return the children to their mother, 

and it alleged that D.B. had at one time been approved to babysit J.G. with certain 

restrictions, but she violated those restrictions and lied to the caseworker about it. LCCS 
3. 

noted that T.B. and D.B. sought custody in the juvenile court case, but the juvenile court 

granted custody to LCCS.1

 

{¶ 4} In a judgment journalized on January 3, 2019, the trial court granted LCCS’s 

objection and dismissed the petition after T.B. and D.B. failed to appear for a pre-trial, 

notify the court of their legal representation, provide a deposit for their home study, or 

respond to LCCS’s objection. T.B. and D.B. moved to vacate the judgment and reinstate 

their petition to its docket, and the trial court granted their motion. The matter proceeded 

to hearing. 

A. The Hearing 

{¶ 5} A hearing took place on November 25-26, 2019, “on the issue of whether 

[LCCS] is unreasonably withholding its consent” to T.B. and D.B.’s petition to adopt. 

The following witnesses testified: D.B.; T.B.; B.G.; Danielle Stroble and Rick Mendieta, 

LCCS ongoing caseworkers; Linda Baker, an LCCS adoption caseworker; attorney Mary 

Clark, the children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”); J.E., the children’s maternal 

grandmother; A.H., the children’s half-sister; N.H., a family friend; N.M, the children’s 

uncle; F.G., the children’s cousin; C.B., T.B.’s son and D.B.’s stepson; and C.R., a cousin 

of D.B. 

1. Danielle Stroble 

{¶ 6} Danielle Stroble is employed by LCCS as an ongoing caseworker. She was 

assigned J.G. and K.W.’s case on March 7, 2016, when it went from an investigation to 

 

1

 We affirmed the juvenile court judgment. In re J.G., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1311, 

2018-Ohio-3981.
4. 

an ongoing case. She was taken off the case in May of 2016, because maternal family 

members—A.H., specifically—made personal threats against her. 

{¶ 7} J.G. and K.W. were removed from their home because of domestic violence 

between Jo.G. and K.W.’s father, M.W. Once involved, LCCS became aware of drug 

issues and instability in the household. J.G. was placed with J.E., her maternal 

grandmother. Jo.G. was pregnant with K.W. at that time. 

{¶ 8} When K.W. was born, the agency originally planned to place K.W. with J.E. 

But the agency learned that J.E. had allowed J.G. to stay the night unsupervised at Jo.G.’s 

home, and a new domestic violence incident occurred in J.G.’s presence. J.E. could no 

longer be trusted at this point. The agency obtained an ex parte order for custody and 

talked to the family about other relatives who could provide foster care. To Stroble’s 

knowledge, T.B. and D.B. did not ask to be considered. 

{¶ 9} When J.G. was living with J.E., Stroble spoke with D.B. about being a 

support for J.E. This could include babysitting and overseeing visits between Jo.G. and 

the children. D.B. and T.B. submitted fingerprints for a background check. The results 

came back and arrangements were made for D.B. to babysit J.G. on April 3, 2016, at 

J.E.’s home; J.E. would be attending a staffing meeting at the hospital following K.W.’s 

birth. D.B. was not permitted to babysit in her own home because a sight and safety 

check of D.B. and T.B.’s home was required and had not yet been performed. 

{¶ 10} Instead of staying at J.E.’s home with J.G., D.B. showed up at the hospital 

for the staffing meeting. Stroble asked D.B. where J.G. was, and D.B. told Stroble that 
5. 

T.B. was watching J.G. at their home. Stroble said that D.B. knew that this was not 

permitted because the home had not yet been approved. 

{¶ 11} Despite this rule violation, LCCS continued to consider D.B. to be a 

support for the family. Stroble explained to D.B. that they were trusting her to follow the 

rules and procedures of the agency. She said that D.B., J.E., and Jo.G. all understood that 

they needed to follow the rules. But a few days later, J.E. and Jo.G. waited for Stroble 

outside court. Stroble asked who was with J.G. J.E. and Jo.G admitted that D.B. was 

watching J.G. at D.B.’s home, which had still not been approved. Stroble called D.B. and 

asked if J.G. had been to her home and D.B. said no. She did not tell Stroble the truth—

that J.G. was there and had spent the night—until Stroble told her that J.E. and Jo.G. had 

already admitted that J.G. was there. At this point, LCCS concluded that D.B. could not 

be trusted and could not provide oversight. 

{¶ 12} After D.B. lied to Stroble, it was not determined that she could have no 

further involvement with the kids; it was merely determined that she could not be 

approved as an oversight or babysitter. T.B. and D.B. never asked Stroble about placing 

the children with them, so she cannot say that they would not have been considered for 

placement, but she acknowledged that an even greater level of trust would be required to 

place the children with them. 

{¶ 13} Stroble testified that she is not aware of D.B. or T.B. ever sending cards or 

letters to the children. On cross-examination, she agreed that while D.B. could not take 

J.G. to her own home, she would have been permitted to take her to a public place like 
6. 

the zoo or COSI. Stroble emphasized that if the child was going to be taken to a private 

home, this needed to be discussed with a supervisor. 

2. Rick Mendieta 

{¶ 14} Rick Mendieta is also employed by LCCS as an ongoing caseworker. He 

was assigned to J.G. and K.W.’s case on May 24, 2017. Cristina Disilvis was the 

children’s caseworker in between Stroble and Mendieta. By the time Mendieta was 

assigned to the case, LCCS had already been awarded permanent custody of the children. 

{¶ 15} J.G. and K.W. have been in B.G.’s home since August 5, 2016. Mendieta 

conducts monthly home visits, some of which are unannounced. He talks with J.G. 

alone, but K.W. is too young for an alone interview. J.G. has been tired lately and 

refuses to talk, but they usually discuss school and any concerns she may have. Of the 

approximately 30 times he has visited, J.G. has refused to talk to him only four or five 

times. She has not relayed any concerns about her living environment. 

{¶ 16} J.G. is in second grade. She is feisty and stubborn and has a mind of her 

own. She has had minor issues with her peers, but overall she gets very good grades. 

She is not involved in extracurricular activities. J.G. was in counseling, but that has been 

successfully completed. J.G. sometimes talks about Jo.G. and J.E.; she talks more about 

J.E. than Jo.G. Recently, they showed up at her school and that embarrassed her, but she 

has also talked about them dropping off gifts for Christmas. B.G. has asked J.E. and 

Jo.G. not to show up randomly at her house or at school. J.G. has not expressed any 

feelings about A.H. 
7. 

{¶ 17} K.W. is babied and loved by everyone in the house. B.G. sometimes 

carries him around. K.W. was involved with Help Me Grow until he reached age three. 

He has completed treatment with a pulmonologist. Mendieta described K.W. as fearless. 

{¶ 18} B.G.’s 17-year-old daughter also lives in the house. She interacts with the 

children like a typical sibling. Sometimes she wants to play with them, sometimes she 

bickers with J.G., and sometimes she wants to stay in her room. B.G. has two medium 

sized dogs. Mendieta has no concerns with the dogs. They are not dangerous and he has 

not observed dog feces or urine in the home. 

{¶ 19} B.G. is J.G.’s fourth home. She has had two foster homes and was placed 

with J.E. K.W. went to one other foster home for about four months, then moved in with 

B.G. the same date as J.G. The children are comfortable at B.G.’s home, they love B.G. 

and her daughter, and they appear to be at ease. B.G. talks to the kids, helps with 

homework, and cooks dinner. The children seem bonded with her and are doing well; 

they appear well-adjusted. Mendieta has no concerns with B.G.’s home. It is small, but 

it meets the children’s needs. 

{¶ 20} The initial goal of the case plan was reunification, but there is now an 

adoptive service on their case plan. The agency has not been looking for an adoptive 

home because B.G. has expressed an interest in adopting the children; she has completed 

pre-services and the adoption application and is licensed to adopt them. She has not filed 

a petition yet because of the ongoing case. The adoption worker is Linda Baker. 
8. 

{¶ 21} Mendieta has had no contact with T.B. or D.B. They have never emailed 

or called with inquiries. They have never asked him how they might go about completing 

an adoptive home study or be considered for adoption. To his knowledge, they have 

never had contact with the children. Before permanent custody was awarded to LCCS, 

the biological parents were visiting at the agency; T.B. and D.B. could have done this too. 

Mendieta became aware of T.B. and D.B.’s adoption petition when legal counsel 

provided him with the motion. 

{¶ 22} T.B. and D.B.’s home study was not approved. Mendieta believes it is 

because of their lack of bond with the children and an issue with them being less than 

forthcoming during LCCS’s involvement. B.G.’s is the only approved adoptive home 

study the agency has. 

{¶ 23} Mendieta has concerns with T.B. and D.B. being permitted to adopt the 

children. K.W. does not know them; B.G.’s home is the only home he has known and it 

would be traumatic to remove him. J.G. does not have an active relationship with them 

and has never mentioned them. His recommendation is that B.G. be permitted to adopt 

the children. LCCS does not like moving children, especially after they have had 

multiple moves and are in a home where they are safe, are getting their needs met, and 

are someplace that may be a permanent solution. 

{¶ 24} Mendieta has never told J.G. that her great-grandparents are interested in 

adopting them and has never asked her what she thought of them. J.G. has some trust 

issues because her mother and grandmother have made promises that did not come true, 
9. 

so he would not want to get her anxious or raise her hopes until he knew for certain what 

the plan was. T.B. and D.B. have not yet come back into their lives, so he does not know 

how J.G. would feel or react. 

3. D.B. 

{¶ 25} D.B. testified that she is the children’s great-grandmother. She last saw 

K.W. three years ago, when he was in the hospital after he was born. She does not know 

the last time she saw J.G. The kids live with B.G., who is a distant cousin. D.B. has 

never visited the children at B.G.’s home. She called B.G. once to ask if she could bring 

Christmas presents for the kids, but B.G. would not allow it. She has not spoken to 

anyone from LCCS to try to obtain visitation or contact with the kids, nor did she contact 

LCCS to arrange to get gifts to the children—she said she did not know that she could do 

that. 

{¶ 26} D.B. says that B.G. is not “[her] kind of person.” She describes B.G. as 

“too flighty” and “hormonal.” She maintains that J.G. never met B.G. before being 

placed in her care. D.B. believes that B.G. has excluded her and her husband from the 

children’s lives. She has never seen B.G. interact with the kids. She has never witnessed 

interactions between B.G., J.E., and Jo.E. 

{¶ 27} D.B. never contacted LCCS herself to get a home study; J.E. contacted the 

home study assessor. D.B. first stated that she did not interpret the home study as 

concluding that she was not recommended to adopt the children, but ultimately 

acknowledged that the home study “was denied,” which she attributed to her age. She 
10. 

did not contact anyone at LCCS after learning the results of the home study. D.B. 

conceded that J.E. and Jo.G. have contributed toward the costs associated with trying to 

obtain custody of the children. The GAL never contacted her or inspected her home. 

{¶ 28} D.B. maintains that she and T.B. love their great-grandchildren and want 

them in their home. She believes that she and T.B. can provide them with a loving, 

nurturing home and it is in their best interest to be with their great-grandparents. She 

describes herself as a young 63 with no significant health problems, and she insists that 

she is physically able to raise a young child. She is confident that if the children adapted 

to B.G.’s home, they will be able to adapt to her home. 

{¶ 29} D.B. testified that J.E., who is her daughter and the children’s grandmother, 

visits her home a few times a week. Jo.G., the children’s mother, comes for holidays and 

visits occasionally. D.B. said that she did not know if she would allow J.E. and Jo.G. to 

have contact with the children if her petition for adoption is granted. She supposed that 

“in the beginning,” she would not. She would want the children to become settled and 

relaxed in her home before she would allow contact with them, but after they were 

settled, she would probably allow J.E. and Jo.G. to see them “if things were permitted.” 

She denied that if allowed to adopt the children, she intends to return them to Jo.G. 

{¶ 30} D.B. acknowledged that her 90-year old mother-in-law lived with her and 

her husband for about five-and-a-half months, beginning in May of 2019. She was 

bedridden and required a lot of care. They placed her in a nursing facility for respite care 

that was initially supposed to last two weeks. It ultimately lasted four weeks and her 
11. 

mother-in-law did not return to their home. Instead, she went to live with her daughter. 

D.B. explained that this decision was made so that her mother-in-law could spend time 

with her daughter, who was unable to visit her at T.B. and D.B.’s home because of lack 

of transportation. 

{¶ 31} D.B. said that she attended a staffing at Toledo Hospital after K.W. was 

born. She acknowledged talking on the phone with LCCS caseworker, Danielle Stroble; 

she said that Stroble hung up on her. D.B. denied that LCCS informed her of any 

restrictions with respect to babysitting J.G., and she denies violating any LCCS 

restrictions. She did not think it would hurt anything to let T.B. babysit J.G. because he 

is her great-grandfather. 

4. B.G. 

{¶ 32} J.G. and K.W. have been in B.G.’s home since August 5, 2016. Jo.G. is the 

one who asked her if the children could stay with her. They were in foster care with 

LCCS and they were looking for somebody in the family that they could be with. The 

process started in May of 2016. B.G. submitted her fingerprints. A home study was 

performed and was approved. 

{¶ 33} K.W. is three and very bubbly. He talks a lot and is full of life. When he 

came to her, he had been diagnosed with asthma, hypothyroidism, and laryngomalacia—a 

hole in the esophagus. He sees a pulmonologist, an endocrinologist, and his family 

physician. He was involved with Help Me Grow until he was three and now he is in 

Head Start. He had to wear special pants to keep his legs together when he first started 
12. 

walking, and he wore special shoes. He had speech therapy, but his speech has 

improved. He sees his doctors approximately every three months. 

{¶ 34} J.G. is bubbly and princess-like. She loves attention, loves to learn new 

things, is interested in math and science, and reads at a fourth-grade level even though 

she is in the second grade. School is going well for her. J.G. has taken art classes at the 

museum. Next year she may start soccer or basketball. 

{¶ 35} J.G. and K.W. get along like normal siblings. They like to go to the park 

and the library, and they like to take walks. B.G. also has a 17-year-old daughter, H.G. 

J.G. and H.G. get along like sisters would—sometimes they get along; sometimes they 

don’t. 

{¶ 36} B.G. is willing to adopt the children. She has gone through the adoptive 

home study process and was approved. She lives in a three-bedroom house, but it has 

sufficient room for the children. She has two medium-sized dogs. They are loud but 

gentle and they love the kids. There have been no negative interactions between the kids 

and the dogs. 

{¶ 37} In September, J.E. and Jo.G. came to give the kids some clothes. Jo.G. said 

she was doing better and was in rehab. B.G. wanted to see some records from rehab or 

speak with the counselor to verify that Jo.G. was doing better, but this never happened. 

They came a few times and wanted to see the kids on Halloween of 2018. There was a 

bad interaction at J.G.’s school. Jo.G. was “bouncing around” and the police had to get 

involved to escort J.G.’s bus home. The police believed Jo.G. was under the influence 
13. 

and may have wanted to take J.G. The principal called her and wanted to talk to her 

about the situation and the police spoke with her. Because of this, B.G. ended up not 

spending Halloween with J.E. and Jo.G.; instead she took the kids trick-or-treating with a 

friend. After that, B.G. stopped answering Jo.G.’s phone calls. She is not aware of any 

criminal charges being filed against Jo.G. in connection with this incident. 

{¶ 38} B.G. knows T.B. and D.B.—T.B. is her cousin. D.B. called her around last 

November to ask if the children could come for Thanksgiving or Christmas. B.G. did not 

allow it because she was concerned that D.B. was going to let Jo.G. take them. She had 

no further interaction with T.B. and D.B. after this. B.G. has always gotten along with 

T.B. and D.B. They are polite, friendly, clean, set a good example, and she has no reason 

to believe that they would be bad adoptive parents. 

{¶ 39} When Jo.G. still had visitation rights, B.G. spoke with her a lot. She would 

call periodically to speak with the kids and wanted to come to see them as much as 

possible. But LCCS did not want J.E. and Jo.G. to see the kids outside of visitation, so 

she tried to keep them at bay and allow only telephone contact. Jo.G. would call about 

twice a week, then might not call again for six or eight weeks. Since the agency obtained 

permanent custody, Jo.G. would pop in demanding to see them. She behaved volatilely. 

The interaction with J.E. was similar. It would go really well or really badly. She no 

longer has phone communications with them because if J.E. or Jo.G. disagreed with her, 

it would end up in a fight. 
14. 

{¶ 40} A.H. stopped by three or four times and would sit outside on the porch with 

her and visit with J.G. She stopped coming around when she got pregnant. Usually those 

visits were okay, but the last time she was there, she showed up with a car full of men. It 

was dark out and B.G. did not know A.H. was coming, so she did not answer the door. A 

man got out of the car and started beating on the door. 

{¶ 41} J.E. and Jo.G. have given the kids gifts. T.B. and D.B. never have, and 

they have not seen the kids since they have been in B.G.’s care. If they were to see the 

kids, B.G. thinks it should be monitored because she is concerned they will hand the kids 

over to Jo.G. and J.E. because “[she has] heard them all say it.” Jo.G. told her at one time 

that she knew a woman who was planning to adopt the children she was caring for and 

return them to their biological mother. Jo.G. wanted B.G. to do this for her. B.G. does 

not know if T.B. and D.B. would go along with Jo.G.’s desire to return the children to 

her. 

{¶ 42} B.G. wants to adopt the kids because they are like her babies. She thinks it 

is in their best interest. It is concerning to her that T.B. and D.B. do not know the 

children. J.G. never speaks of them. She showed J.G. a picture of them and she didn’t 

know who they were. J.G. misses Jo.G. but has expressed that she is scared sometimes 

and not trusting when she is with her. She mentions J.E. once in a while. She does not 

mention A.H. 

{¶ 43} N.H. has dropped off gifts for the kids before from J.E., Jo.G., and A.H. 

B.G. did not have a problem with A.H. visiting until it got “nasty,” then she just stopped 
15. 

communicating with A.H. B.G. blocked her phone calls in October of 2018, after she 

swore at her and made demands. She thinks monitored visits with A.H. would be 

appropriate. B.G. believes A.H. is a bad influence on the kids. She thinks A.H. parties, 

drinks, and does drugs. She also believes that A.H. has sung vulgar raps songs to the 

children and taught them gang signs. She demonstrated some of the hand gestures she 

has seen them make but does not know what the signs mean. She and A.H. fought 

because B.G. would not let her take the kids with her. 

{¶ 44} Around a month or two ago, while driving, B.G. saw A.H.’s car in 

Rossford. She (or perhaps someone else in her vehicle) followed B.G., passed her, then 

turned around and came at her head-on. B.G. called the police, then followed A.H. onto 

I-75 to get her license plate number. She does not think that A.H. was coming to see the 

children because it was around noon on a weekday, when J.G. was in school. 

{¶ 45} B.G. volunteers at Maumee Valley Save-a-Pet. She used to work at 

Northwood Club Pet Resort. She was employed there for six months. She does some 

painting work. The last time she had a full-time job was when the kids came to live with 

her. She stopped working at that point and her ex-boyfriend helped support her. They 

broke up in October of 2017. 

{¶ 46} B.G. gets child support of $500 for H.G., until next year when she turns 18, 

and she gets support for the other children. The state pays for K.W.’s health care. She 

receives no compensation for taking him to appointments. She denied that she has an 

economic interest in keeping the kids. At first she received no income for the kids, but 
16. 

this changed around the end of the summer of 2019. Since signing the adoption papers, 

she gets a subsidy of $700. Before the $700 subsidy, she received $400 from Ohio 

workforce. She would still be willing to adopt even without the subsidy. 

{¶ 47} B.G. believes H.G., J.G., and K.W. are well-adjusted. She agrees that it is 

a healthy thing for kids to maintain a relationship with grandparents and aunts and uncles 

and it would be a good thing for the kids to have a relationship with their sister. 

5. Linda Baker 

{¶ 48} Linda Baker is employed by LCCS as an adoption caseworker. When 

LCCS decides to pursue permanent custody, there is an adoption referral made. She 

monitors the case until there’s a permanent custody decision and then she works with the 

prospective adoptive family towards finalization by monitoring the adjustment of the 

child and the family in the home. She was assigned to J.G. and K.W.’s case in May of 

2017. 

{¶ 49} After permanent custody is granted to the agency, Baker is in contact with 

the family every other month until an adoptive placement agreement is signed, then 

monthly. Barker has been to B.G.’s home and has observed the children. B.G. lives in 

the Rossford school district. Her home is small but adequate, with a large side yard. The 

children are well-adjusted and Barker has no concerns about their interactions. B.G. is 

loving, nurturing, and patient. The children have food and shelter and J.G. is in school. 

J.G. likes school and is healthy. K.W. had some issues early on but seems healthy now. 
17. 

{¶ 50} Barker has no concerns about B.G.’s dogs. B.G. is willing to adopt and the 

agency has consented. There was a home study and a pre-finalization assessment report 

approving B.G.’s home. 

{¶ 51} The agency holds a matching conference, mandated by the state, where it 

looks at the home study of families interested in adopting. There is also a child 

characteristic check that goes along with it that takes into account the children’s behavior, 

any special needs, ages, number of children, whether there has been juvenile court 

involvement, whether psychiatric services are needed, the children’s level of bonding, 

school services, continuity of care, and whether siblings would stay together. A matching 

conference took place here. 

{¶ 52} Barker has had no contact with T.B. and D.B. They never contacted her for 

a home study. She did not know who they were until the adoption petition was filed. She 

did not receive an approved home study for them. T.B. and D.B. were not evaluated 

because she did not know about them. 

{¶ 53} B.G.’s is the only home Barker has investigated or examined. Because 

Barker does not know T.B. or D.B., she cannot comment on whether they would be good 

adoptive parents. She does not know A.H. and has no opinion whether it would be good 

for her to have regular contact with J.G. and K.W. 

{¶ 54} J.G. has expressed excitement at being adopted by B.G. She wants 

certainty as to where she is going to be and she is happy where she is. Barker has not 
18. 

discussed with her whether she would be happier if she were adopted by her greatgrandparents. 

6. Mary Clark 

{¶ 55} Clark was appointed as the children’s GAL. She has completed an 

investigation. She does monthly home visits, some announced, some unannounced. She 

plays with the children when she visits. B.G.’s home has three bedrooms. She has two 

dogs, but they are usually outside or behind a gate when Clark comes because Clark has 

allergies. 

{¶ 56} K.W. was born positive for methadone and had withdrawal in the 

beginning. B.G. has met all of his medical, social, and emotional needs. J.G. did not 

have much structure when she was living with her grandmother. She had more structure 

at her first foster home and adjusted well, but she still experienced trauma. J.G. 

transitioned nicely into B.G.’s home. B.G. is very loving and open with communication. 

When J.G. was seeing her mother at the agency, it was chaotic for her. Visitation had to 

be terminated because it was not in J.G.’s best interest. 

{¶ 57} J.G. is very talkative. K.W. is also talkative but sometimes difficult to 

understand. Clark talks with J.G. about school, her friends, her favorite colors, and 

dancing. J.G. always has things to show her and talk to her about. She loves reading and 

reads at a fourth-grade level. She likes art. Clark told B.G. about scholarships for 

programs at the art museum. J.G. participated and loved it. J.G. says she wants B.G. to 

adopt her. She does not talk about her mom much. Living with her mom scared J.G. 
19. 

because Jo.E. and M.W. fought. She does not talk about J.E. or her great-grandparents 

and it has been a very long time since she has talked about A.H. 

{¶ 58} Clark was present during the permanent custody trial. Her opinion at the 

permanent custody hearing was that LCCS should be awarded permanent custody of the 

children. She saw T.B. and D.B. at the permanent custody hearing but does not know 

them and has had no contact with them. They did not seek custody in the permanent 

custody case. They have not contacted her. She knows about their history with the 

agency and the lack of trust. She knows Jo.G. really wants to get the kids back and B.G. 

has been good at saving the children from that drama. She is not sure T.B. and D.B. 

could do this. 

{¶ 59} Clark recommends that B.G. be permitted to adopt the children. B.G. is a 

relative who was recommended by Jo.G. in the first place, J.G. has been with B.G. half 

her life, and K.W. has been there all his life. They are bonded with B.G., there is 

structure, they are loved, they are part of the family, and their needs are being met. 

While she is certain that T.B. and D.B. are a nice family and want what is best for the 

children, Clark sees no reason for J.G. and K.W.’s situation to be disrupted. She believes 

it is in their best interest that they remain with B.G. 

{¶ 60} There was no reason to independently investigate T.B. and D.B., especially 

after Clark saw the home study. She agrees that the home study was not approved 

because of the lack of a prior relationship. Since she has been involved with the children, 

she has not heard of them having a relationship. She has done no comparative analysis 
20. 

between B.G. and T.B. and D.B. and she sees no reason to do one. She believes it would 

be traumatic and detrimental to disrupt the bond the children currently have with B.G. 

They are thriving where they are. 

{¶ 61} Clark at one point was A.H.’s GAL. Initially A.H. tried to stay above the 

drama of the family, but she ultimately dropped out of twelfth grade, got pregnant, and 

now has two children. Clark thinks it has been hard for her to be a functioning adult 

because there were a lot of countervailing forces. After A.H. became emancipated, Clark 

no longer had contact with her. Clark trusts B.G., so she trusts when B.G. expresses 

concerns about A.H.’s influence. Generally speaking, Clark believes it is good for minor 

siblings to maintain regular contact with their older siblings if the older sibling is 

appropriate. She trusts that B.G. will someday allow A.H. to come back into their lives. 

7. J.E. 

{¶ 62} J.E. is the maternal grandmother of J.G. and K.W. She is the daughter of 

T.B. and D.B. She testified that when LCCS obtained custody of J.G., she was initially 

allowed visitation at the agency. She would generally be there with her daughter, Jo.G., 

and her granddaughter, A.H., J.G.’s older sister. She approximates that she visited with 

the kids four to five times. She testified that the second to last time she visited, she 

noticed a creamy discharge in J.G.’s underwear, which she reported to caseworker 

Christina Disilvis. About a month later when she visited with J.G., J.G. told her that her 

“pee pee hurts.” The left lip of her vagina appeared to have “a little burn” and there was 

“a really bad discharge.” She reported this to a number of people, including “the mayor, 
21. 

the commissioner, the FBI, * * * even the sister at Rosary Cathedral.” She also spoke 

with Robin Reese, an LCCS ombudsman. She claims that no action was taken, but on 

cross-examination she acknowledged that Disilvis told her that her allegation of sexual 

abuse was determined to be unfounded. 

{¶ 63} J.E. claims that after making these complaints, she was no longer able to 

see J.G. J.G. was living with B.G. at this time. She claimed that her relationship with 

B.G. was good until she made this report. After that, B.G. denied access to J.G. 

{¶ 64} Before LCCS obtained custody of J.G., J.G. had a good relationship with 

her great-grandparents. They saw each other at least every couple of weeks, but maybe 

two to three times a week during the summer because they went swimming there. She 

also spent the holidays with her great-grandparents. She said J.G.’s great-grandparents 

were important to J.G. and she was close to them. Several family photos were shown to 

J.E. and she identified them. 

{¶ 65} The last time J.E. saw J.G. was October 30, 2018. B.G. allowed J.E. and 

Jo.G. to see the children for Halloween. She let them give the kids candy and costumes 

and take them trick-or-treating. She said K.W. hugged Jo.G. and wrapped his arms and 

legs around her. 

8. A.H. 

{¶ 66} A.H. is the great-granddaughter of T.B. and D.B. She is the sister of J.G. 

and K.W. She is 20 years old. She has two children, both of whom have the same father. 

She was emancipated at age 17 and left school her senior year. She plans to get her GED, 
22. 

then she wants to go to beauty school and become an aesthetician. A.H. is employed. 

When she works, her children are watched by their father. He sometimes works 

installing furnaces. She has a car and makes the car payments. 

{¶ 67} Before she was emancipated, A.H. lived with her grandmother, J.E. She 

spent holidays at T.B. and D.B.’s home, was very close with them, and would see them a 

few times a week. Her great-grandparents are important to her and have always taken an 

interest in her. This is also true for J.G. 

{¶ 68} J.G. was three years old when she was taken from her home. J.G. was like 

a daughter to A.H. She last saw her a year ago. B.G. will not let J.G. see her or talk to 

her on the phone. B.G. changed her phone number. Before last year, B.G. would let her 

come by to visit one or two times a week and would let her call. A.H. noticed a sudden 

change in B.G.’s attitude. B.G. eventually said it was getting to be too much for her. She 

denied that she went to B.G.’s home with a bunch of guys in her car. She did not teach 

J.G. gang signs or teach her any songs with offensive lyrics. 

{¶ 69} Three to five months ago, B.G. followed A.H. in her car and it scared her. 

She went the wrong way down a one-way street to avoid a confrontation with her. B.G. 

took her phone out and recorded A.H. B.G. then followed her down the expressway. 

The Rossford police never called to question her. She never tried to smash B.G.’s car. 

{¶ 70} A.H. met B.G. for the first time when she was about 16, then again when 

B.G. came to get J.G. from LCCS. She had no prior relationship with B.G. 
23. 

{¶ 71} A.H. got to meet K.W. but never got to build a relationship with him. She 

has not been able to see him since he has learned to walk and talk. It makes her 

emotional and depressed and she feels a loss not being able to see her brother and sister. 

J.G. would always be excited to see her. 

{¶ 72} A.H. denies that she uses drugs or alcohol. When she is not at home with 

her kids, she goes on dates with their dad. She would like to be a part of her siblings’ 

lives again. 

{¶ 73} A.H. acknowledged that she was charged with a safe school assault, 

disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction of official business. She was 

sentenced to jail time, suspended on the condition of probation. She has a theft 

conviction for stealing merchandise at Macy’s. Her last arrest was approximately a year 

ago. She denies that she has a bad temper or that she is a bad influence on J.G. She has 

never lost her temper with B.G., J.G., or K.W. 

9. N.H. 

{¶ 74} N.H. is a friend of T.B. and D.B.’s family. He and J.E. went to B.G.’s 

home several times to visit the kids. The first time, it was very cordial. J.E. and B.G. 

smoked a cigarette in the backyard while the kids played. The next time, a few weeks 

later, things were tense. B.G. went outside while J.E. visited with the kids. N.H. went 

back a couple more times to deliver gifts for the children. He chatted with B.G. while the 

kids opened their gifts. He described that B.G.’s house was in “pretty decent order,” but 

the odor of her three dogs bothered him. 
24. 

{¶ 75} N.H. has known B.G. for a long time. Her ex-husband was one of N.H.’s 

students. The last time he saw B.G. was the Christmas before last. He went with J.E. and 

Jo.G to deliver presents. J.E. knocked, but nobody answered. After they left, they were 

pulled over by two Rossford police officers who said that they had been notified that they 

were at the property and there was an order prohibiting them from being there. The 

officers contacted B.G. and B.G. agreed to allow N.H. to drop off the gifts. He left them 

on the porch because no one answered the door when he knocked. 

{¶ 76} N.H. often had contact with J.G. before she was placed with B.G. He has 

observed J.G. with her great-grandparents at holidays. J.G. would run up and give her 

great-grandparents hugs. 

10. N.M. 

{¶ 77} N.M. is the grandson of T.B. and D.B., the son of J.E., the brother of Jo.G., 

and the children’s uncle. He lives with J.E. He spent a lot of time with A.H. and J.G. 

when they were growing up because they lived on the same street. He would see J.G. 

almost daily. J.G. spent “a pretty good amount” of time with her great-grandparents. 

They would go to their home for holidays and family gatherings. 

{¶ 78} N.M. described T.B. as a good, respectful man. He and his grandfather 

enjoyed outdoors activities together, like fishing, and T.B. would help N.M. with school 

projects. D.B. is a good cook. She loves the kids and is very motherly toward them. 

T.B. and D.B. have a big yard; J.G. liked to play and run around in the yard. 

 
25. 

11. F.G. 

{¶ 79} F.G. is the great-granddaughter of T.B. and D.B. Before J.G. was placed in 

foster care, she saw her twice a week. F.G. goes to T.B. and D.B.’s home approximately 

twice a week. She described it as very calm and family-oriented. Her great-grandparents 

are dependable and were a big part of J.G.’s life. J.G. was always excited to see them 

and she would run to them. F.G. has never met K.W. 

12. C.B. 

{¶ 80} C.B. is the son of T.B. and the stepson of D.B. He described his father as 

an outdoorsman who is good with kids. C.B. lived with T.B. and D.B. after separating 

from his girlfriend, so he would see J.G. when Jo.G. brought her over. He said that D.B. 

has been very good to him and he loves her. She is patient with her grandchildren and 

makes cookies for them. It has been approximately 15 years since T.B. and D.B. have 

cared for a child under the age of ten. T.B. had his rotator cuff repaired so he does not 

fish much lately. He was hospitalized within the last three years for a respiratory issue. 

C.B.’s grandmother lived with T.B. and D.B. for a couple of months and nurses came to 

the home to assist in her care. C.B. has a couple of theft convictions and convictions for 

driving under suspension. 

13. C.R. 

{¶ 81} C.R. is D.B.’s first cousin. She spends time at T.B. and D.B.’s home for 

holidays and cookouts and sees them at funerals and other family gatherings. She has 

seen J.G. at T.B. and D.B.’s home. J.G. was close with T.B. and D.B. and loves them. 
26. 

They are good with kids and are physically able to take care of them despite their age. 

T.B. has had surgeries in the past but no “health issues.” C.R. has not seen J.G. in three 

years. She described B.G. as “not right,” but she conceded that she has never met her or 

been to her home. 

14. T.B. 

{¶ 82} T.B. testified that he and D.B. are retired. They have been married for 43 

years and have one child together. He has three children from a previous marriage. 

{¶ 83} T.B. testified that he is under no physical limitations that would impair his 

ability to raise young children. He described himself as active. He hunts, fishes, and 

cares for his three-acre yard. He looks forward to having young children around and said 

that they keep him young. He wants to teach J.G. how to raise livestock. 

{¶ 84} T.B. does not like B.G.; he believes she is flighty and “her morals aren’t 

exactly up to [his] standards.” He believes she behaves in a sexually provocative way. 

He never contacted LCCS about the concerns he had with B.G. and he never filed 

charges. 

{¶ 85} T.B. disagrees that it would be too traumatic to remove the children from 

B.G.’s care. He and his wife have always been close with J.G. and the children should be 

with their maternal family. They always had fun together and she was always active with 

them. J.G. came from “a family with drugs,” so he imagines that the transition to B.G.’s 

home was positive, but he believes it would be easier for her to transition to being in their 

home. He is certain she will remember them. 
27. 

{¶ 86} T.B. denied that their petition for adoption is just a sham to give the 

children back to their mother. He claims that he would not let anyone—including his 

own children—be around the children if they were on drugs or not in their right mind. 

He and D.B. are able to take care of the children financially. 

{¶ 87} Jo.G. and J.E. have helped pay the costs associated with petitioning to 

adopt the children, but T.B. stated that the entire family has contributed to the costs. He 

said they could afford to pay themselves but it made the family feel good to help. 

{¶ 88} Two years ago, T.B. had rotator cuff surgery. His mother lived with them 

for five or six months. They paid for most things for his mother until “social security 

kicked in,” but she also had aides. It has been 15 years since he and D.B. cared for 

children under the age of 10 for an extended period of time. He let D.B. handle speaking 

with LCCS about the home study, but insisted that he would not rely on her to provide 

care for the children. He never contacted LCCS to arrange to visit with the children. 

B. The Trial Court Judgment 

{¶ 89} In judgments journalized on January 6, 2020, the trial court denied T.B. 

and D.B.’s petitions for adoption. It found that the evidence was uncontroverted that the 

children are currently in a stable family relationship and have adjusted well to their 

current home, school, and community. It observed that J.G. experienced negativity while 

with her birth parents and the juvenile court acknowledged this negativity by terminating 

parental rights. The court noted that J.G. has had four placements, none of which were 

with T.B. and D.B., and has expressed a desire to be adopted by her current caregiver. It 
28. 

recognized that the GAL recommends that the children remain together in their current 

placement and expressed concerns that a new placement could very likely be 

problematic. The court was persuaded that the agency has “real and significant” concerns 

that if the petition for adoption is granted, the children will have contact with their birth 

parents. 

{¶ 90} T.B. and D.B. appealed the trial court judgments and assign the following 

errors for our review: 

I. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR FOR THE PROBATE COURT TO 

FIND APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE “AN APPROVED HOME 

STUDY ASSESSMENT.” 

II. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR TO FIND THAT LCCS WAS NOT 

UNREASONABLY WITHHOLDING CONSENT TO APPELLANTS’ 

PETITIONS FOR ADOPTION. 

III. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR NOT TO BIFURCATE THE 

PROCEEDINGS. 

II. Law and Analysis 

{¶ 91} In their first assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that the trial court 

erred when it found that they did not have an approved home study assessment under 

R.C. 3107.031. In their second assignment of error, they argue that the trial court erred 

when it concluded that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold its consent to adoption 

under R.C. 3107.07(H). And in their third assignment of error, they argue that the court 

erred in failing to bifurcate the hearing on the issues of (1) whether the agency 
29. 

unreasonably withheld its consent to adoption, and (2) whether adoption of the children 

by T.B. and D.B. would be in the children’s best interest under R.C. 3107.161. We 

address each of these assignments in turn. 

A. The Home Study 

{¶ 92} In their first assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that it was contrary to 

law for the probate court to find that they did not have an approved home study 

assessment. They maintain that the section of the home study assessment entitled 

“Disposition of Adoption Parties” is left blank and, therefore, does not express one of the 

permissible recommendations required under Ohio Admn. Code 5101:2-48-12(T). 

{¶ 93} R.C. 3107.031 requires that a home study be conducted “for the purpose of 

ascertaining whether a person seeking to adopt a minor is suitable to adopt.” A written 

report of the home study must be filed with the court stating “the opinion of the assessor 

as to whether the person who is the subject of the report is suitable to adopt a minor.” 

R.C. 3107.031. Under Ohio Admn. Code 5101:2-48-12(T), “[t]he assessor shall make 

one or more of the following recommendations at the completion of the adoption 

homestudy: (1) [a]pprove the applicant(s) as adoptive parent(s)[;] (2) [a]pprove the 

applicant(s) as adoptive parents and recommend the applicant(s) for certification as a 

foster caregiver(s) simultaneously[;] (3) [d]eny the adoption application.” 

{¶ 94} T.B. and D.B. are correct that the disposition section of the home study 

assessment is left blank. But as they acknowledge, in the section of the assessment 
30. 

entitled “Family Strengths and Needs,” the assessor provided a narrative, stating that she 

is not recommending an adoptive placement with T.B. and D.B. She explained: 

I am not recommending an adoptive placement with this family at

this time. [T.B. and D.B.] are good people who have reared their children 

and were involved with grandchildren. I believe they want [J.G. and K.W.] 

to be reared with family and are making this gesture out of love. 

However, they do not have any direct experience with these 

children. I am uncomfortable placing them permanently if they have not 

had a chance to develop a relationship and see if they are up to the demands 

of two young children. In other situations like this, the family has had, at 

the least, supervised visitations at LCCS and have an established 

relationship with the children. It is unclear why [T.B. and D.B.] have not 

had this opportunity. They told me they were denied by LCCS. 

During my three month involvement with [T.B. and D.B.], it has 

appeared stressful for them to complete the homestudy process. 

Communication with them was difficult and it appeared that caring for 

[T.B.]’s mother was an additional stressor. They also indicated that their 

children’s support would be limited because they would not visit in the 

inclement weather. I also have questions about their health and stamina 

and believe it was difficult for them to be open with me about issues that 

could impact their parenting. 
31. 

{¶ 95} T.B. and D.B. maintain that the home study assessment did not conclude 

that their home was unsuitable; rather it “essentially described [their] personal 

characteristics and their home in more-or-less glowing terms.” It also described that T.B. 

and D.B. met the applicable criteria for maturity, responsibility, financial capability, and 

love of the children. Nevertheless, “out of the blue,” the assessor declined to recommend 

them as an adoptive placement based on their lack of direct experience with the children 

and the absence of an opportunity to “develop a relationship and see if they are up to the 

demands of two young children.” They counter that it is untrue that they have had no 

direct experience with the children, and they emphasize that while K.W. was taken from 

his biological mother shortly after birth, J.G. spent every major holiday with them until 

being placed with B.G. 

{¶ 96} Regardless of whether T.B. and D.B. agree with the assessor’s conclusions, 

their first assignment claims error in the trial court’s conclusion that they lack an 

approved home study. They argue that this conclusion was contrary to law given that 

“the report itself fails to conform to the requirements of law.” We must disagree. It may 

have been preferable for the assessor to have completed the section of the form entitled 

“Disposition of Adoption Application” and to have checked one of the two boxes 

provided: (1) adoption application denied; or (2) adoption application approved. But the 

assessment makes clear that the assessor recommended that T.B. and D.B. not be 

approved for adoptive placement. As such, the assessment included one of the 

recommendations required under Ohio Admn. Code 5101:2-48-12(T).
32. 

{¶ 97} We, therefore, find T.B. and D.B.’s first assignment of error not well-taken.

B. Withholding of Consent 

{¶ 98} Generally speaking, an agency that has permanent custody of a minor must 

consent in writing to the adoption of the minor before a petition to adopt may be granted. 

R.C. 3107.06(D). But under R.C. 3107.07(H), consent to an adoption is not required of 

“[a]ny legal guardian or lawful custodian of the person to be adopted, other than a parent, 

who * * *, after examination of the written reasons for withholding consent, is found by 

the court to be withholding consent unreasonably.” In their second assignment of error, 

T.B. and D.B. argue that the trial court erred in concluding that LCCS did not 

unreasonably withhold its consent to their petition for adoption. 

{¶ 99} In order to dispense with the consent requirement, it must be shown by 

clear and convincing evidence that the agency unreasonably withheld its consent to the 

adoption. In re Adoption of I.C., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1157, 2011-Ohio-1145, ¶ 32, 

citing Matter of Jeffrey A., 6th Dist. No. L-08-1006, 2008–Ohio–5135, ¶ 9. “Clear and 

convincing evidence” is “‘that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind 

of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be 

established.’” Id., quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 

(1954). It is an intermediate burden of proof—more than a preponderance of the 

evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

{¶ 100} “[A]n adoption proceeding is a two-step process involving a ‘consent’ 

phase and a ‘best-interest’ phase.” (Internal citation omitted.) In re Jeffrey A. at ¶ 4. If 
33. 

“the court finds that the required consents have been obtained or excused and that the 

adoption is in the best interest of the person sought to be adopted as supported by the 

evidence, it may issue * * * a final decree of adoption or an interlocutory order of 

adoption * * *.” R.C. 3107.14(C). We review a trial court’s determination of the 

reasonableness of the agency’s withholding of consent under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. In the Matter of Adoption of Shortridge, 4th Dist. Pike No. 387, 1985 WL 

9478, *4 (May 30, 1985) (“[W]e believe the proper focus is upon whether the court 

below, in determining the withholding of consent to adoption was reasonable, abused its 

discretion.”). An unreasonable decision is one that lacks sound reasoning to support the 

decision. Hageman v. Bryan City Schools, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-742, 2019-

Ohio-223, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 101} Here, the court found that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold consent to 

T.B. and D.B.’s petition for adoption. It reasoned that (1) J.G. has had four placements 

and a fifth placement would likely be problematic for her; (2) the children are currently in 

a stable family relationship and are well-adjusted to their home and community; (3) J.G. 

is well-adjusted to school; (4) J.G. is of the age that she has expressed a desire to be 

adopted by her current caregiver and has expressed that she experienced negativity while 

with her birth parents; (5) there is a “real and significant” concern that the children would 

once again have contact with their birth parents if T.B. and D.B. are allowed to adopt; 

and (6) the GAL recommends that the children remain together in their current 

placement. Compare In re Jeffrey A. at ¶ 11 (finding that LCCS unreasonably withheld 
34. 

consent when it relied on only one factor—that petitioners were not blood relatives of the 

children—and ignored numerous other factors, including the children’s relationship with 

the petitioners, the nurturing home environment, the relationships between the children 

and petitioners’ biological children, and the developmental progress the children 

achieved under petitioners’ primary care). While the court acknowledged that T.B. and 

D.B. are genuinely concerned with the children’s best interests, it found that those 

interests would be best served by the children remaining in their current placement. 

{¶ 102} Having reviewed the record in its entirety, including the transcripts from 

the two-day hearing, we conclude that it was not shown by clear and convincing evidence 

that the agency unreasonably withheld its consent to the adoption. We find that the trial 

court’s decision is supported by sound reasoning, and it did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold its consent.

{¶ 103} Accordingly, we find T.B. and D.B.’s second assignment of error not 

well-taken.

C. Bifurcation 

{¶ 104} In their third assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that the trial court 

erred in failing to bifurcate the proceedings with respect to the issues of consent and the 

best interest of the children. They maintain that the trial court began the hearing by 

announcing that the November 25, 2019 hearing would be dedicated to the issue of 

whether LCCS unreasonably withheld its consent to adoption, but the court nevertheless 

went on to deny their adoption petition, concluding that a new placement would not be in 
35. 

the children’s best interest. They insist that this was error because they were denied the 

opportunity to be heard on the issue of the children’s best interests. 

{¶ 105} Before the hearing began, the trial court announced its intent to limit the 

hearing to the issue of consent and to hold a second hearing on the issue of the children’s 

best interest, perhaps with an agreement by the parties that certain evidence presented in 

the first hearing may be stipulated to in the second hearing. It recognized the difficulty in 

separating the two issues, particularly given that LCCS had withheld its consent because

it felt that adoption by T.B. and D.B. would not be in J.G. and K.W.’s best interest. But 

the court led the parties to believe that a second hearing would take place: 

The court discussed with counsel in chambers the difficulty in this 

kind of case of separating the consent – reasonableness of withholding 

consent issue from the actual best interest hearing which is, those factors 

are found in Section 3107.161 and very difficult to bifurcate these hearings 

because I guess obviously the agency has failed to consent to these petitions 

because the agency feels they are – it’s not in the best interest of the 

children so it’s very difficult to bifurcate those. 

However, we are proceeding today to hearing on the issue of 

whether the agency is unreasonably withholding its consent and then based 

up the outcome of this hearing, the court will make a determination as to 

whether or not the court can make a determination whether the parties 

could possibly agree as to whether or not any of the evidence obtained at 
36. 

this hearing could be stipulated to for further hearing if necessary regarding 

the best interest. 

{¶ 106} As we observed above, “‘an adoption proceeding is a two-step process 

involving a “consent” phase and a “best-interest” phase.’” In re Jeffrey A., 6th Dist. 

Lucas No. L-08-1006, 2008-Ohio-5135, at ¶ 4, quoting In re Adoption of Jordan, 72 Ohio 

App.3d 638, 645, 595 N.E.2d 963 (12th Dist.1991). The consent and best-interests 

portions of the proceedings may be considered in one hearing. In re Adoption of Walters, 

112 Ohio St.3d 315, 2007-Ohio-7, 859 N.E.2d 545, ¶ 21 (“One hearing to address both 

requirements is sufficient.”). Conversely, a court may hold separate hearings for the 

consent and best-interests portions of an adoption proceeding. Id. 

{¶ 107} Despite stating that the issues of consent and best interest would be 

bifurcated, the trial court concluded in its judgment entries that it would be in the 

children’s best interest to remain in their current placement and it denied T.B. and D.B.’s 

petition without engaging in further proceedings: 

In consideration of these factors, all other factors contained in ORC 

3107.161, and in consideration of the least detrimental available alternative, 

this court is unable to find that the agency is unreasonably withholding its 

consent from this petition. This court agrees with the assessment of the 

guardian ad litem that the child[ren] should remain in [their] current 

placement. 
37. 

Accordingly, this court hereby finds that the agency is not 

unreasonably withholding its consent from this petition and therefore the 

petition is hereby denied and dismissed. 

{¶ 108} The trial court essentially concluded that because it is in the children’s 

best interest to remain in their current placement, LCCS did not withhold its consent 

unreasonably. And because LCCS did not withhold its consent unreasonably, T.B. and 

D.B.’s petition must be denied. This is not the proper analysis. “The reasons for the 

refusal to consent are simply part of the evidence weighed by the court.” (Emphasis 

added.) Matter of Adoption of Crabtree, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 482, 1984 WL 5626, *2 

(Aug. 31, 1984). Even where the refusal of the agency is not unreasonable, it is still 

within the final authority of the probate court whether to grant or deny the adoption 

petition based on its own independent analysis of the best interests of the child. In re 

Haun, 31 Ohio App.2d 63, 68, 286 N.E.2d 478, 481 (8th Dist.1972). See also In re 

Dickhaus, 41 Ohio Misc. 1, 5, 321 N.E.2d 800, 803 (C.P.1974) (“Where substantial 

reasons exist for withholding the answer and consent, and the court is satisfied that it is 

not in the best interest of the child to require it, the petition for adoption will be denied.”). 

{¶ 109} Frankly, it is difficult to imagine what additional evidence T.B. and D.B. 

could put forward in a separate hearing on the issue of best interest. It presented nine 

witnesses who testified to the couple’s love for the children, the closeness the couple 

once had with J.G., the couple’s ability to care for the children, B.G.’s role in alienating 

the couple from their great-grandchildren, the couple’s intentions with respect to allowing 
38. 

contact between the children and their biological mother and grandmother, among 

various other issues. 

{¶ 110} It is also difficult to understand why the trial court would purport to 

bifurcate hearings on issues that, under the circumstances, were so inextricably 

intertwined. But this is the procedure the court told the parties it planned to employ. The 

Ohio Supreme Court held in In re Adoption of Walters, 112 Ohio St.3d 315, 2007-Ohio7, 859 N.E.2d 545, ¶ 10, that “R.C. 3107.11(A) does not require the notice of a hearing 

on an adoption petition to include language that both the consent and best-interests 

requirements will be addressed at the hearing.” But where the court expressly advises the 

parties that it intends to bifurcate hearings on these issues, we believe the parties should 

be able to rely on the court’s explanation of how the proceedings will be conducted so 

they can prepare accordingly. 

 We, therefore, find T.B. and D.B.’s third assignment of error well-taken. We 

remand this matter to the probate court for a best-interests hearing at which the parties 

may present any evidence pertinent to the issue of the best interests of the children that 

was not already presented during the consent hearing. The court must then independently 

analyze whether, under R.C. 3107.161, adoption by T.B. and D.B. is in the best interests 

of J.G. and K.W.

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 111} We find T.B. and D.B.’s first assignment of error not well-taken. The 

probate court properly concluded that the home study had not been approved. While the 
39. 

appropriate box on the form was not checked, the assessment specifically stated that an 

adoptive placement with T.B. and D.B. was not being recommended. 

{¶ 112} We find T.B. and D.B.’s second assignment of error not well-taken. The 

probate court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that LCCS’s consent for T.B. and 

D.B. to adopt the children was not withheld unreasonably. 

{¶ 113} We find T.B. and D.B.’s third assignment of error well-taken. The 

probate court told the parties that it was bifurcating the issues of consent and best 

interests, but then denied their adoption petition without permitting them to submit 

additional evidence pertaining to the best interests of the children. The court was 

required to independently consider the best-interests factors despite finding that LCCS 

did not withhold its consent to adoption unreasonably. 

{¶ 114} We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the January 6, 2020 judgments of 

the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. We remand this matter to 

the probate court for a best-interests hearing at which the parties may present any 

evidence pertinent to the issue of the best interests of the children that was not already 

presented during the consent hearing. The court must then independently analyze 

whether, under R.C. 3107.161, adoption by T.B. and D.B. is in the best interests of J.G. 

and K.W. 

{¶ 115} LCCS is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.

 
40. 

Judgment affirmed, in part, 

and reversed, in part. 

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. 

 _______________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE 

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/.