In re Am.B.

[Cite as In re Am.B., 2026-Ohio-4448.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY IN RE: CASE NO. 1-26-29 AM.B., ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT OPINION AND CHILD. JUDGMENT ENTRY [RONALD B. - APPELLANT] IN RE: CASE NO. 1-26-30 AU.B., ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT OPINION AND CHILD. JUDGMENT ENTRY [RONALD B. - APPELLANT] IN RE: CASE NO. 1-26-31 S.B., ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT OPINION AND CHILD. JUDGMENT ENTRY [RONALD B. - APPELLANT] Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 IN RE: CASE NO. 1-26-32 K.B., ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT OPINION AND CHILD. JUDGMENT ENTRY [RONALD B. - APPELLANT] Appeals from Allen County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court Nos. 2023 JG 38925, 2023 JG 38926, 2023 JG 38924 and 2023 JG 38927 Judgments Affirmed Date of Decision: November 9, 2026 APPEARANCES: Michael G. Aird for Appellant Ashley Stansbury for Appellee WALDICK, J. {¶1} Father-appellant, Ronald B. (“Father”), brings these appeals from the March 5, 2026 judgments of the Allen County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of S.B., Am. B., Au.B., and K.B. to the Allen -2- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 County Children Services Board (“ACCSB”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background {¶2} Father and Vanessa G. (“Mother”), are the parents of C.B., born in January of 20081, S.B., born in January of 2009, Am. B., born in August of 2011, Au.B., born in July of 2012, and K.B., born in March of 2014.2 ACCSB first became involved with the family in 2013, filing a case alleging dependency and neglect of the children; however, prior to adjudication, the family fled to the state of Tennessee. The first ACCSB case was eventually dismissed. {¶3} In 2016, ACCSB filed a second case alleging that the children were dependent children after Father and Mother were both indicted for, and convicted of, drug trafficking charges. In July of 2016, the children were all adjudicated dependent. The 2016 case was later closed and the children were returned to Mother’s custody. {¶4} In 2019, ACCSB filed a third case alleging that the children were dependent after there were concerns regarding, inter alia, Mother using methamphetamines. All of the children were again adjudicated dependent children, 1 C.B. turned 18 while this case was pending. Her case was closed and she is not one of the children at issue in this appeal. 2 According to testimony at the final hearing, Father is listed as the father on K.B.’s birth certificate. However, K.B. allegedly had a different biological father, but that biological father is now deceased and thus has no involvement with this case. -3- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 with some of the children also being adjudicated neglected children. Father did not participate in the 2019 case because he was incarcerated. By all accounts, Mother complied with her case plan services in the 2019 case, and the children were returned to her care under ACCSB’s protective supervision. {¶5} In 2021, ACCSB filed a fourth case alleging that the children were dependent and neglected after there were concerns involving drug transactions at Mother’s residence. The children also observed Mother snorting white powder. Further, the children had poor hygiene, Mother was not meeting the children’s educational needs, and Mother was, to some degree, homeless. During the 2021 case, all of the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected children. Father was not involved in case plan services for the 2021 case and he had only a few sporadic phone calls with the children during the pendency of the 2021 case. Mother was again compliant with her case plan, and the children were returned to her care and custody. {¶6} The instant cases began in October of 2023 when complaints were filed alleging all of the children were dependent. There were again concerns of Mother using methamphetamines. In addition, there were concerns that Mother’s paramour had prior involvement with the ACCSB and that he had substance abuse problems. Further, there were allegations that Mother and her paramour had taken some of the children to physically threaten or assault other individuals, and that Mother and her -4- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 paramour used the children to engage in criminal behaviors.3 Father was generally not involved in the children’s lives in October of 2023. By his own admission, during the early stages of the instant cases, Father was homeless, regularly using drugs such as methamphetamines, and, at some points, incarcerated. {¶7} An adjudication hearing was held November 20, 2023. Neither Father nor Mother appeared for the hearing. Testimony at the hearing indicated that Mother had relapsed and was using methamphetamines. Mother denied using methamphetamines to ACCSB employees despite multiple positive drug tests. Mother claimed that she had been helping a friend move and the methamphetamines must have been on the objects that were being moved. Testimony also indicated that some of the children stated that they had been taken out at night “to beat up a couple different people with metal poles.” At the time of the adjudication hearing, testimony indicated that Father was homeless, using drugs, and involved in domestic violence with his girlfriend Ariel G.4 The children were all again adjudicated dependent. {¶8} On December 21, 2023, the cases proceeded to a dispositional hearing. Mother was present for the hearing but Father was not, despite being notified and 3 There was disturbing testimony from Mother indicating that perhaps as early as 2021, all 5 children were given tattoos. The children were between 7 - 13 years old at the time. Mother’s testimony indicated that her paramour tattooed the 7-year-old. 4 Testimony indicated that Ariel Gessel was Mother’s cousin. -5- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 aware of the hearing. The children were all placed in the temporary custody of Judy S., maternal grandmother. {¶9} During the majority of 2024, Father had no contact with the children. He indicated he was homeless and using drugs. In 2024, Father was charged with Breaking and Entering, a fifth degree felony, and, from a separate incident, Theft as a first degree misdemeanor. Meanwhile, Mother was not compliant with the case plan and continued to test positive for methamphetamines. Mother continued to deny using drugs, claiming there must have been problems with the drug tests. {¶10} In September of 2024, ACCSB filed motions to extend temporary custody of the children. Before a hearing was held on the motion, ACCSB filed a motion to modify disposition. ACCSB sought temporary custody of the children after numerous issues were raised with regard to the temporary custodian, Judy S. The temporary custodian indicated that she no longer wanted the children in her home. In addition, there were pending allegations of sexual abuse against the temporary custodian’s live-in boyfriend. Furthermore, Judy’s neglect purportedly led to the death of a dog in her home and the removal of another dog that was on the property by the humane society/dog warden. {¶11} After a hearing, which neither parent attended despite being on-notice, disposition was modified and all of the children were placed in the temporary custody of ACCSB. The children were not all able to be placed in the same foster home. -6- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 {¶12} In late 2024, after he was released from incarceration, Father contacted the ACCSB and sought to be added to the case plan. An amended case plan was filed January 2, 2025, adding services for Father. Notably, Father was on probation at the time and part of his probation required him to refrain from using alcohol. {¶13} Unlike Mother, Father did comply with many case plan services, getting a drug and alcohol assessment, complying with treatment, etc. Father was also regularly undergoing drug tests and he was not testing positive for drugs. However, Father had issues with maintaining employment and stable housing. Father stayed in five different residences between December of 2024 and January of 2026. He also was not able to maintain stable employment, working five or six different jobs in 2025, unable to maintain any of the jobs for longer than three months. {¶14} Moreover, there was an incident in late March, 2025, wherein Father and his girlfriend were intoxicated at a bar and the police were called. As a result of the incident, Father and his girlfriend were both convicted of Disorderly Conduct while Intoxicated in Lima Municipal Court. Father was also charged for driving without a license on May 13, 2025. {¶15} ACCSB had numerous concerns with Father’s girlfriend, Ariel, as she had lost custody of multiple children. In addition, there was an incident during the children’s first overnight visit with Father and Ariel wherein S.B. took alcohol from the refrigerator and consumed it. Father’s unsupervised visits were modified after -7- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 these incidents to supervised visitation. After the modification, Father felt defeated and he sent a text message to an ACCSB employee stating that he no longer wanted to visit the children. However, he eventually did resume visitations. {¶16} On May 21, 2025, ACCSB filed motions requesting permanent custody of the children. Father filed objections to ACCSB’s motions for permanent custody, and he filed his own motions seeking legal custody of the children. {¶17} A hearing was held on the pending motions November 12, 2025, and January 13, 2026. The trial court also interviewed Au.B., Am. B., and K.B in camera. S.B. was not interviewed in camera because she had been missing since October 20, 2025. Some of the children had phone contact with S.B., and Mother and Father also had phone contact with S.B., but nobody was certain where S.B. was residing. Statements were made that S.B. was engaged to be married and that she was potentially pregnant. {¶18} On March 5, 2026, the trial court filed a lengthy and very thorough judgment entry reciting the history of the parties with the ACCSB, and analyzing the evidence presented. Ultimately the trial court granted ACCSB’s motions for permanent custody of the children and denied Father’s motion for legal custody of the children. Father now brings the instant appeal from the trial court’s judgments, asserting the following assignment of error for our review.5 5 Mother did not file an appeal. -8- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 Assignment of Error The trial court’s decision to grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶19} In his assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court’s decision to grant ACCSB permanent custody of the children was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Standard of Review {¶20} The proper appellate standard of review in permanent custody cases is either sufficiency of the evidence or manifest weight of the evidence depending on the specific arguments raised by the appellant. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. Sufficiency of the evidence concerns whether the evidence is legally adequate to support the trial court’s findings. Id. at ¶ 13. By contrast, manifest weight of the evidence requires the appellate court to weigh the evidence and reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether the factfinder clearly lost its way, creating a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Id. at ¶ 14. Importantly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently clarified that under a manifest weight review, appellate courts “must defer to the fact-finder’s witness-credibility determinations.” State v. Reillo, 2026-Ohio-2701, ¶ 38. -9- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 Analysis {¶21} The right to raise one’s child is a basic and essential right. In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990). “Parents have a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of the child.” Id. quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). However, the rights and interests of a natural parent are not absolute. In re C.M., 2026-Ohio-2472, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.). These rights may be terminated under appropriate circumstances when all due process requirements have been met. Id. {¶22} Revised Code 2151.414(B)(1) establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody: (1) the trial court must find that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) applies6, and (2) the trial court must find that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. Id. {¶23} The first part of the test requires the trial court to analyze R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that a trial court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: 6 Importantly, the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) are alternative findings. Only one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) needs to be established by clear and convincing evidence to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test. In re C.M., supra, at ¶ 17, citing In re A.W., 2017-Ohio-7786, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). -10- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 ... (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any court in this state or another state. {¶24} Father actually concedes that the first prong of the permanent custody test was met in this case pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) because the children had all been adjudicated dependent children on three separate occasions.7 On appeal, Father focuses his argument on the trial court’s analysis of the second prong of the permanent custody test—the best interests analysis. {¶25} With the first prong of the permanent custody analysis established, the trial court was required to proceed to the second prong—the best interests analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). This statutory subsection reads as follows: (D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; 7 Although Father concedes that the first prong of permanent custody was met in this case, we emphasize that the evidence does support a finding under Revised Code 2151.414(B)(1)(e) because the children have been adjudicated dependent on three separate occasions. The prior findings of dependency of the children were supported by testimony at the final hearing and by judgment entries that were entered into evidence. -11- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has 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, or the child has 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, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state; (d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child. We will address each factor in turn. {¶26} With regard to factor (a), the children shared some bond to each other. The children indicated that they were bonded to Mother, and, in some instances, to Father as well. {¶27} The children were having mixed results in foster care. They were together in maternal grandmother’s home for nearly a year, but there were issues that led to the children being placed with foster caregivers. Three of the children were placed in the same home. Although their homes were stable, several of the -12- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 children displayed behavioral issues in their placements.8 Nevertheless, Au.B. seemed to be bonded with his foster caregivers. By all accounts the children’s needs were being met in foster care, with the exception of S.B., who had absconded and was missing. {¶28} With regard to factor (b), three of the children were interviewed in camera. The children who were interviewed in camera expressed their desires to be reunited with either Mother or Father. S.B. was not interviewed in camera, and before she went missing she was not attending all visitations with Father. However, the GAL for the children recommended that the trial court grant ACCSB’s permanent custody motions. {¶29} With regard to factor (c) the children in this case were removed from their Mother’s care in October of 2023. Father, by his own admission, was not involved in the children’s lives at that point as he was homeless and using drugs. The children were initially placed with their maternal grandmother, Judy, but after nearly a year, for various reasons Judy was no longer a viable option for placement. So in late September of 2024, the children were placed in the temporary custody of ACCSB. The children remained in the temporary custody of ACCSB until the conclusion of the case. 8 To be clear, many of the children had significant behavioral issues prior to entering foster care. -13- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 {¶30} The custodial history of the children is particularly troubling in this case because these children had been involved with ACCSB cases for nearly their entire lives. The children had been removed from Mother’s care on numerous prior occasions. Meanwhile, Father was generally not involved with children during the prior ACCSB cases. {¶31} Revised Code R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) ties directly to factor R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) in this case, which concerns the children’s need for legally secure placement. Undoubtedly the children in this case had not experienced legally secure placement throughout their lives. Finding legally secure placement was of paramount concern for the trial court and the GAL. {¶32} As to whether the children could achieve legally secure placement without permanent custody, Mother was not compliant with her case plan and she continued to use drugs. She was not a viable option. {¶33} Father had completed numerous portions of his case plan. However, he failed to acquire stable housing or stable employment. He also was still committing crimes in mid-2025, and was in a relationship with a woman who had lost custody of several children. Father indicated that while he worked, he planned to leave the children in his girlfriend’s care. Father did not demonstrate that he had the stability to be a viable long-term option for the children. {¶34} Factor (e) concerns any other factors that may be relevant to the parents and child. With regard to Father, the trial court found that Father had -14- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 abandoned the children in this case by failing to visit or maintain contact with the children. Father had no visits with the children between October of 2023 and December of 2024. There were also extended periods of time prior to the instant case that Father had no contact with his children due to his drug use and/or incarceration. {¶35} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.011(C), “a child shall be presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.” Father suggests that he did have some phone contact during the time period of October of 2023 and December of 2024, but the record does not establish any specific instances of contact that occurred throughout 2024 such that the finding of abandonment is against the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true given that the trial court found that Father was deceptive and not credible in his testimony. {¶36} Father contends that in weighing the best-interests factors, the trial court clearly lost its way because Father had made considerable strides since the case began. What Father ignores is that even though he was compliant with certain aspects of the case plan and with visitations, he repeatedly did not demonstrate that he could maintain a stable home or maintain stable employment. From the record before us, there simply is no indication that Father could provide the stability the children need. -15- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 {¶37} These children have been involved with the ACCSB for most of their lives. The trial court determined that it was in the children’s best interest that ACCSB’s motions for permanent custody be granted. After reviewing the record, we do not find that this is one of the exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the result. Therefore we do not find that the trial court erred by granting ACCSB’s motions for permanent custody of the children. Accordingly, Father’s assignment of error is overruled. Conclusion {¶38} Having found no error prejudicial to Father in the particulars assigned and argued, his assignment of error is overruled and the judgments of the Allen County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, are affirmed. Judgments Affirmed ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur. -16- Case Nos. 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-31, 1-26-32 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment for costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R. 27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30. Juergen A. Waldick, Judge William R. Zimmerman, Judge Mark C. Miller, Judge DATED: /jlm -17-