[Cite as In re C.B., 2025-Ohio-5614.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: C.B. C.A. No. 31520
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. DN 24 01 0062
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 17, 2025
STEVENSON, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, C.B. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights and placed her minor child
in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This Court
affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of C.B., born August 1, 2009. The child’s father
(“Father”) did not appeal the trial court’s judgment. Mother has two other children with Father
who are not parties to this appeal but some facts pertaining to them are relevant here.
{¶3} Mother has an extensive history with CSB dating back to 2018 because of her long
history of methamphetamine abuse, untreated mental health symptoms, and failure to maintain a
suitable home for her children. The 2018 case also involved allegations that Mother’s oldest child,
T.S., had sexually abused his younger sisters, C.B. and A.B. The juvenile court removed C.B. and
2
A.B. from Mother’s custody during March 2018 and later adjudicated them abused and dependent.
They remained placed outside Mother’s home for nearly three years. During February 2021, the
juvenile court returned them to Mother’s custody under an order of protective supervision.
{¶4} After the court terminated protective supervision, it removed C.B. and A.B. from
the home shortly afterward for a three-month period. They were also removed from the home
briefly during July 2022. Details about the shorter 2021 and 2022 cases are not explained in this
record except that they also pertained to concerns about Mother’s substance abuse and her failure
to provide the children with a safe and stable home.
{¶5} This case began on January 30, 2023, when CSB filed complaints to allege that then
13-year-old C.B. and 10-year-old A.B. were dependent children. The allegations in this case
focused on the children’s exposure to Mother’s ongoing substance abuse and unstable mental
health, her physical mistreatment of them, and that A.B. had repeatedly run away from the home
to escape mistreatment by Mother.
{¶6} Mother later waived her right to an adjudicatory hearing and stipulated that A.B.
and C.B. were dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) and (D) based on the facts alleged in the
complaint. Both children were later placed in the temporary custody of CSB. CSB placed C.B. in
the home of her adult half-sister (“Sister”), where she remained for most of this case. Sister is a
child of C.B.’s father and apparently does not have a good relationship with Mother or C.B.’s other
maternal relatives.
{¶7} At disposition, the trial court also adopted the case plan as an order of the court.
The case plan required Mother to engage in ongoing mental health counseling and drug treatment,
submit to regular drug testing, and demonstrate that she had stable income and housing and was
able to meet the basic needs of her children.
3
{¶8} Mother did not engage in any treatment services during the first year of this case
and did not maintain contact with CSB. She submitted drug swabs for testing on May 30 and June
13, 2024, both of which tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. Mother
submitted no further samples for drug testing for the remainder of this case. Near the end of this
case, Mother insisted that she was recently sober but never complied with the case plan
requirement that she appear for scheduled drug swabs to verify her sobriety.
{¶9} Mother did not maintain regular contact with CSB and, even when the caseworker
was able to schedule home visits, Mother was not home or did not answer the door when the
caseworker came to meet her. Consequently, although Mother lived in the same home throughout
this case, CSB was never able to assess the home to determine whether it was appropriate for C.B.
{¶10} Mother eventually engaged in some mental health counseling and drug treatment
after she was arrested on criminal charges, and the criminal court ordered treatment as part of an
intervention in lieu of incarceration program. Mother began mental health counseling but stopped
after a few months. She entered residential drug treatment at three different points during this case
but never completed a residential or outpatient drug treatment program. The criminal court
ultimately terminated Mother from the intervention program and convicted her of forgery and
receiving stolen property.
{¶11} On March 24, 2024, CSB moved for permanent custody of both C.B. and A.B.
Shortly afterward, CSB withdrew the permanent custody motion as to C.B. because Sister had
expressed a willingness to pursue legal custody. A.B.’s case proceeded to a permanent custody
hearing during July 2024. Following the hearing, the trial court terminated both parents’ parental
rights to A.B. and placed her in CSB’s permanent custody on August 1, 2024. This Court later
affirmed that judgment on appeal. In re A.B., 2025-Ohio-527, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.).
4
{¶12} Pursuant to the case plan, C.B. had been engaging in mental health counseling
during this case to address her behavioral problems and the trauma that she had endured while
living in Mother’s home. She was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and ADHD and was
prescribed four different psychiatric medications. At the beginning of the case, C.B. was both
afraid of Mother for her past mistreatment and angry at her about her continual substance abuse
relapses. She felt that Mother had chosen drugs over her children. C.B. exhibited serious
behavioral outbursts and refused to visit Mother, so her visits with Mother were suspended for
most of this case. Despite ongoing treatment, C.B. remained guarded and reluctant to disclose her
history of trauma to anyone. Later in the case, C.B. started to defy the rules imposed by Sister.
{¶13} Shortly after the trial court placed A.B. in CSB’s permanent custody, C.B.’s
behavior further deteriorated. She repeatedly ran away from Sister’s home, for periods ranging
from several hours to several weeks. The third time that C.B. ran away, it required several
jurisdictions of law enforcement to locate her six weeks later at Mother’s home. During that sixweek period, C.B. did not attend high school or her scheduled counseling sessions. After CSB
located C.B., it placed her in a secure residential treatment facility, where she could not flee and
was required to attend high school classes and receive ongoing mental health treatment for the rest
of the case.
{¶14} CSB would later learn that each time C.B. ran away, she went to Mother’s home,
where Mother resided with the maternal grandmother. Mother and the grandmother allowed C.B.
to stay in their home and never informed Sister or the authorities that C.B. was there. CSB
expressed serious concern that Mother ignored the court-ordered case plan by having unsupervised
contact with C.B. and allowing her to hide from authorities, despite knowing that CSB was
searching for her.
5
{¶15} On August 16, 2024, CSB moved for permanent custody of C.B. Because C.B. had
continued to flee to Mother’s home and recently expressed a desire to be reunited with her, the
trial court appointed independent counsel to represent C.B. at the hearing. Following the final
hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights and placed C.B. in CSB’s permanent custody.
Mother appeals and raises two assignments of error that this Court will address together to facilitate
review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE [CSB]
FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
TERMINATE [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT’S TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL
RIGHTS WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶16} Through her two assignments of error, Mother argues that the trial court’s judgment
was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Although sufficiency and weight are distinct legal concepts, this Court will review them together
because they require a review of the same evidence. See In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 13.
{¶17} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody
of a child to a proper moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs
of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the temporary
custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the child or another
child of the same parent has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent three times; or that
the child cannot be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and
(2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on
6
an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re
William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-99 (1996).
{¶18} This Court’s review under the sufficiency of the evidence standard requires us to
“‘examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to
satisfy the requisite degree of proof.’” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, at ¶ 12, quoting Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954). Clear and convincing evidence is that which will “‘produce
in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’”
In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), quoting Cross, at paragraph three of
the syllabus.
{¶19} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight
of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the
credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder
of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]
must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence, this Court “must always
be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶20} On the first prong of the permanent custody test, the trial court found that C.B.
could not be returned to Mother’s custody within a reasonable time or should not be returned to
her custody based on the grounds set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).
CSB presented certified records from the juvenile case involving C.B.’s sibling, A.B. Those
records were not disputed or challenged in any way. Based on A.B.’s records and other evidence
presented at the hearing, the trial court found that Mother had her parental rights involuntarily
terminated as to a sibling of C.B. and failed to prove that, “notwithstanding the prior termination,
7
[she] can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare,
and safety of the child[ren].” R.C. 2151.414(E)(11).
{¶21} Although Mother does not directly challenge the trial court’s finding under R.C.
2151.414(E)(11), this Court emphasizes that it was supported by the evidence. CSB met its burden
of proving that Mother had her parental rights to a sibling of C.B. terminated. The agency
presented certified records from the juvenile case of A.B., which clearly demonstrate that the trial
court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to a sibling of C.B. and that
this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on appeal.
{¶22} Given that CSB met its burden to prove the prior involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights to A.B., the statutory burden then shifted to Mother to prove that she was
able to provide “a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare,
and safety of the child.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(11); In re Z.S., 2021-Ohio-2022, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.). The
trial court correctly concluded that Mother did not meet that burden.
{¶23} Mother presented evidence at the final hearing, but she did not present clear and
convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of her parental unfitness under R.C.
2151.414(E)(11). By Mother’s own admission, she began abusing methamphetamine as a teenager
and that, even after achieving some periods of sobriety during the past eight years, she had relapsed
numerous times. At the hearing, she testified that losing her children is a major source of stress
for her. Nevertheless, Mother claimed that she had been sober since late January 2025, more than
two months before the final hearing, because she finally realized that she needed to get her life
together. Mother had not completed a drug treatment program, however, and never provided CSB
with a single negative drug screen. Despite telling the caseworker that she wanted to be tested to
prove that she was sober, Mother did not show up for any of her scheduled drug screens.
8
{¶24} Mother also asserts that she has stable housing because she has lived in the same
home for several years. In her appellate brief, she faults CSB for failing to evaluate her home, but
Mother does not dispute evidence that the caseworker scheduled several appointments to evaluate
her home, but she was not home or did not answer the door each time the caseworker arrived for
their scheduled appointment. The caseworker had tried unsuccessfully for nearly two years to
evaluate the suitability of Mother’s home, but she had never been allowed to enter. Mother was
also unemployed and failed to demonstrate that she could meet the financial needs of her child.
She also admitted that she knew nothing about C.B.’s mental health diagnoses or her ongoing
counseling and psychiatric treatment.
{¶25} Further evidence of Mother’s inability to provide C.B. with a suitable home is the
fact that she repeatedly concealed C.B. in her home when she ran away from Sister’s home.
Mother knew that she was violating the court-ordered case plan by having unsupervised contact
with C.B. She exercised poor judgment by failing to contact Sister, CSB, or the police, and she
facilitated C.B.’s poor choices by allowing her to hide in her home and miss an extended period
of high school and counseling.
{¶26} Next, the trial court found that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
When reviewing the trial court’s best interest determination, this Court focuses primarily on the
specific factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D). In re M.S., 2023-Ohio-1558, ¶ 25 (9th Dist.). The
trial court was required to consider the statutory best interest factors, which include: the interaction
and interrelationships of the child, her wishes, her custodial history, her need for permanence and
whether that can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and whether any of the factors
outlined in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see also In re R.G., 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). Because the trial court found that the factor set forth in R.C.
9
2151.414(E)(11) applied in this case, it was required to again consider that factor in its best interest
analysis.
{¶27} Mother had limited interaction with C.B. during this case, primarily because of
C.B.’s negative feelings toward Mother and refusal to visit her. Mother’s visits were suspended
for most of this case until CSB and the C.B.’s counselor determined that supervised contact would
be appropriate. By the time of the hearing, the only authorized interaction that Mother had with
C.B. consisted of two supervised phone calls.
{¶28} Nevertheless, during August 2024, as explained already, Mother had unauthorized,
unsupervised contact with C.B. when the child ran away from Sister’s home. During these periods,
Mother exercised poor parenting judgment by hiding the child from CSB and allowing her to skip
high school and counseling for an extended period. It is unknown whether Mother exercised any
supervision of C.B. during those periods and/or whether C.B. was exposed to drug use or other
environmental factors that threatened her safety and well-being.
{¶29} By the time of the hearing, C.B. wanted to return to Mother. Again, no definitive
explanation was provided for C.B.’s change in feelings toward Mother. The guardian ad litem
testified, however, that Mother was not prepared to provide C.B. with a suitable home
environment, as explained by the evidence detailed already. She testified that permanent custody
was in the best interest of C.B.
{¶30} By the time of the final hearing, C.B.’s custodial history had included four separate
removals from Mother’s custody over the previous seven years because of Mother’s unresolved
substance abuse and other instability in her life. During nearly five and a half years living outside
Mother’s custody, C.B. had moved between several different temporary placements. The evidence
was not disputed that C.B. had suffered from ongoing instability and uncertainty and needed a
10
stable and secure permanent home. CSB had been unable to locate any suitable relatives who were
willing to provide C.B. with a permanent home and Mother failed to demonstrate that she was able
to do so.
{¶31} Finally, the trial court was required to again consider that Mother previously had
her parental rights involuntarily terminated as to a younger sibling of C.B. and that, despite that
prior termination, Mother failed to demonstrate that she was able to provide C.B. with a safe and
secure home. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e); R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). As previously explained in
detail, this finding was supported by substantial evidence. Although Mother testified that she had
resolved her parenting problems, her testimony was disputed by other evidence and did not amount
to clear and convincing evidence that she was able to provide C.B. with a suitable home. The
evidence was clear that Mother had failed to resolve the same parenting problems that have
plagued her for many years and that she remains unable to provide C.B. with a safe and stable
home.
{¶32} Given all the evidence before the trial court, this Court must conclude that the trial
court had sufficient evidence to support its judgment and did not lose its way in terminating
Mother’s parental rights and placing C.B. in the permanent custody of CSB. See Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20. Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶33} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
11
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.
SCOT STEVENSON
FOR THE COURT
FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KIMBERLY STOUT-SHERRER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and AARON B. CAMPBELL, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
MICHELLE TOMER, Guardian ad Litem.