[Cite as In re N.A., 2026-Ohio-3045.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: N.A., L.C.A., M.A. :
: C.A. Nos. 30743; 30754
:
: Trial Court Case Nos. G-2023-001879-: 1H; G-2023-001878-1E; G-2023-: 001877-1E; C-2023-001877-1F
:
: (Appeal from Common Pleas Court: Juvenile Division)
:
FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 7, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE
EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. Nos. 30743; 30754
MELISSA A. BERRY, Attorney for Appellant
KIRSTEN KNIGHT, Attorney for Appellee Father
MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee Montgomery County Children Services
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} B.D. (“Mother”) appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, awarding temporary custody of her minor child L.C.A. to
Montgomery County Children’s Services (“MCCS”) and awarding temporary custody of her
minor child M.A. to A.A. (“Father”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} MCCS became involved with Mother and her children in 2023 following
allegations of physical abuse concerning a child who, since the initiation of this case, has
reached the age of emancipation.1 Additionally, MCCS later received information that L.C.A.
was not enrolled in school and was not being homeschooled. L.C.A. also alleged that Mother
had physically abused him. Finally, the agency received information that the children were
not receiving appropriate medical care. M.A. suffers from autism, as well as Sanfilippo
Syndrome, which requires her to receive full-time care and specialized medical treatment.2
Following an investigation, MCCS filed a dependency complaint. The children were
adjudicated as dependent in July 2023. During the pendency of this matter, Mother’s home
1. The record shows that Mother was arrested for domestic violence and that she eventually entered a guilty plea to domestic violence as well as a guilty plea to disorderly conduct.
2. According to the record, Sanfilippo Syndrome is often referred to as “childhood dementia.”
2
had a broken sewer pipe that went unrepaired for some period of time, which released sewer
odors into the home.
{¶ 3} Case plans were implemented for both Mother and Father. Mother’s case plan
included requirements that she maintain stable housing and income, ensure the cleanup of
biohazards in the home, sign releases for information, complete a parenting class and a
batterers intervention class, meet with MCCS personnel on a monthly basis, obtain a mental
health assessment, and visit with the children on a regular basis.
{¶ 4} Although the sewer pipe was ultimately repaired, Mother’s home went into
foreclosure, and she refused to inform MCCS about her future housing plans. Mother also
stated that she was employed but failed to provide income verification to MCCS. Mother
completed a mental health assessment and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder (“PTSD”), dysthymia, and alcohol-use disorder. However, she failed to follow up
with recommended treatment. Mother had minimal engagement with MCCS personnel,
claiming that being at the agency’s facility triggered her PTSD. She failed to complete a
parenting or batterers class. Mother failed to visit with the children after their removal from
the home.
{¶ 5} Father made significant progress on his case plan, which included verification
of income, maintaining appropriate housing, signing information releases, and attending
regular meetings with MCCS.
{¶ 6} MCCS was granted temporary custody of the children. Initially the children were
placed in group homes. L.C.A. was later moved to a foster home. M.A. was moved to
Father’s home in 2025, and temporary custody was granted to Father.
{¶ 7} Mother appeals.
3
II. Temporary Custody
{¶ 8} Mother asserts the following two assignments of error:
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S
DECISIONS GRANTING TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF L.C.A. TO THE
AGENCY AND M.A. TO FATHER, WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
THE JUVENILE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE’S DECISIONS GRANTING TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF
L.C.A. TO THE AGENCY AND M.A. TO FATHER BECAUSE THE
DECISIONS WERE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN.
{¶ 9} Mother argues that the temporary custody decisions were not in the best interest
of the children, were not supported by sufficient evidence, and were otherwise against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Her arguments center on her claim that the stated reasons
for the initial removal were not substantiated and that the evidence indicates she complied
with her case plan. She further claims the trial court erred by denying the admission of certain
evidence outlined below.
{¶ 10} Under R.C. 2151.353(A), a juvenile court may make any one of several
dispositional orders if a child is adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent. These orders
include, among other things, committing the child to the temporary custody of a public
children services agency or awarding legal custody to either parent. R.C. 2151.353(A)(2)(a)
and (c). When considering which of these options to utilize, the court’s “primary
consideration” is the best interest of the children. In re S.W., 2024-Ohio-681, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.)
4
{¶ 11} To determine the best interest of the children, courts are guided by the factors
set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). Id. at 26, citing In re M.S., 2022-Ohio-3348, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.).
These factors include, but are not limited to, the wishes of the parents; the child’s interactions
and interrelationships with parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect
the child’s best interest; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community; the mental
and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; and the presence or absence of
a reason to believe that a parent has abused a child. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), and
(h).
{¶ 12} We have summarized the standards for review of a temporary custody
decision as follows:
“A temporary-custody decision ‘must be supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.’” In re A.A.R., 2d Dist. Greene No. 2021-CA-23, 2022-Ohio93, 2022 WL 130833, ¶ 17, quoting In re S.M., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24539,
2011-Ohio-6710, 2011 WL 6884242, ¶ 4. “Preponderance of the evidence
simply means ‘evidence which is of a greater weight or more convincing than
the evidence which is offered in opposition to it.’” In re Starks, 2d Dist. Darke
No. 1646, 2005-Ohio-1912, 2005 WL 939851, ¶ 15, quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary 1182 (6th Ed. 1998).
Nonetheless, “[a] trial court has substantial discretion in weighing the
considerations involved in making the determination regarding a child’s best
interest, and the court’s determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of
that discretion.” In re S.M. at ¶ 4, citing In re K.H., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2009-CA80, 2010-Ohio-1609, 2010 WL 1410760, ¶ 66. “‘Abuse of discretion’ has been
defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”
5
(Citation omitted.) AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban
Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). Most
often, this means a court’s decision was based on unsound reasoning rather
than being arbitrary or unconscionable. Id.
We have also stressed that “our review is limited to determining whether
the record contains competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s
decision.” In re A.A.R. at ¶ 17, citing In re J.T., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26839,
2016-Ohio-602, 2016 WL 685305, ¶ 33. On review, we are also guided by a
presumption that the trial court’s factual findings were correct, because “[t]he
knowledge a trial court gains through observing the witnesses and the parties
in a custody proceeding cannot be conveyed to a reviewing court by a printed
record.” Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). Accord
In re M.S., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29441, 2022-Ohio-3348, 2022 WL
4392459, ¶ 36.
. . . Accordingly, in situations like the present, where only temporary
custody is at issue, we [apply the abuse of discretion standard].
S.W. at ¶ 27-29, 32.
{¶ 13} Mother desires to retain full custody of M.A. However, she specifically testified
that she does not want to reunify with L.C.A. Father wishes to retain custody of M.A. Due to
her serious medical condition, M.A. is unable to express her wishes regarding custody.
L.C.A. has stated that he does not wish to return to Mother’s care and that he does not wish
6
to have contact with either parent.3 The guardian ad litem recommended that the agency
retain temporary custody of the children.
{¶ 14} The record establishes that the siblings currently have appropriate contact with
each other through MCCS. L.C.A. is bonded with his foster family, is doing well in school,
and has exhibited behavioral improvement. M.A. needs constant care due to her medical
condition, and the record supports the conclusion that Father is best able to meet her needs.
{¶ 15} Mother has been diagnosed with PTSD, dysthymia, and alcohol-use disorder
but has failed to engage in treatment. Father suffers from depression and receives mental
health services through the Veteran’s Administration.
{¶ 16} Finally, Mother was arrested for and pleaded guilty to domestic violence
regarding a child who is not part of this appeal. Further, L.C.A. informed MCCS that she was
abusive to him.
{¶ 17} In sum, the record contains competent, credible evidence that, following an
adjudication of dependency, Mother failed to comply with her case plan and continuously
failed to cooperate with MCCS. Further, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that
granting temporary custody of L.C.A. to MCCS was in his best interest and that granting
temporary custody of M.A. to Father was in her best interest. Therefore, we cannot conclude
that the trial court’s temporary custody decision constituted an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 18} We note that Mother contends the trial court erred by excluding evidence
regarding her claim that L.C.A. is an unruly and delinquent child whose past behaviors
incentivized him to lie about Mother’s abuse and his living conditions. She further claims that
the trial court excluded evidence regarding her claim that Father committed domestic
3. The record demonstrates that L.C.A. will turn 18 in October 2026 and thus will become emancipated.
7
violence against her in the past. Finally, she contends the trial court refused to consider
evidence that she had completed a domestic violence course prior to the removal of the
children.
{¶ 19} Even were we to assume the trial court erred in the exclusion of the abovecited evidence, we find no prejudice because, as discussed, the record fully supports the
trial court’s temporary custody decision.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, both of Mother’s assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} Both of Mother’s assignments of error being overruled, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
8