{"id":513,"date":"2025-10-17T11:29:00","date_gmt":"2025-10-17T11:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?post_type=lsvr_kba&p=513"},"modified":"2025-10-29T09:52:37","modified_gmt":"2025-10-29T09:52:37","slug":"in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","status":"publish","type":"lsvr_kba","link":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","title":{"rendered":"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Case Information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Clark County
Date: 2025-10-17
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4773
Read the Opinion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Summary: The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision granting permanent custody of twin children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services, finding it was in the children\u2019s best interest due to concerns over the former legal custodian\u2019s failure to protect them from abuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Holdings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • A former legal custodian has standing to challenge the termination of legal custody<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Permanent custody may be granted to a child services agency when the child has been in temporary custody for 12 or more months of a 22-month period<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in permanent custody determinations<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • A non-parent custodian\u2019s rights may be terminated where there is a failure to protect the child from harm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    More Information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    This case concerned twin children who were removed from their biological mother\u2019s care due to neglect and malnutrition and placed in the legal custody of Kimberly and Courtney Barker. Following allegations and a subsequent conviction of sexual abuse by Mr. Barker against the twins’ older sibling, and disclosures from the twins themselves, the children were removed from the Barkers\u2019 home and placed into foster care. Kimberly, who later divorced Barker, opposed the permanent custody motion filed by the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (JFS), despite having had no contact with the children for years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At trial, evidence was presented showing the children were doing well in their current foster placement, where they were receiving specialized counseling and care. Testimony also revealed that Kimberly had continued to support Barker even after the abuse came to light and had failed to engage with or protect the children. JFS and the guardian ad litem expressed concerns about Kimberly\u2019s credibility and the risk she posed to the children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The appellate court found that the children had been in JFS custody for over the required 12-month threshold, satisfying the statutory condition for considering permanent custody. The court further held that under either a clear and convincing evidence standard or an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court did not err in concluding that permanent custody with JFS was in the children’s best interests. The court emphasized the children\u2019s need for a stable, secure placement and Kimberly\u2019s failure to protect them or cooperate with reunification efforts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \t\t\t\t\tThe Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision granting permanent custody of twin children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services, finding it was in the children\u2019s best interest due to concerns over the former legal custodian\u2019s failure to protect them from abuse.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"lsvr_kba_cat":[11],"lsvr_kba_tag":[],"class_list":["post-513","lsvr_kba","type-lsvr_kba","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","lsvr_kba_cat-family-law"],"yoast_head":"\nIn re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision granting permanent custody of twin children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services, finding it was in the children\u2019s best interest due to concerns over the former legal custodian\u2019s failure to protect them from abuse.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-29T09:52:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773\",\"name\":\"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-17T11:29:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-29T09:52:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Knowledge Base\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?post_type=lsvr_kba\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ohio Case Law\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Ohio Case Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/cropped-favicon.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/cropped-favicon.png\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Ohio Case Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law","og_description":"The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision granting permanent custody of twin children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services, finding it was in the children\u2019s best interest due to concerns over the former legal custodian\u2019s failure to protect them from abuse.","og_url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","og_site_name":"Ohio Case Law","article_modified_time":"2025-10-29T09:52:37+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773","name":"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773 - Ohio Case Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-10-17T11:29:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-29T09:52:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-k-s-2025-ohio-4773#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Knowledge Base","item":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?post_type=lsvr_kba"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-4773"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/","name":"Ohio Case Law","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#organization","name":"Ohio Case Law","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-favicon.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-favicon.png","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Ohio Case Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/lsvr_kba"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=513"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/513\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":604,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/513\/revisions\/604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_cat&post=513"},{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_tag&post=513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}