{"id":615,"date":"2025-10-23T16:58:00","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T16:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?post_type=lsvr_kba&p=615"},"modified":"2025-11-08T17:00:06","modified_gmt":"2025-11-08T17:00:06","slug":"in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","status":"publish","type":"lsvr_kba","link":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","title":{"rendered":"In re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
Date: 2025-10-23
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4854
Read the Opinion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary: The appellate court affirmed a juvenile court\u2019s decision granting permanent custody of two minor children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services, finding clear and convincing evidence supported that custody was in the children’s best interests due to the Father’s alleged failure to meet parental obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Holdings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • A parent\u2019s failure to regularly visit or communicate with children can support a finding of lack of commitment under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Failure to obtain suitable housing and verify income demonstrates inability to provide for children\u2019s basic needs under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Sporadic or no visitation despite reasonable opportunities supports a finding of neglect under R.C. 2151.414(E)(3)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Permanent custody may be granted when both statutory prongs under R.C. 2151.414(B) and (D) are met by clear and convincing evidence<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • A juvenile court\u2019s discretion in permanent custody decisions is afforded significant deference on appeal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

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

    This case involves an appeal by the Father from a decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of his twin minor children to CCDCFS. The children, born in 2021, had been in the agency\u2019s temporary custody since January 2023 following their removal from the Mother\u2019s home due to alleged chronic substance abuse and mental health issues. The initial complaint was refiled after being dismissed for procedural reasons. The refiled complaint alleged that the children were neglected and that Father had allegedly not supported or maintained contact with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Father was ordered to complete a case plan involving parenting classes, obtaining suitable housing, proving income, visitation, and compliance with random drug and alcohol testing. Testimony from a CCDCFS caseworker, family advocate, and the guardian ad litem revealed that Father\u2019s visitation was inconsistent and often missed or late. Despite being provided opportunities, he allegedly had not visited the children since November 2024. His housing was found unsuitable due to its temporary nature and lack of lease inclusion. He failed to verify income despite claiming self-employment and did not comply with all alcohol testing requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The juvenile court found that the statutory requirements under R.C. 2151.414 were met, specifically noting the Father\u2019s lack of consistent support, stable housing, and verified income. The court determined that returning the children to Father was not feasible within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. The appellate court, applying a manifest weight of the evidence standard, upheld this decision, citing the trial court\u2019s superior position to assess credibility and factual context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ultimately, the appellate court found no reversible error, concluding that the juvenile court\u2019s judgment was supported by competent, credible evidence and aligned with the statutory framework. The decision reinforces the principle that the best interest of the child is paramount and parental rights may be terminated where a parent fails to demonstrate commitment or capability to meet basic parental duties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the juvenile court\u2019s decision to grant permanent custody of three minor children to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services and to terminate the parental rights of their father, who appealed the decision. The court held that despite completing required services, the father failed to sufficiently remedy the conditions leading to the children’s removal and did not demonstrate the ability to provide a safe and stable environment.<\/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-615","lsvr_kba","type-lsvr_kba","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","lsvr_kba_cat-family-law"],"yoast_head":"\nIn re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - 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-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the juvenile court\u2019s decision to grant permanent custody of three minor children to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services and to terminate the parental rights of their father, who appealed the decision. The court held that despite completing required services, the father failed to sufficiently remedy the conditions leading to the children's removal and did not demonstrate the ability to provide a safe and stable environment.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ohio Case Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-08T17:00:06+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=\"3 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-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854\",\"name\":\"In re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - Ohio Case Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-23T16:58:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-08T17:00:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ohiocaselaw.com\\\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854#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 G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854\"}]},{\"@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 G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - 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-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - Ohio Case Law","og_description":"The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the juvenile court\u2019s decision to grant permanent custody of three minor children to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services and to terminate the parental rights of their father, who appealed the decision. The court held that despite completing required services, the father failed to sufficiently remedy the conditions leading to the children's removal and did not demonstrate the ability to provide a safe and stable environment.","og_url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","og_site_name":"Ohio Case Law","article_modified_time":"2025-11-08T17:00:06+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","url":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854","name":"In re G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854 - Ohio Case Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-10-23T16:58:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-08T17:00:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/?lsvr_kba=in-re-g-j-et-al-2025-ohio-4854#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 G.J., et al., 2025-Ohio-4854"}]},{"@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\/615","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=615"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/615\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":617,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/lsvr_kba\/615\/revisions\/617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_cat&post=615"},{"taxonomy":"lsvr_kba_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ohiocaselaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Flsvr_kba_tag&post=615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}