In re I.R.

[Cite as In re I.R., 2026-Ohio-4133.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: I.R. C.A. Nos. 31896
31898
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. DN 25 01 0019
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 21, 2026
SUTTON, Judge.
{¶1} Appellants Mother and Father appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated their parental rights and placed their child in
the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother and Father are married and the biological parents of I.R., born May 27,
2020. They have another child, S.R., born in 2013, who is in the legal custody of his maternal
uncle. CSB had removed S.R. from the parents’ home shortly after his birth. That child was
adjudicated dependent based on concerns for Mother’s substance abuse and Father’s mental health.
{¶3} Sometime in 2024, Father had back surgery that left him substantially paralyzed.
Since then, he has resided in a nursing home. Mother and I.R. lived with Father’s sister and her
husband for a short time until Mother acquired a trailer home.

2
{¶4} CSB first received a report of concerns regarding I.R. after Mother brought the
four-year-old child on a leash to visit Father. Nursing home staff were concerned that Mother
appeared to be intoxicated during the visit and that she pulled the child around harshly by the leash.
Mother initially refused to submit to a drug screen for the agency, but a later screen was negative
for all substances except Suboxone, for which Mother claimed she had a prescription.
{¶5} Not long thereafter, police officers responded to Mother’s 911 call in which she
reported she had no working electricity or water. When officers arrived at the trailer, Mother’s
behavior led them to involuntarily commit her to a psychiatric hospital for assessment. The police
removed I.R. from Mother’s custody under Juv.R. 6.
{¶6} During a team decision meeting the next day at CSB, Mother admitted that she had
relapsed into methamphetamine use two months earlier and was using the drug daily. She also
admitted seeing and hearing things that did not exist while on methamphetamine and that I.R. was
always with her when she used the drug. Mother demonstrated a lack of insight as to how her drug
use impacted her ability to care for the child, particularly as I.R. had special needs. The then four-
year-old child was nonverbal, autistic, and still in diapers.
{¶7} CSB filed a complaint alleging that I.R. was dependent and neglected. The agency
obtained an emergency order of temporary custody. Both parents waived their rights to a shelter
care hearing and stipulated to a finding of probable cause for the child’s removal from home.
{¶8} Mother and Father again waived their hearing rights at both the adjudication and
initial disposition of the child. CSB withdrew its allegation of neglect, and the parties agreed that
I.R. was dependent as alleged in the complaint. Mother and Father stipulated to placement of the
child in CSB’s temporary custody and adoption of the agency’s case plan as an order. The case
plan required Mother to obtain a substance use assessment, follow all recommendations arising

3
therefrom, submit to random drug screens, engage in mental health services with her current
provider, and participate in a specialized parenting program designed to address children with
special needs and autism. In addition, the case plan required both Mother and Father to attend the
child’s sessions with service providers when those providers deemed it appropriate, and to
demonstrate the ability to provide for the child’s basic needs.
{¶9} Initially, Mother and Father had the opportunity to visit with I.R. weekly at the
agency’s Family Interaction Center (“FIC”). Six months into the case, however, the agency
suspended Mother’s in-person visits at the FIC after Mother became agitated during a visit,
stormed out of the room, and punched a staff member in the back of the head. In the meantime,
Mother was permitted to have virtual visits with the child until agency personnel could meet with
Mother to discuss expectations for her behavior and a plan to reinstate in-person visits, while
ensuring the safety of the child, agency personnel, and other families visiting at the FIC.
{¶10} Evidence at the first review hearing indicated that, while Mother had obtained an
assessment, she was not participating consistently in the recommended counseling. Moreover, all
her drug screens were positive for illicit drug use, including methamphetamine. She failed to show
remorse or take accountability for her physical assault on the FIC supervisor. CSB was
investigating relatives for potential placement of the child. In the meantime, I.R. was doing well
in her therapeutic foster home, participating in speech and occupational therapy, and learning to
use a tablet to communicate with others.
{¶11} Prior to the one-year sunset date, CSB moved for permanent custody. Mother and
Father each moved for a first six-month extension of temporary custody based on Mother’s alleged
case plan progress.

4
{¶12} After a hearing on CSB’s motion for a judicial determination of reasonable efforts,
the magistrate found that the agency had used reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan and
prevent the continued removal of the child from home. Additionally, the magistrate found that
Portage Path Behavioral Health (“PPBH”) had discharged Mother based on her noncompliance
with services; that Mother continued to test positive for THC and methamphetamine, failed to
appear for two scheduled meetings at the agency to discuss reinstating in-person visits, was not
employed, and had been banned from Father’s nursing home based on inappropriate behavior; and
that Father’s physical and mental health issues prevented reunification with the child within a
reasonable time. Neither parent objected to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶13} The juvenile court held a hearing on the parties’ respective dispositional motions.
Both parents appeared remotely: Father from his nursing home and Mother from jail pending
resolution of a felony charge of assault. After the hearing, the juvenile court granted CSB’s motion
for permanent custody, denied the parents’ motions for a six-month extension of temporary
custody, and terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to I.R. Mother and Father timely
appealed, raising a total of three assignments of error for review. This Court consolidates the
assignments of error to facilitate review. The juvenile court stayed its judgment pending resolution
of the parents’ appeals.
II.
MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PLAIN
ERROR IN DENYING MOTHER’S MOTION FOR SIX-MONTH EXTENSION
OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
I.R. TO [CSB] AS THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

5
FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A SIX-MONTH
EXTENSION.
FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
MANIFEST [ ] WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶14} Mother and Father argue that the juvenile court’s judgment awarding permanent
custody of I.R. to CSB was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. In addition, both parents argue that the trial court erred by denying their
motions for a six-month extension of temporary custody. This Court disagrees.
{¶15} This Court recognizes the distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight
within the context of a permanent custody determination. “Sufficiency and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively distinct.” In re D.J., 2024-Ohio-1876, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.),
citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 23. “‘[S]ufficiency is a test of adequacy. Whether
the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a [judgment] is a question of law.’” In re D.J. at ¶ 19
(9th Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).
{¶16} In determining 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 at ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence, this Court “must always be mindful of the
presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.

6
{¶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
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} The best interest factors include: the interaction and interrelationships of the child,
the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, the child’s 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 In re R.G., 2009-
Ohio-6284, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). 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.”
(Internal quotations omitted.) In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), quoting
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶19} As to the first prong of the permanent custody test, CSB alleged pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) that the child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or
should not be placed with either parent in consideration of various subsection (E) grounds. It is
well settled that, while the agency may allege alternative first-prong grounds in support of its
motion for permanent custody, it need only prove one. In re P.W., 2023-Ohio-4830, ¶ 11 (9th
Dist.), citing In re T.B., 2020-Ohio-4040, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). In this case, the juvenile court found

7
that the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents had failed to remedy the
concerns underlying the child’s removal under subsection (E)(1), which provides:
Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and notwithstanding
reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to
remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home,
the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the
conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining
whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall
consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social
and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the
parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and
maintain parental duties.
{¶20} Father focuses on the agency’s duty to use “reasonable case planning and diligent
efforts” to facilitate reunification and argues that CSB “had no real case plan objectives [for
Father], making it impossible for him to meet any goal which would permit return of his daughter.”
The case plan, adopted by the trial court at the initial disposition with the agreement of all parties,
indicates, however, that Mother and Father worked with CSB to jointly develop the plan, and both
agreed with its provisions. While Mother had more detailed objectives based on her
circumstances, the case plan also set out specific objectives for Father, requiring him to attend the
child’s services when recommended by service providers and to demonstrate his ability to meet
I.R.’s basic needs. Underlying concerns noted in CSB’s complaint, to which Father stipulated,
included his loss of custody of another child based on issues in the home involving both parents,
Father’s long-term residence in a nursing home and significant physical limitations, and the lack
of appropriate relatives or kin whom the parents could enlist to provide appropriate care for I.R.
in their absence. Those concerns are germane to the child’s basic needs. Accordingly, CSB had
crafted case plan objectives for Father that gave him “a meaningful chance to reunite with his
daughter[,]” contrary to his assertion that he was denied that opportunity.

8
{¶21} CSB presented clear and convincing evidence that both parents “failed
continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed
outside the child’s home.” See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Mother’s struggles with substance abuse,
Father’s inability to meet even the child’s routine daily needs, and the parents’ lack of a support
system of persons able to care for the child in their absence remained unresolved despite the
admitted reasonable efforts of CSB throughout the case.
{¶22} Specifically, CSB facilitated a substance abuse assessment for Mother and made
additional referrals for drug treatment services. Mother failed to participate consistently in her
recommended counseling and intensive outpatient treatment. PPBH ultimately discharged her
from their programs based on her noncompliance with services. Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine and amphetamines on six of seven drug screens, and positive for THC on one
screen, throughout the case. The caseworker testified that there were several additional times she
did not screen Mother because Mother admitted those tests would be positive for illicit drug use.
Mother demonstrated no sustained period of sobriety during the case and admitted that she only
became sober after she was incarcerated one year into the case. Under these circumstances, Mother
failed to remedy a key concern that prevented her from providing an appropriate environment for
the child who required a heightened level of care based on her special needs.
{¶23} Father continued to reside in a nursing home throughout the case. He was not able
to take care of his own daily needs. He was wheelchair-bound, had very limited use of his
extremities, and suffered from many chronic physical and mental health issues. He was committed
for psychiatric observation twice during the year for suicidal and/or homicidal ideations. Father
required assistance for feeding, dressing, bathing, and transferring from bed to wheelchair. By the
time of the hearing, he was able to stand within parallel bars, but he could not ambulate. Father

9
was not able to provide any physical care for I.R., who required help with feeding and toileting.
While this Court recognizes that Father’s physical limitations arose due to circumstances beyond
his control, he was and would indefinitely remain unable to independently provide necessary care
for the child.
{¶24} Moreover, the only people proposed by the parents to provide care for I.R. when
they were unavailable were Father’s sister and her husband (“Mrs. and Mr. B.”). Mother and the
child had lived with them for some time while Father was residing in the nursing home. Mother
admitted that that is where she relapsed into methamphetamine use. Even after she moved out of
that home and into her own trailer, Mother spent time with Mr. B. in his home, where she continued
to use methamphetamine with him. In January 2026, while Mother and Mr. B. were smoking
methamphetamine, Mother stabbed Mr. B. in the back with a knife, leading to Mother’s arrest and
incarceration for a felony. In proposing Mrs. and Mr. B., the parents demonstrated an ongoing
lack of insight regarding appropriate caregivers for I.R. in their absence and failed to remedy their
inability to ensure a safe environment for the child. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in
its first-prong determination that I.R. could not or should not return to either parent’s care based
on Mother’s and Father’s failures to remedy the underlying concerns that led to the child’s
removal. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)/(E)(1).
{¶25} Furthermore, CSB proved by clear and convincing evidence that an award of
permanent custody to the agency was in the child’s best interest. I.R. was in her parents’ legal
custody until the agency removed her when she was four years old. By the time of the permanent
custody hearing, the child had been in CSB’s temporary custody for 15 months.
{¶26} I.R. has a close bond with Mother. The child appears comfortable with Father,
although he, an agency worker, or the guardian ad litem have to direct I.R. to engage with Father.

10
The child does not initiate interactions with him but is receptive to hugging or feeding Father upon
his request.
{¶27} I.R. is nonverbal and autistic. CSB placed her in a therapeutic foster home with a
couple who have experience caring for autistic children. I.R. is bonded with her foster parents and
their two children and is thriving in their home, where she is engaged in counseling and educational
services. Mother had not previously pursued autism services for I.R. The child uses a tablet to
communicate which has greatly reduced her formerly high level of frustration associated with not
being able to convey her needs and desires. I.R. is scheduled for a significant amount of dental
work to address issues caused by excessive teeth grinding, the coping mechanism the child used
when frustrated.
{¶28} Due to her age and difficulty communicating, I.R. was not able to express her
wishes regarding custody. The guardian ad litem spoke on her behalf and opined that an award of
permanent custody to CSB would be in the child’s best interest. He testified that he had serious
ongoing concerns about the parents’ ability, at present and in the foreseeable future, to provide a
safe and stable home where the child’s basic and special needs would be met. The guardian ad
litem referenced Father’s global physical limitations, mental health struggles, and myriad
diagnoses that impacted Father’s stability and ability to care for any child, and particularly one
with special needs requiring consistent and hands-on care. The guardian ad litem further expressed
concerns regarding Mother’s ability to safely parent the child, given Mother’s ongoing and
untreated mental health and severe substance abuse issues, as well as her unresolved felony
criminal case. While the foster family was not able to commit to adopting I.R., they had not ruled
out adoption and were willing to continue to provide a home for the child.

11
{¶29} As to Father, his social worker at The Arbors of Fairlawn testified that Father has
very limited mobility and requires daily assistance in all areas. He has no estimated discharge date
due to his ongoing need for care. After more than a year of physical and occupational therapies,
Father recently became able to hold a cell phone and feed himself finger foods. He cannot dress
or groom himself, transfer from bed to a wheelchair without assistance, prepare meals, or help the
child with toileting. In the case of an emergency, Father would not be able to evacuate himself
from the premises, let alone assist a young child. In addition, he suffers from a litany of medical
and mental health issues, including adult failure to thrive, osteoarthritis in multiple joints,
hyperlipidemia, shortness of breath, overactive bladder, repeated urinary tract infections,
polyneuropathy, repeated fall history, hypertension, deep vein thrombosis and multiple embolisms,
heart disease, kidney calculus and cysts, chronic pain syndrome, suicidal and homicidal ideations,
and major depressive disorder. Given Father’s extensive needs that he cannot manage
independently, he is not in a position to render daily care for a young child who has both basic and
special needs.
{¶30} As to Mother, CSB presented clear and convincing evidence of her inability to
provide a safe and stable home for I.R. now and in the foreseeable future. The caseworker testified
that Mother had not made any progress on her case plan objectives that were designed to alleviate
the concerns underlying the child’s removal, in particular substance abuse and mental health
concerns.
{¶31} Mother obtained mental health and substance abuse assessments, both of which
recommended counseling and participation in other services. Mother admitted that she did not
consistently attend counseling and intensive outpatient treatment. Although Mother
acknowledged that her substance abuse affected her financial, emotional, and physical ability to

12
parent the child, she agreed with the caseworker’s testimony that she had not demonstrated a
commitment to sobriety, explaining that she was still actively using methamphetamine and simply
not ready to embrace recovery services. Moreover, Mother did not demonstrate any insight into
her addiction, describing relapse as “a bump in the road[.]” Although she asserted that her use of
Suboxone helped keep her sober, she admitted that it was not a recognized method for treating
methamphetamine addiction. When she relapsed while using Suboxone, Mother testified that
“[t]here’s nothing wrong with that.”
{¶32} The caseworker testified that Mother tested positive every month for
methamphetamine use. PPBH terminated Mother’s services for non-compliance. The caseworker
referred her to Community Health Center (“CHC”) for more specialized drug treatment and
provided bus passes after Mother told her that she lacked transportation to CHC. Mother admitted
that she did not take advantage of the referral and gave some bus passes to Father when he
expressed the desire to escape from his nursing home.
{¶33} Throughout the case, Mother exhibited erratic and aggressive behaviors. She
frequently left visits after getting upset when someone redirected her, punched a visitation
supervisor in the head, and was arrested for stabbing her brother-in-law while they were smoking
methamphetamine. On one occasion when Father urinated on himself during a visit, Mother got
angry when visitation staff asked her to help clean up after her husband. She stormed out of the
FIC, leaving I.R. confused and in tears. On other occasions, she got upset and left the room when
the child needed to be changed out of wet clothing, when the visitation aide suggested not giving
the child a can of soda in the morning, and when the aide refused to stop monitoring a visit and
leave Mother and the child unsupervised. Mother admitted that she struggles with anger issues,

13
getting “really upset, explosive.” Nevertheless, she did not participate in mental health services
consistently to address those concerns.
{¶34} Mother’s behavior resulted in both CSB and The Arbors banning her from their
premises. The agency suspended Mother’s in-person visits but allowed her to have virtual visits
with the child. The caseworker attempted to schedule a meeting with Mother to discuss
expectations and plan to reinstate in-person visits, but Mother was not responsive for several
months. When the caseworker was finally able to schedule a meeting, Mother showed up at the
wrong time and left a message, yelling and cussing at the caseworker. The agency rescheduled
the meeting, but Mother did not appear. She testified that she was probably using drugs with her
brother-in-law Mr. B. at the time. CSB rescheduled the meeting a second time, but by then, Mother
was in jail on a felony charge.
{¶35} Mother testified that there was no resolution pending in her criminal case. She had
been in jail for three months by the time of the permanent custody hearing. Although Mother
testified that her sister was making the monthly payments to the trailer park for rent and utilities
as a loan that Mother would later pay back, the caseworker had concerns that Mother’s housing
was in jeopardy. Mother was not employed during the case and relied on Father’s disability
income to pay for her living expenses. It was not clear why Mother had not arranged for Father to
give money to someone to continue paying Mother’s rent instead of accruing a debt she would
have to repay. The caseworker testified, however, that a guardianship action had been filed with
regard to Father, so that he might no longer be the payee of his disability benefits, thereby limiting
Mother’s access to her sole source of financial support.
{¶36} After a thorough review, this Court concludes that the record demonstrates that the
evidence is legally sufficient to support an award of permanent custody of I.R. to CSB. See

14
Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 11, quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386. In addition, this is
not the exceptional case indicating that the juvenile court clearly lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice in finding that CSB met its burden of proof regarding both prongs of the
permanent custody test. See Eastley at ¶ 20. The evidence established that neither Mother nor
Father was in a position to provide an appropriate home for I.R. Mother had not addressed her
mental health or severe substance abuse issues. She admitted that she had not attained the
motivation to pursue sobriety. Mother was in jail on a felony assault charge, leaving her
unavailable to provide physical care for the child. Father was in a nursing home where he would
reside indefinitely, relying on assistance for his own daily needs. He is and will remain unable to
provide any physical care for I.R. due to his extensive medical issues. Pending guardianship
proceedings regarding Father would remove Father as payee relative to his disability benefits. As
those benefits comprise the family’s sole source of income, Mother’s ability to access those funds
to provide housing and other basic needs for the child is at risk. I.R. has special needs, in addition
to her basic needs; and neither parent can meet those within a reasonable period. Under the
circumstances, the juvenile court did not err by finding that Mother and Father had failed to remedy
the concerns underlying the child’s removal and that an award of permanent custody was in the
child’s best interest.
{¶37} This Court further rejects Mother’s and Father’s arguments that the juvenile court
erred by denying their motions for a first six-month extension of temporary custody. Neither
parent met his or her respective burden of proving that an extension was warranted.
{¶38} The juvenile court “may” extend temporary custody for up to six months under
certain circumstances. R.C. 2151.415(D). We review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a
request for an extension for an abuse of discretion. In re P.H., 2021-Ohio-3726, ¶ 25 (9th Dist.),

15
citing In re A.S., 2017-Ohio-8984, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). The juvenile court abuses its discretion when
it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983). The trial court has authority to exercise its discretion to grant a first six-
month extension of temporary custody, however, only if the moving party has proved by clear and
convincing evidence all of the following: “the extension is in the best interest of the child, there
has been significant progress on the case plan of the child, and there is reasonable cause to believe
that the child will be reunified with one of the parents or otherwise permanently placed within the
period of extension.” R.C. 2151.415(D)(1); In re A.S. at ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). As the requirements are
conjunctive, the failure of proof on any precludes the juvenile court from granting the extension.
See In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-3091, ¶ 54 (9th Dist.).
{¶39} This Court concluded above that the juvenile court did not err by finding that an
award of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, extending the agency’s
temporary custody and maintaining the child in custodial limbo necessarily was not in the best
interest of I.R. See In re P.W., 2023-Ohio-4830, at ¶ 22 (9th Dist.). Moreover, the evidence
established that neither Mother nor Father made significant progress on their case plan objectives.
In fact, their progress was minimal, at best. Given Mother’s and Father’s lack of progress toward
remedying the concerns underlying the child’s continued removal from home, there was no
reasonable cause to believe I.R. could be reunified with either parent during the period of
extension. Based on a thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that Mother and Father
failed to meet their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a first six-month
extension of temporary custody was warranted under R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). Accordingly, the
juvenile court had no authority to exercise its discretion to grant the parents’ request.

16
{¶40} Based on the above discussion, the juvenile court did not err by denying the parents’
motions for a six-month extension of temporary custody and instead granting CSB’s motion for
permanent custody and terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to I.R. Mother’s and
Father’s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶41} Mother’s sole and Father’s two assignments of error are overruled. The judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
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.
BETTY SUTTON
FOR THE COURT

17
HENSAL, P. J.
MANNING, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
LESLIE GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
BENJAMIN AYERS, Guardian ad Litem.