Legal Case

In re Adoption of A.J.L.

Citation

2025 Ohio 2401

Court

Unknown Court

Decided

July 7, 2025

Importance

35%

Standard

Practice Areas

Family Law
Adoption Law

Case Summary

[Cite as In re Adoption of A.J.L., 2025-Ohio-2401.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. 2025-P-0012 THE ADOPTION OF A.J.L. Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division Trial Court No. 2024 AD 00040 OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: July 7, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed Corinne Hoover and Rachel L. Smick, Hoover Kacyon, LLC, 527 Portage Trail, Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221 (For Appellants, Eileen Mary Leskovec and Keith Anthony Leskovec). Leslie S. Graske, 54 East Mill Street, Suite 201, Akron, OH 44308, and Rebecca Sremack, 2745 South Arlington Road, Akron, OH 44312 (For Appellees, Taylor Marie LeMasters and Craig Ryan LeMasters). Cecily J. Mullins, Megargel, Eskridge & Mullins, LLP, 231 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (Guardian Ad Litem). SCOTT LYNCH, J. {¶1} Appellants, Eileen and Keith Leskovec, appeal from the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, denying their petition for adoption and granting appellees, Craig and Taylor LeMasters’, petition for adoption. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} A.J.L., born April 6, 2021, is the biological daughter of Kevin and Kera Leskovec, who died in 2021. After their deaths, A.J.L. began living with her maternal uncle, Craig LeMasters, and his wife, Taylor. On October 10, 2023, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, appointed Craig to serve as A.J.L.’s guardian. The court granted Keith and Eileen Leskovec, A.J.L.’s paternal grandparents, standard visitation. {¶3} The LeMasterses and the Leskovecs filed competing petitions for the adoption of A.J.L. on June 7, 2024, and August 2, 2024, respectively. At a December 3, 2024 hearing, the parties presented the following pertinent testimony: {¶4} Craig testified that, following Kera and Kevin’s deaths, Craig and Taylor moved into their residence with A.J.L. for approximately two years before moving to a new home. A.J.L. currently visits with the Leskovecs every other weekend and on Wednesdays. Craig testified that A.J.L. is bonded with the Leskovecs and it is important for her to continue having contact with them. He indicated that he had previously raised concerns with the visitation schedule but, if their petition was granted, the LeMasterses would continue “essentially the status quo” regarding visitation. {¶5} Craig testified that the LeMasterses and Leskovecs had some conflict regarding A.J.L., although the couples are “civil most of the time.” He indicated that the Leskovecs had raised their voices in front of A.J.L. at some visitation transfers and have difficulty compromising. {¶6} Taylor testified that the LeMasterses had some difficulty communicating with the Leskovecs and she felt they were fighting for control of A.J.L. She indicated that the LeMasterses had invited the Leskovecs to attend holiday events with A.J.L. on some occasions. {¶7} Denise LeMasters, A.J.L.’s maternal grandmother, testified that A.J.L. is bonded with the LeMasterses and the Leskovecs. The LeMasterses told her they would continue to allow visitation with the Leskovecs if the court granted their petition. PAGE 2 OF 11 Case No. 2025-P-0012 {¶8} Eileen Leskovec testified that she continued to have a relationship with A.J.L. after Kevin’s death. She believed the LeMasterses were always watching the Leskovecs when they were interacting with A.J.L. She expressed concerns about A.J.L.’s speech, development, and various health issues which she felt the LeMasterses did not properly address. Eileen believes visitation would end if the court granted the LeMasterses’ petition. {¶9} Lynne Leskovec, A.J.L.’s paternal aunt, indicated that she believed there was a lack of communication and trust with the LeMasterses, who had denied her visitation with A.J.L. in the past. She believed that if the court granted adoption in favor of the LeMasterses, her family would not see A.J.L. again. {¶10} Cecily Mullins, the guardian ad litem, recommended that the court deny both petitions. She did “not have faith [that the present relationships] will continue in the event that either side has complete control,” and observed tension between the parties. She questioned the LeMasterses’ claims that they would continue visitation due to their past complain

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

July 7, 2025

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Standard
Score35%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
Parental Rights
Best Interests of the Child
Adoption Procedures

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJul 7, 2025
UpdatedAug 4, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Parental Rights
Best Interests of the Child
Adoption Procedures

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJuly 7, 2025
Date DecidedJuly 7, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.3
Judicial Panel
S. Lynch
Opinion Author
S. Lynch

Similar Cases

5

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

G.J. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: Y.J.C.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:gjvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc300june17,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">G.J.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> In the Interest of Minor Child: <span class="ldml-party">Y.J.C.</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC300</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="183" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="183" data-sentence-id="200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_200" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 24CA1695</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="241" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="241" data-sentence-id="257" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

J.D.W. and T.L. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: Z.D.W.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:jdwandtlvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc272june17,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">J.D.W. and T.L.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> In the Interest of Minor Child: <span class="ldml-party">Z.D.W.</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC272</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="195" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="195" data-sentence-id="212" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_212" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 24CA1097</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="253" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="253" data-sentence-id="269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petitions for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning N.M.D., and Concerning Gary Lynn Duerksen, and Sara Rae Hanson

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party">In re the <span class="ldml-name">Parental Responsibilities Concerning N.M.D.</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Concerning Gary Lynn Duerksen</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Sara Rae Hanson</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC180</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-specifier="" data-format="title_case_lacks_specifier" data-parsed="true" data-value="Court of Appeals Case No. 24CA1" data-content-heading-label=" Court of Appeals Case No. 24CA1 " data-id="heading_209" id="heading_209"><span data-paragraph-id="209" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="209" data-sentence-id="226" class="ldml-sentence">Court of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified"><span class="ldml-refname">Appeals Case</span> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 24CA1</span></a></span></span> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="264" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="264" data-sentence-id="280" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

D.A.T. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: R.R.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:datvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc301june16,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">D.A.T.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> In the Interest of Minor Child: <span class="ldml-party">R.R.</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC301</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="183" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="183" data-sentence-id="200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_200"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 24CA1829</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="241" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="241" data-sentence-id="257" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

In Re Cd Minor

80% match
Michigan Court of Appeals
Jun 2025

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 10:20 AM In re CD, Minor. No. 371098 Crawford Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 21-004622-NA Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-mother appeals by right the order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, CD, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to parent’s home). In a scant, two-paragraph argument on appeal, respondent-mother asserts only that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of a separate personal protection order (PPO) case between herself and CD’s father, who was not a respondent in this matter, and that there was no need to terminate her parental rights because she was jailed for violating the PPO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case was commenced approximately a month after respondent-mother’s home was raided by a police drug taskforce following three controlled purchases of prescription drugs from respondent-mother, during which the police found and confiscated a dangerous butane-based THC extraction lab from her garage. The minor child, CD, was placed in the care of his father in an ex parte custody order entered in a custody case between the father and respondent-mother. The father was simultaneously granted a PPO against respondent-mother. The same judge presided over this case, the custody case, and the PPO proceedings.1 The trial court took judicial notice of the PPO proceedings in a contempt hearing in this case without objection by respondent-mother’s 1 The trial court also issued another PPO against respondent-mother while this case was pending. -1- attorney. Respondent-mother also was charged criminally, and a different judge presided over her criminal cases. Almost three years after the raid and more than two years after the order of adjudication, the trial court issued a lengthy written opinion that summarized the voluminous testimony in this case. The trial court found that respondent-mother’s noncompliance with petitioner, continued impulsivity and history of defiance, and lack of benefit from services showed that CD would likely be harmed if returned to her care. The trial court then found that respondent-mother’s dishonesty, lack of insight, lack of accountability, and questionable judgment in recently marrying a felon showed that termination was in CD’s best interests. The trial court noted that it had no assurance that CD would be kept safe through custody orders in the parallel custody proceeding because respondent-mother’s conduct throughout this case and as reflected in the PPO case showed that she could not be trusted to follow any such orders. II. PRESERVATION OF ISSUES A respondent must object in the trial court to the trial court’s use of evidence. In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). Respondent-mother expressly declined to do so when the trial court directly asked if she had any objection to the trial court taking judicial notice of the PPO matters at a contempt hearing in this case. Waiver does not require any particular language, but it “must be explicit, voluntary, and made in good faith.” In re MJC Minor, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 365616); slip op at 3. A party waives an issue by expressly declining a trial court’s invitation to object to a matter. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214-215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000); People v McDonald, 293 Mich App 292, 295; 811 NW2d 507 (2011). If an issue is waived, there is no right to appeal. People v Flores, 346 Mich App 602, 608; 13 NW3d 668 (2023). However, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution,” we will treat this issue “as merely forfeited rather than affirmatively waived.” See Flores, 346 Mich App at 608-609. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW An unpreserved error in a termination-of-parental-rights case is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 29 & n 13; 934 NW2d 610 (2019). Under that standard, a clear or obvious error must have occurred, the error must have affected the outcome of the

Very Similar Similarity