The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Randall W. Conway and Danielle N. Conway against the Muskingum County Board of Commissioners. The court ruled that the Board is immune from liability under state law, affirming the dismissal of the Conways' claims regarding their experience as foster parents. This ruling impacts the foster care system in Ohio and highlights the legal protections afforded to government entities.

The Conways, who reside in Michigan, became licensed foster parents in December 2024. They sought to foster a 6-year-old child who was in the legal custody of Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services (MCACPS). Their interactions with the child began in April 2025, and by May 2025, they had brought the child into their home for a pre-adoptive placement.

However, the Conways raised concerns about the child’s behavior, including alarming psychiatric issues, and sought assistance from MCACPS. After returning the child to the agency, they filed a lawsuit in August 2025, alleging fraudulent inducement and negligence among other claims. They argued that the agency misled them regarding the child's needs and behaviors.

The case was brought before the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, where the Board claimed immunity from the lawsuit under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744. The court agreed, stating that the Board's functions were governmental and thus protected from liability. On April 27, 2026, the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Board, effectively dismissing the Conways' complaint with prejudice.

In their appeal, the Conways raised several assignments of error, arguing that their claims were valid and that the immunity statute did not apply. However, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge William B. Hoffman, ruled that the Board was indeed immune from liability. The court noted, "Political subdivisions and their employees are generally immune from liability for acts related to governmental and proprietary functions." The judges concurred that the Conways did not demonstrate that any exceptions to this immunity applied to their case.

The court further stated that the Conways' claims of fraudulent inducement were not actionable under the law, as they failed to meet the necessary legal standards. The court found that the Conways did not assert any statutory exceptions to the immunity that would allow their claims to proceed.

This ruling has significant implications for foster parents and child welfare agencies in Ohio. It reinforces the legal protections that governmental entities have against lawsuits, particularly in cases involving the foster care system. The decision may deter future claims against similar agencies and could affect how foster care placements are managed in Ohio.

The Conways' case illustrates the challenges faced by foster parents when navigating the complexities of the child welfare system. The court's ruling may lead to increased caution among prospective foster parents regarding the legal risks involved in fostering children with known behavioral issues.

Looking ahead, the Conways have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, although it is unclear whether they will pursue this route. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could influence this ruling. The court filing did not provide further details on any potential next steps the Conways may take.