[Cite as In re I.G.C., 2024-Ohio-145.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:

I.G.C. AND G.A.D.,

DEPENDENT CHILDREN

CASE NOS. 2023-P-0026

2023-P-0027

Civil Appeals from the

Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Division

Trial Court Nos. 2020 JCC 00679

2020 JCC 00680

O P I N I O N

Decided: January 16, 2024 

Judgment: Affirmed

Katherine E. Rudzik, 26 Market Street, Suite 904, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For 

Appellant).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Julia B. Adkins, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Appellee).

Karlek D.D. Jarvis, 206 South Meridian Street, Suite A, Ravenna, OH 44266 (Guardian 

Ad Litem).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Heather Duche (“Mother”), appeals from the judgment of the 

Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of her 

children, I.G.C. and G.A.D., to Stephanie and Nicholas Dieter. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

{¶2} Mother has four children, two of which are subject to this appeal (I.G.C. and 

G.A.D). Christopher Duche is the father of G.A.D., as determined by a paternity test, and 
2

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

he is currently incarcerated. (“Father of G.A.D.”) He has not maintained contact with 

G.A.D. Though married to Mother at the time of birth, a paternity test determined that

Father of G.A.D. is not the biological father of I.G.C. The father of I.G.C. is currently 

unknown. 

{¶3} In late November of 2020, I.G.C. and G.A.D. were left in the care of Mother’s

friend for the weekend. When the friend could no longer care for the children, he called 

the Ravenna Police Department. The Police Department was unable to reach Mother. On 

November 28, 2020, I.G.C. and G.A.D. were removed from Mother’s home. At the time 

of their removal, I.G.C. was 6, and G.A.D. was 5. 

{¶4} On November 30, 2020, a complaint was filed alleging the children to be 

abused, neglected, and dependent. After a hearing conducted on January 12, 2021, the 

children were adjudicated dependent. 

{¶5} After a dispositional hearing on February 9, 2021, a springing order was put 

into place that required Mother to complete a case plan and allowed her to regain custody 

of her children after 30 days if she tested negative for drug screens, did not allow her then 

boyfriend, B.S., to have contact with her children, and no other party filed an objection.

During the April 14, 2023, custody hearing, Mother testified that B.S. had abused her 

children which was the basis of a child endangerment charge Mother was convicted of in 

another county.

{¶6} On February 25, 2021, Portage County Department of Job and Family 

Services (“PCDJFS”) filed objections to the springing order after Mother tested positive 

for methamphetamine and the children disclosed to a case worker that B.S. had come 
3

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

into the home at night while the children were present. After a hearing on the objections, 

PCDJFS was granted temporary custody of the children.

{¶7} Throughout the course of completing her case plan objectives, Mother has 

consistently attended supervised visitation with her children and attended their extracurricular activities. Some difficulty has occurred with the children’s behavior after visits 

when Mother has inappropriately told the children that they would return home soon. 

Karlek Jarvis, the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”) appointed to this case said that the 

children are bonded to Mother, and that she is capable of addressing their individual 

needs. 

{¶8} Mother has not been consistent with meeting her case plan objectives, 

though she has maintained negative drug screenings for a year. Mother obtained full time 

employment as an assistant manager at Family Dollar beginning in April of 2022. Mother

acquired appropriate housing for her children in February of 2023. Despite this progress, 

Mother has not consistently engaged in substance abuse counseling and random drug 

screening as required by her case plan. Though Mother partially complied with her 

substance abuse services, her engagement with PCDJFS and screenings did not comply 

with her case plan. In November of 2022, Mother disengaged from all services entirely 

due to conflicts with her work schedule.

{¶9} Multiple extensions of the temporary custody order were filed, and a 

permanency plan was put into place in the event that Mother’s case objectives were not 

completed. As part of the permanency plan, Stephanie and Nicholas Dieter were named 

the potential recipients of legal custody of I.G.C. and G.A.D. Stephanie Dieter (“Ms. 

Dieter”), is Father of G.A.D.’s stepsister. Ms. Dieter previously contacted PCDJFS and 
4

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

indicated she would like to care for the children. The children were placed with the Dieters 

in December of 2021.

{¶10} In a custody hearing held on April 14, 2023, Rachel Magrell (“Ms. Magrell”), 

a case worker for PCDJFS assigned to Mother’s case, testified that unification was 

unlikely at that time. Ms. Magrell also testified that it was her belief that placing I.G.C. and 

G.A.D. in the legal custody of the Dieters was in the children’s best interest. The GAL, 

also testified at the April 14, 2023 custody hearing. Ms. Jarvis’s recommendation states, 

“[a]t this time it is in the best interest of G.A.D. and I.G.C. to be placed in the legal custody 

of paternal aunt and uncle, Stephanie and Nick Dieter.” In an order filed April 24, 2023, 

I.G.C. and G.A.D. were placed in the legal custody of the Dieters. Mother now timely 

appeals that order.

{¶11} Mother asserts one assignment of error: “The Trial Court committed 

reversible error when it granted legal custody to the kinship placement when Children’s 

Services did not provide reasonable unification efforts.”

{¶12} Specifically, Mother asks this Court to address three issues: (1) “Did the trial 

Court’s err in awarding legal custody to the kinship placement?” (2) "Was there a genuine 

effort at reunification?” and (3) "Was [Mother] in substantial compliance with case plan?”

{¶13} It should be noted that this Court recently reversed the decision of the 

Portage County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, terminating parental rights for 

two of Mother’s children, not subject to this appeal.1 However, termination of parental 

rights and granting of legal custody to a third party are different and have different legal 

standards.

1. In re G.C.M.G., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2023-P-2024, 2023-P-0025, 2023-Ohio-3018.
5

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

{¶14} Termination of parental rights requires a finding by the trial court of clear 

and convincing evidence, while a granting of legal custody to a third party requires a 

finding by a preponderance of the evidence, that the decision will be in the best interest 

of the child. Matter of P.V.A., 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0097, 2023-Ohio-1622, ¶ 

13. Though an award of legal custody is intended to be permanent (see R.C. 2151.42 

(B)), residual rights remain with a loss of custody, where “‘[s]evering the parent-child 

relationship has been described as the family-law equivalent of the “death penalty.”’” 

Matter of Adoption of R.R.L., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0047, 2022-Ohio-1100, 

quoting Matter of Adoption of J.F.R.-W., 7th Dist. Belmont No. 16 BE 0045, 2017-Ohio1265, ¶ 13, citing In Re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997)” Matter of 

Adoption of L.M.C., ¶ 17, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2023-P-0029, 2023-Ohio-3119, ¶ 15.

{¶15} A grant of legal custody is reviewed by an appellate court under an abuse 

of discretion standard.2 Matter of P.V.A., 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0097, 2023-

Ohio-1622, ¶ 12. “An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court ‘applies the 

wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous 

findings of fact.' In re L.L.S., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2016-P-0068, 2017-Ohio-7450, ¶ 20, 

quoting Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio App.3d 401, 2008-Ohio-1720, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).” 

Id.

{¶16} “A trial court must determine the appropriateness of legal custody ‘in 

accordance with the best interest of the child as supported by the evidence presented at 

2. A case out of the 11th District was recently reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, regarding a conflict 

among the districts regarding the proper appellate standard of review for termination of parental rights. In 

In re Z.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4703, the Court determined that termination of parental rights cases 

should be reviewed under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, 

“depending on the nature of the arguments made by the parties.”
6

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

the dispositional hearing.’ R.C. 2151.415” In re S.A., 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2011-T0098, 2011-T-0099, 2011-T-0100, 2012-Ohio-2006, ¶ 25.

{¶17} The applicable standard for granting legal custody is by a preponderance 

of the evidence that an award of custody is in the best interests of the child. In re J.F., 

11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0029, 2011-Ohio-3295, ¶ 40.

{¶18} The trial court’s paramount consideration in this case was to determine if, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, not whether Mother was fit to maintain custody, but 

whether placing I.G.C. and G.A.D. in the legal custody of the Dieters is in the best interest

and welfare of the children. Matter of C.H., 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0061, 2019-

Ohio-4316, ¶ 28.

{¶19} The basis of Mother’s case plan was to address parenting issues and 

abandonment issues. The case plan included completing objectives for mental health and 

substance abuse, passing required drug screenings, acquiring stable housing, obtaining

employment that would be sufficient to support herself, and completing a parenting 

program through an approved licensed agency. Mother’s case plan additionally 

demanded that she follow and complete all recommendations made regarding substance 

abuse and mental health counseling. 

{¶20} Mother did not fully comply with her case plan to remedy the conditions that 

caused the children’s removal from her custody. While there was some compliance, “it is 

entirely possible that a parent could complete all of [her] case plan goals and the trial 

court still appropriately grant legal custody to a third party.” Matter of P.V.A., 2023-Ohio1622, ¶ 19, citing In re Calvert Children, 9th Dist. Nos. 05-CA-19, 05-CA-20, 2005-Ohio5653, ¶ 74. “The main issue considered by the courts is “not whether the parent has 
7

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

substantially complied with the case plan, but whether the parent has substantially 

remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal. McKenzie at 4.” In re Calvert 

Children, 2005-Ohio-5653, ¶ 74.

{¶21} Mother did obtain employment and stable housing, though only months 

before the custody hearing. Mother also tested negative to the drug screenings she 

submitted to for the past year, demonstrating progress towards her case plan objectives. 

Despite those achievements, part of the requirements of Mother’s case plan was to 

complete the plan and follow the recommendations. Mother was inconsistent with her 

compliance and missed screenings, did not attend appointments as required, and never 

attended the required parenting class. Mother also did not consistently engage with 

PCDJFS. In November of 2022, Mother completely disengaged with services altogether. 

{¶22} Mother’s case worker, Ms. Magrell, testified at the April 14, 2023 custody 

hearing that she believed reunification was unlikely, and that it was in the best interest of 

I.G.C. and G.A.D. to be placed in the legal custody of the Dieters. The appointed GAL 

recommended the same. Ms. Dieter testified at the custody hearing that she understood 

that Mother would be entitled to reasonable visitation within her discretion to keep the 

children safe. Ms. Jarvis testified that when given the opportunity to talk to the children 

they expressed that they were very happy and comfortable with the Dieters. The Dieter’s 

have enrolled the children in activities like dance and basketball and have two other 

children in the home that I.G.C. and G.A.C. have bonded with. Mother testified during the 

same custody hearing that her former boyfriends harmed her children, and Ms. Magrell 

testified that she had concerns about Mother’s history of boyfriends who are abusive to 

both Mother and her children.
8

Case Nos. 2023-P-0026 and 2023-P-0027

{¶23} Both the GAL, and Mother’s case worker, Ms. Magrell, testified that they 

believed it to be in the best interests of the children to be placed in the legal custody of 

the Dieters. Ms. Dieter testified that she understood and agreed to facilitate visitation 

between Mother and the children if granted legal custody.

{¶24} The record demonstrates that Mother has maintained contact with her 

children and successfully maintained full-time employment for the past year. Mother has 

obtained stable housing, though for a relatively short period of time, and she has not 

tested positive for drug screenings in the past year. Nothing in the record indicates that 

she is still engaging in relationships with abusive partners. However, Mother has not 

consistently submitted to drug screenings or attended substance abuse and mental health 

appointments as required by her case plan. Mother has failed to consistently engage with 

her case workers. Mother has not demonstrated that she has complied with the steps 

necessary to remedy the conditions that caused her to lose custody of her children in the 

first place. 

{¶25} Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it was in the best interest of I.G.C. and G.A.D. to 

grant legal custody to Stephanie and Nicholas Dieter.

{¶26} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.