[Cite as In re G.F., 2011-Ohio-1823.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: G.F. : 

 : C.A. CASE NO. 24193 

 : T.C. CASE NO. JC10-2669 

 : (Civil Appeal from Common 

 Pleas Court, Juvenile Div.) 

 . . . . . . . . . 

 O P I N I O N

 Rendered on the 15th day of April, 2011. 

 . . . . . . . . . 

Mathias H. Heck, Pros. Attorney; Carley Ingram, Asst. Pros. 

Attorney, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45402-1913 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Jennifer Horner, Atty. Reg. No.0079769, P.O. Box 49441, Dayton, 

OH 45449 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} G.F., a minor child, came to the attention of Montgomery 

County Children’s Services (MCCS) in March 2010, after his mother 

failed to send him to school during February and March. After 

G.F. was adjudicated a dependent and neglected child on May 27, 
2

2010, MCCS requested a disposition awarding temporary custody of 

G.F. to his father. On July 12, 2010, a dispositional hearing 

was held in Montgomery County Juvenile Court. 

{¶ 2} Heather Wenrick, the MCCS caseworker handling G.F.’s 

case, testified that (1) G.F. had been living with his father for 

five months prior to the hearing, and was doing very well; (2) 

G.F.’s basic needs were being met by his father; (3) father’s home 

study had been approved; (4) father maintains stable housing and 

income; and, (5) father provides for the medical and educational 

needs of G.F. Wenrick further testified that G.F.’s mother has 

appropriate housing for G.F., receives unemployment compensation, 

but struggles with mental health issues and attended only four 

or five out of nine possible visitations with G.F., which was 

detrimental to G.F. According to Wenrick, MCCS cannot determine 

whether it is appropriate to return G.F. to his mother until she 

completes parenting and psychological evaluations. 

{¶ 3} G.F.’s mother testified that shortly after G.F. was born 

his father moved to Florida without telling her and was gone for 

one year. When he returned, she allowed him to once again be part 

of G.F.’s life. Visitations by G.F.’s father were inconsistent. 

 G.F.’s mother believed she was treated unfairly by MCCS, that 

they favor placing G.F. with his father, and that MCCS had not 
3

given her the opportunity or resources she needs to prove she can 

adequately care for G.F. Mother’s concerns with G.F.’s father 

include the fact that he smokes marijuana, that on one occasion 

six months ago when she came to pick up G.F. the father was high, 

and that there were past domestic violence incidents between father 

and mother. 

{¶ 4} G.F.’s father testified that he did leave for Florida 

eight months after G.F. was born in order to get off drugs. Father 

was gone for five or six months, and has not used drugs since he 

returned to Ohio. Father’s concerns with G.F.’s mother are that 

she is not consistent in her visitations with G.F. and it is 

difficult to contact her, which negatively impacts G.F. Father 

believes G.F.’s mother is incapable of handling G.F.’s behavioral 

problems or her own problems, and that G.F.’s mother has neglected 

G.F.’s physical and mental health care needs. G.F.’s father denies 

any prior domestic violence or current drug usage. 

{¶ 5} On July 21, 2010, the Juvenile Court issued its Decision 

finding that it is in the best interests of G.F. to be placed in 

the temporary custody of his father. The court made the following 

findings: 

{¶ 6} “The Court makes the following findings of fact: (1) 

the Agency has made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of 
4

the child from the child’s home, to eliminate the continued removal 

of the child from the child’s home, or to make it possible for 

the child to return home; (2) the relevant services provided by 

the Agency to the family of the child are: case management; 

information and referral; (3) those services did not prevent the 

removal of the child from the child’s home or enable the child 

to return to the mother’s home because the mother, (J. H.), has 

experienced medical and psychological problems which have caused 

inconsistencies in her ability to properly parent the child; (4) 

the mother has been inconsistent at times with arriving for 

visitation on time and has had problems maintaining consistent 

follow up on treatment for anxiety and related mental health issues 

(5) mother has not consistently provided for the child’s education 

and dental needs; (6) the Guardian ad Litem recommends temporary 

custody to the father with expanded visitation for the mother; 

(7) the parents need to complete their assessments and follow 

through with all recommended treatment.” 

{¶ 7} G.F.’s mother timely appealed to this court from the 

Juvenile Court’s Order awarding temporary custody of G.F. to his 

father. Appellate counsel for G.F.’s mother filed an Anders brief, 

Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 19 L.Ed.2d 

493, stating that she could find no meritorious issues for appellate 
5

review. We notified G.F.’s mother of appellate counsel’s 

representations and afforded her ample time to file a pro se brief. 

 None has been received. This case is now before us for our 

independent review of the record. Penson v. Ohio (1988), 488 U.S. 

75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300. 

{¶ 8} Appellate counsel has identified two possible issues 

for appeal. 

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 9} “THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT THE AGENCY MADE 

REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE 

CHILD’S HOME, TO ELIMINATE THE CONTINUED REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM 

THE CHILD’S HOME, OR TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CHILD TO RETURN 

HOME IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

{¶ 10} Prior to removing a child from his or her home, the public 

children’s services agency has the burden to demonstrate that it 

made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from 

the child’s home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child 

from the child’s home, or to make it possible for the child to 

return safely home. R.C. 2151.419(A). Reasonable efforts are 

good faith efforts. In re Crawford (1988), Montgomery App. Nos. 

17085, 17105. The issue is not whether the agency (MCCS) could 

have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the 
6

reasonableness standard. In re Smith, Miami App. No. 2001-CA-54, 

2002-Ohio-1786. 

{¶ 11} A juvenile court’s custody decision will not be reversed 

absent an abuse of discretion. In re M.D., Butler App. No. 

CA2006-09-223, 2007-Ohio-4646. “Abuse of discretion” has been 

defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 

83, 87, 19 OBR 123, 126, 482 N.E.2d 1248, 1252. It is to be expected 

that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions 

that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are 

unconscionable or arbitrary. 

{¶ 12} “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound 

reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not 

enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de 

novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, 

perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would 

support a contrary result.” AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place 

Community Redevelopment (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161. 

{¶ 13} Where an award of custody is supported by substantial 

competent, credible evidence in the record, that award will not 

be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

In re M.D.; Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 1997-Ohio-260. 
7

{¶ 14} In accordance with R.C. 2151.419(B)(1), the trial court 

set forth in its findings a brief description of the services 

provided by the agency to the family of G.F., and why those services 

did not prevent removal of G.F. from his home. A review of this 

record reveals substantial competent, credible evidence in the 

record that supports the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, 

the trial court’s finding that MCCS made reasonable unification 

efforts is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This 

assignment of error lacks arguable merit. 

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 15} “THE COURT’S TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER TO FATHER IS NOT 

IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST AND IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

{¶ 16} A court must make its custody decision in accordance 

with the best interests of the child. In re M.D. The trial court 

concluded, based upon the evidence presented, that it was in G.F.’s 

best interest to award temporary custody of him to his father. 

In addition to the testimony presented at the hearing that we have 

already discussed, we note that the guardian ad litem filed a 

detailed report in this case recommending temporary custody be 

awarded to the father with expanded visitation for the mother. 

{¶ 17} A review of this record reveals substantial competent, 
8

credible evidence in the record that supports the trial court’s 

“best interest of the child” finding. Therefore, the court’s 

custody decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

 There is no arguable merit in this assignment of error. 

{¶ 18} In addition to reviewing the possible issues for appeal 

raised by G.F.’s mother’s appellate counsel, we have conducted 

an independent review of the trial court’s proceedings and find 

no error having arguable merit. Accordingly, this appeal is 

without merit and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 

DONOVAN, J. And HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Carley J. Ingram, Esq. 

Jennifer Horner 

Hon. Nick Kuntz 

J.H. (Mother)