[Cite as In re L.G., 2016-Ohio-5918.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

HURON COUNTY 

In re L.G., M.G., Jo.V., S.V., Court of Appeals Nos. H-16-006 

C.V., A.V., L.V., Ja.V. H-16-007 

 H-16-009 

 H-16-010 

 H-16-011 

 H-16-012 

 H-16-013 

 H-16-014 

 H-16-015 

 H-16-016 

 

 Trial Court Nos. DNA 2014 00028 

 DNA 2014 00029 

 DNA 2014 00022 

 DNA 2014 00023 

 DNA 2014 00024 

 DNA 2014 00025 

 DNA 2014 00026 

 DNA 2014 00027 

 DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

 Decided: September 21, 2016 

* * * * * 

 
2. 

 Casey Lloyd Jacobs, for appellant, E.G. 

 Paul D. Dolce, for appellant, Je.V. 

 Daivia S. Kasper, Prosecuting Attorney, and Dina Shenker, 

 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

* * * * * 

JENSEN, P.J. 

{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment of the Huron County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating the parental rights of the elder Jo.V., E.G., 

and Je.V., and awarding permanent custody of their eight children, (Jo.V., S.V., C.V., 

A.V., L.V., Ja.V., L.G., and M.G.) to appellee, Huron County Department of Job and 

Family Services (the “Department”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Factual Background and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} Appellant Je.V. (“mother”) is the natural mother of Jo.V. , S.V., C.V., A.V., 

L.V., Ja.V., L.G., and M.G. (collectively “the children”). 

{¶ 3} Appellant E.G. (“father”) is the natural father of the two youngest children, 

L.G. and M.G. The elder Jo.V. is the natural father of the six older children (Jo.V., S.V., 

C.V., A.V., L.V. and Ja.V.) and did not participate in the termination hearing. He has not 

filed a notice of appeal. Thus, our discussion and analysis will focus on the facts as they 

pertain to mother and father. 

{¶ 4} Shortly after her birth at Fisher Titus Medical Center on January 25, 2014, 

M.G. was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome relating to her exposure to opiate 

drugs while in her mother’s womb. M.G. was transferred to the Toledo Hospital for 
3. 

treatment and observation. Upon discharge, mother and father were given strict 

instructions for a methadone weaning plan, weekly checkups with her pediatrician, and 

follow up appointments with Home Health Care and Huron County Help Me Grow. 

Mother and father failed to take M.G. to multiple appointments. At one appointment the 

parents did keep, M.G. was vomiting and diagnosed with failure to thrive. Numerous 

attempts by the Department to verify that M.G. was receiving proper treatment after her 

discharge from the hospital were unsuccessful. Mother refused access to the home she 

was sharing with friends and refused access to the children. 

{¶ 5} On February 24, 2014, the Department petitioned for and was granted 

emergency temporary custody of the children. A case plan was developed with a goal of 

reunification. The case plan stated three goals for mother and father: (1) successfully 

complete substance abuse counseling; (2) successfully complete parenting classing; and 

(3) “resource management/household maintenance.” 

{¶ 6} Once the children were placed in foster care, they were taken to a 

pediatrician for evaluation. The pediatrician found the children to be suffering from 

chronic medical, dental, and mental health conditions and developmental delays for 

which appropriate treatment had not been provided. 

{¶ 7} At a dispositional hearing on May 1, 2014, mother and father were ordered 

to submit to a substance abuse assessment; successfully complete any and all 

recommended treatment; maintain adequate employment with sufficient income to 

support the family; and maintain safe, drug free, stable housing suitable for the needs of 
4. 

the family. Father was further ordered to successfully complete parenting classes and 

submit to random substance abuse screens as directed by the Department. 

{¶ 8} On July 17, 2015, the Department filed a motion for permanent custody 

stating that “such placement is in the best interest of the children and the children cannot 

be placed with either of their parents within a reasonable time.” The Department alleged 

There has been no reported progress on the case plan by either 

[mother] or [father]. [Mother] did not complete a substance abuse 

assessment and has not participated in any type of substance abuse 

treatment. [Mother] did attend a few parenting classes but missed more than 

what was permitted and did not successfully complete the classes. * * * 

[Mother] reported she was employed at Save A Lot in Willard but was 

terminated within a month and has not provided any other employment 

verification.” 

{¶ 9} The Department further alleged that father failed to participate in parenting 

classes, did not undergo a substance abuse assessment, and did not participate in any 

substance abuse treatment. While father gained employment on three separate occasions, 

he was not able to maintain a job for more than a month. Father was arrested once for 

voluntary intoxication and once for disorderly conduct by intoxication. On separate 

occasions father tested positive for cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and Ultram. 

{¶ 10} While mother and father obtained housing in October, 2014, they were 

evicted in January of the next year for nonpayment of rent. Since the beginning of the 
5. 

case plan, mother and father reported seven different home addresses. At the time the 

motion for permanent custody was filed, Mother reported that she lived with her mother 

in Willard, Ohio. Father last indicated that he lived with his father in Norwalk, Ohio, but 

refused to provide the Department with a specific address. 

{¶ 11} Trial was held in February 2016. 

{¶ 12} Dr. Melanie Jungblut is employed by New Beginnings Pediatrics. Prior to 

her testimony at trial, Dr. Jungblut received and reviewed the medical records of the 

children. After giving a detailed overview of each child’s health issues, she opined that 

all of the children had been medically neglected. 

{¶ 13} Sally Alexander was the court-appointed CASA volunteer guardian-adlitem for the children in this case. Ms. Alexander testified that mother and father lived at 

several different addresses throughout the case. At the time of trial, mother and father 

were living with mother’s adult brother, Grace Reed, and Reed’s three children. Ms. 

Alexander never entered the Reed home because she felt threatened by father. Ms. 

Alexander did gather as much information about the home as she could from the internet. 

{¶ 14} Ms. Alexander further testified that mother and father were not in a 

position to care for the children. Despite given two years to secure employment and a 

drug and alcohol free home, mother and father were unable to do so. While mother did 

successfully complete a required four hour parenting class, mother and father failed to 

complete any other counseling sessions and classes they were ordered to complete. Ms. 
6. 

Alexander opined that it was in the children’s best interests to be placed in the permanent 

custody of the Department. 

{¶ 15} Dr. Lisa Stanford is the Division Director of Neurobehavioral Health at 

Akron Children’s Hospital. Dr. Stanford testified that Ja.V. needed structure and stability 

in order to control her current and emotional behavioral issues. She opined that 

regression occurred after visitation with her parents. She indicated that if the goal was 

not reunification, then her recommendation would be to terminate visitation to limit the 

emotional and medical damage to Ja.V. 

{¶ 16} Tara Sturts is a Child Abuse and Neglect Investigator. Ms. Sturts testified 

that mother and father were not consistent with their visitations. Sometimes, mother did 

not attend because of outstanding warrants for her arrest. When they did show up, 

mother and father either screened positive for drugs or refused to submit to the screen. 

{¶ 17} Mother tested positive for cocaine and heroin in May 2014. In July of that 

year, she tested positive for opiates and Oxycodone. In October 2015, mother testified 

positive for heroin. Mother tested positive for morphine on October 6, 2015. 

{¶ 18} Father submitted to a substance abuse assessment on September 8, 2015, 

and was referred to a recovery group. However, father never attended the group or 

submitted to required counseling. 

{¶ 19} Ms. Sturts testified, in detail, that mother and father had several different 

residences throughout her involvement with the case. She further testified that neither 

mother nor father were consistently employed. 
7. 

{¶ 20} On March 4, 2016, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the 

Department’s motion for permanent custody. The court found that under R.C. 

2151.414(E), the children could not be placed with either of their parents within a 

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, and that under R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1), a grant of permanent custody to the Department was in the children’s 

best interest. In support of its decision, the trial court explained, 

{¶ 21} After considering all the required factors listed in R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1), the Court clearly and convincingly finds that placing all of the 

children in the permanent custody of [the Department] is in the children’s best 

interest. This finding is supported by the testimony of HCDJFS social workers, 

the children’s pediatrician, the children’s pediatric neuropsychologist, the 

children’s foster parents, probation officers, law enforcement officers, 

development specialists and the children’s guardian ad litem. The children are all 

now receiving necessary treatment, regularly attending school and otherwise 

thriving in their respective homes. The stability experienced by the children in last 

two years has permitted them to confront their developmental delays and other 

permanent conditions and fulfill their potential in spite of their difficulties. 

Returning the children to the custody of their parents at any time in the foreseeable 

future would certainly mean a return to a pattern of missed appointments, noncompliance with treatment and overall regression. 
8. 

{¶ 22} Mother and father appealed and advance one assignment of error for our 

review. 

Assignment of Error 

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL 

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

Standard of Review 

{¶ 23} Before a trial court may terminate parental rights and award permanent 

custody of a child to the 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, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable 

time or should not 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). In re R.L., 9th Dist. 

Summit Nos. 27214, 27233, 2014-Ohio-3117, ¶ 22, citing R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 

2151.414(B)(2); In re Williams, 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996). 

{¶ 24} A trial court’s determination in a permanent custody case will not be 

reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.H., 

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11. The factual findings of a trial 
9. 

court are presumed correct since, as the trier of fact, it is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence and evaluate the testimony. In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337, 342, 648 N.E.2d 

576 (3d Dist.1994). Moreover, “[e]very reasonable presumption must be made in favor 

of the judgment and the findings of facts [of the trial court].” Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 

Ohio St.3d 12, 19, 526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988). Thus, judgments supported by some 

competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the case are not against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. 

{¶ 25} Here, the trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test 

was satisfied as to appellants by a finding that the children could not be placed with either 

parent in a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. See R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a). A trial court may base its decision on the first prong upon the 

existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one factor alone 

will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. See In re C.F., 113 Ohio 

St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50; In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 

661 N.E.2d 738 (1996). Here, the trial court found that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), and 

(8) applied to mother and father. 

Failure to Remedy Conditions 

{¶ 26} In regard to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), mother and father first argue that the 

Department failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the home they were 

living in at the time of the hearing was not suitable for the family. 
10. 

{¶ 27} R.C. 2151.414(E) provides, in relevant part: 

(1) 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. 

{¶ 28} Throughout their involvement with the Department, the children lacked 

consistent attendance at school due to the family’s housing issues and frequent moves. 

{¶ 29} At the time of the hearing, mother and father were living in a house rented 

by the children’s maternal grandmother. The Department did not provide any testimony 

related to the size or condition of the upstairs of the home. Neither the guardian ad litem 

nor the Department’s child abuse and neglect investigator ever went into the home. And, 

while the Department never gained access to the entire living area of the home, they 

concluded that the home provided inadequate space for the 15 individuals (4 adults and 

11 children) residing there. The owner of the home indicated the home contained just 
11. 

over 1100 square feet of living space and had three bedrooms. The record contains some 

competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that mother and father 

continuously and repeatedly failed to provide suitable stable housing for the children. 

{¶ 30} In their second argument under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), mother and father 

argue that the Department failed to use diligent efforts in assisting the parents in 

remedying the housing problem. Specifically, they assert that the only assistance the 

parents were given was a referral to Metropolitan Housing Authority. R.C. 

2151.414(E)(1) requires “reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to 

assist the parents” as part of a determination of whether the child cannot be placed with 

either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. After our 

review of the record, we find that there is some competent, credible evidence supporting 

the trial court’s inferred finding that the housing authority referral constitutes reasonable 

case planning and diligent efforts on behalf of the Department. 

The Parents’ Chemical Dependency 

{¶ 31} In regard to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), father argues that he tested negative for 

all illegal substances for the 12 months prior to trial and that the trial court’s finding that 

he suffered from chemical dependency that rendered him unable to provide for his 

children was erroneous. In response, appellee asserts that when father stopped using 

drugs, he started abusing alcohol and accumulated several disorderly conduct charges 

relating to his alcohol addiction. 
12. 

{¶ 32} In turn, mother argues that her own health, transportation, and scheduling 

issues contributed to her not completing substance abuse counseling by the time of trial. 

She asserts the Department failed to demonstrate “the effect of any chemical dependency 

of Mother on the Children.” In response, appellee asserts 

{¶ 33} R.C. 2151.414(E) provides, in relevant part: 

(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental 

retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is 

so severe that it makes parent unable to provide an adequate permanent 

home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year 

after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or 

for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised 

Code; 

{¶ 34} The record contains some competent, credible evidence to support the trial 

court’s finding that mother and father suffer from chemical dependency “that is so severe 

that it renders them unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child[ren] at 

the present time and, as anticipated, within one year.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(2). 

{¶ 35} While father’s drug abuse may have subsided during the Department’s 

involvement with the case, his use of alcohol did not. Officer Zach O’Neil testified that 

on April 24, 2015, he picked up father after he received a complaint about a subject 

laying in a tree lawn. Officer O’Neil detected a strong odor of alcohol on father’s breath 

and a bottle of vodka inside his coat pocket. Officer Todd Corbin testified that on July 3, 
13. 

2015, he arrested a “highly intoxicated” father for disorderly conduct. Once father was 

taken to the Huron County Jail, his behavior became agitated. Father urinated on the 

building’s intercom system. Futhermore, father was required by the case plan to attend a 

recovery group, but he did not participate after his September 8, 2015 assessment. 

{¶ 36} Throughout the case, mother tested positive for heroin, morphine, 

Tramadol, and Ultram. Mother attended two counseling sessions and tested positive for 

drugs at both sessions. She missed several counseling sessions. 

{¶ 37} After our review of the record, we find that there is some competent, 

credible evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that mother and father suffered from 

chronic dependency and would not be able to provide an adequate permanent home for 

the children within one year of the trial. 

The Parents’ Lack of Commitment Toward the Children 

{¶ 38} Mother and father contest the trial court’s findings that they have 

historically displayed a “lack of commitment toward the children,” and a finding under 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(8) that mother and father “withheld medical treatment” from the 

children. 

{¶ 39} R.C. 2151.414(E) provides, in relevant part: 

(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the 

child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child 

when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide 

an adequate permanent home for the child; 
14. 

* * * 

(8) The parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment or food 

from the child when the parent has the means to provide the treatment or 

food, and, in the case of withheld medical treatment, the parent withheld it 

for a purpose other than to treat the physical or mental illness or defect of 

the child by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the 

tenets of a recognized religious body. 

{¶ 40} Dr. Jungblut’s testified that the parents’ response to the children’s 

developmental delays, and significant medical and dental conditions was inadequate. 

Thus, some competent, credible evidence exists to support the trial court’s findings in 

relation to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (8). 

{¶ 41} In regard to the second prong of the permanent custody test, the trial court 

found that it was in the best interest for all the children to be placed into the permanent 

custody of the Department. Mother and father did not specifically challenge this finding. 

Upon our review of the record, we find some competent, credible evidence supports the 

trial court’s finding that placing the children in the permanent custody of the Department 

is in their best interest. During the two years the children were in foster care, they 

received necessary medical and dental care, they attend school regularly, and are thriving 

in their respective homes. Accordingly, mother and father’s sole assignment of error is 

not well-taken. 
15. 

{¶ 42} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Huron County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellants are ordered to pay the costs of 

this appeal in accordance with App.R. 24. The clerk is ordered to serve all parties with 

notice of this decision. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.