[Cite as In re G.H. , 2023
- Ohio
- 420.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: G.H. & J.M. JUDGES : Hon. William B. Hoffman , P.J

. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney , J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin , J. Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, & 2022 CA 00075 O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. F2019

- 0697 & F2019

- 0698

JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 10, 2023 APPEARANCES: For Licking County Job & Family Services For Mother C.M. JENNY WELLS ROBIN LYN GREEN, ESQ. Licking County Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 157 Newark, Ohio 43058 J. BRANDON PIGG, ESQ. ROBERT N. ABDALLA For Father J.M. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney’s 20 S. Second Street JERMAIN L. COLQUITT Newark, Ohio 43055 33 W. Main Street

– Suite #109 Newark, Ohio 43055 Guardian ad Litem CAROLYNN FITTRO 193 Town Center Loop Pataskala, Ohio 43062Licking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 2

Hoffman , P. J. {¶1} Appellant

- mother, C.M., and A ppellant

- father, J.M., appeal the August 16, 2022 judgment entries of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, Juvenile Division, terminating their parental rights and granting permanent custody of their two children to appellee, Licking County J ob and Family Services. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} On December 9, 2019, A ppellee removed two children, G.M. , born May
2018 , and J.M. , born November 2019, from their P arents' care pursuant to emergency ex parte orders of removal

. P arents were involved in a domestically violent relationship and the home was in a deplorable condition. P arents each have developmental issues. By orders filed December 10, 2019, the children were placed in A ppellee's emergency shelter care custody. {¶3} On December 10, 2019, A ppel lee filed complaints alleging the children to be dependent. Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings before a magistrate were held on February 26, 2020. By decisions and judgment entries filed February 27, 2020, the trial court found the children to be de pendent, and placed the children in A ppellee's temporary custody. {¶4} On May 7, 2021, A ppellee filed motions for permanent custody of the children. Hearings before a magistrate were held on September 2, and 30, and November 29, 2021. By decisions filed Decem ber 30, 2021, the magistrate granted the motions for permanent custody. Mother filed objections, F ather did not. By judgment entries filed August 16, 2022, the trial court denied M other's objections and adopted the magistrate'sLicking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 3

decisions with a modificat ion to terminate all visitation and contact between P arents and the children. {¶5} Mother and F ather each filed two appeals, one for each child, and this matter is now before this C ourt for consideration. {¶6} Mother's assignment of error in Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061 and 2022 CA 00062 is as follows:

"THE TRIAL COURT'S ENTRY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE AGENCY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

{¶7} Father's assignments of error in Case Nos. 2022 CA 00074 and 2022 CA 00075 are as follows:

I. "LCDJFS DID NOT ENGAGE IN "REASONABLE CASE PLANNING" AND "DILIGENT EFFORTS" IN FACILITATING REUNIFICATION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO CONDUCT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BEFORE FILING FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY, AND AFTER CONDUCTING THE PSYCHOLOGIC AL THE AGENCY DID NOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION."
II. “ THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF J.M. AND G.M. IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR ANDLicking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 4

CONVINCING EVIDENCE. THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE THAT GRANTING THE MOTION WAS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INT EREST."

{¶8} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C)

. MOTHER'S APPEALS {¶9} In her sole assignment of error, M other claims the tri al court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to A ppellee is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. {¶10} At the outset, we note Mother has failed to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7). Said rule requires the brief of the a ppellant to include "[a]n argument containing the contentions of the a ppellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on whic h a ppellant relies." In her one

- page argument at page four of her brief, Mother argues in conclusory fashion, " The Appellant believes that portions of the transcript show that not all the essential elements of this case were found against her. The manife st weight of the evidence is in the favor of Appellant and thus the trial court's decision should be reversed." (Emphasis sic). Mother does not point to any portions of the transcript nor specify which element ( s ) have not been found against her. {¶11} Mother further argues at page four: "It is the Appellant's request that The Fifth District Court of Appeals review the entire record and transcript of the cases and determine independently as to whether the lower Court's E ntry granting permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial." It is this C ourt'sLicking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 5
function to review the record before us in order to consider the arguments presented by the parties. Mother’s "argument" is a broad gen eralization without any specifics. " If an argument exists that can support this assignment of error, it is not this court's duty to root it out." Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18349, 1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6, 1998). {¶12} Notwithstanding the failur e to follow App.R. 16(A)(7) and provide this C ourt with substantive argument and support, we find the trial court's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence pursuant to R.C. 2151.4 14(B)(1) (d). Said section states permanent custody may be granted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child and "[t]he child has been in the temporary c ustody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty

- two

- month period * * *. For the purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), "a child shall be considered to have entered
the t emporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the ch ild from home." {¶13} The children were removed from the home on December 9, 2019, sixty days following removal was February 7, 2020, the children were adjudicated and placed in
A ppellee's temporary custody on February 27, 2020, and the motion for permanent
cust ody was filed on May 7, 2021. As found by the trial court, the children have been in
A ppellee's custody for over twelve months of a consecutive twenty

- two

- month period. R.C. 2151.414(B )(1)(d)

. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, isLicking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 6
sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody

. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008 CA 00118, 2008

- Ohio

- 5458, ¶ 45

. {¶14} As for best interests pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), the trial court's findings are amply supported in the record. T. a t 266

- 282, 376, 429

- 432. {¶15} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate M other's parental rights and grant A ppellee permanent custody of the children. {¶16} Mother's sole assignment of error is de nied. FATHER'S APPEALS {¶17} In his first assignment of error, Father claims A ppellee did not engage in reasonable case planning and diligent efforts in facilitating reunification. {¶18} In his second assignment of error, Father claims the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to A ppellee is not supported by clear and convincing evidence and A ppellee did not prove the best interests of the children would be best served by granting permanent custody to A ppellee. {¶19} We disagree with both assignments of error. {¶20} At the outset, we note F ather failed to object to the magistrate's decision. Juv.R. 40 governs magistrates. Subsection (D)(3)(b)(iv) states: "Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assig n as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii) , unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) ."Licking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 7
{¶21} Plain error is defined in Goldfuss v. Davidson , 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) , syllabus, as "e rror, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." {¶22} Father did not make any a rguments claiming plain error. " Appellant's failure to argue plain error at this juncture is fatal as we are constrained to review the trial court's actions for plain error only and appellant has failed to cite legal authority and develop an argument as t o the existence of an obvious defect in the proceedings that affected appellant's substantial rights." A.A. v. F.A., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAF 10 0079,
2019

- Ohio

- 1706, ¶ 22 , citing State v. Benitez

- Maranon , 9th Dist. Summit No. 26461,
2014

- Ohio

- 3575, ¶ 7

. {¶23} As found in M other's appeal, the children have been in A ppellee's temporary custody for over twelve months of a consecu tive twenty

- two

- month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) . In addition, the trial court's findings as to best interests pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), are amply supported in the record. {¶24} W e do not find either of F ather's assignments of error to rise to the level of plain error. {¶25} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate F ather's parental rights and grant A ppellee permanent custody of the children.Licking County, Case No s

. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &

2022 CA 00075 8
{¶26} Father's Assignments of Error I and II are denied. {¶27} The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, Juvenile Division are hereby affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P. J. Delaney, J. and Baldwin, J. concur