[Cite as In re E.D., 2014-Ohio-4600.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: E.D. : 

 : C.A. CASE NO. 26261 

 : T.C. NO. 2012-8997 

 : (Civil appeal from Common 

 Pleas Court, Juvenile 

Division) 

 : 

 : 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 17th day of October , 

2014. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084 and TIFFANY C. ALLEN, Atty. Reg. 

No. 0089369, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, 

Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Attorneys for Appellee Montgomery County Children Services 

MARSHALL G. LACHMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0076791, 75 North Pioneer Blvd., 

Springboro, Ohio 45066 

Attorney for Appellant Mother 

PAULA GOOD, 380 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Guardian Ad Litem 

 . . . . . . . . . . 
2

FROELICH, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted permanent custody of her 

daughter, E.D., to Montgomery County Children Services (“MCCS”). For the 

following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. E.D.’s paternity 

has not been established, and her father is not a party to this action. 

{¶ 2} E.D. was born, prematurely, in October 2012; she remained in the 

hospital for over two months due to medical issues related to her prematurity and a 

heart condition. During this period, Mother visited approximately ten times and did 

not learn to manage E.D.’s medical needs; the hospital staff contacted MCCS prior 

to E.D.’s release due to concerns over Mother’s ability to care for the child at home. 

 MCCS obtained interim temporary custody in January 2013, and E.D. was placed 

in foster care. E.D. was adjudicated to be dependent in February 2013, and 

temporary custody was awarded to MCCS in April 2013. A case plan was 

developed with several objectives focused on reunification of E.D. with her mother. 

{¶ 3} In November 2013, MCCS filed a motion for permanent custody of 

E.D.; the supporting affidavit stated that permanent custody was in E.D.’s best 

interest because of her medical needs, coupled with Mother’s failure to complete 

any of her case plan objectives and to obtain the services recommended for her. 

The magistrate conducted a hearing on January 22, 2014, and filed a decision 

recommending that permanent custody be granted to MCCS. Mother filed 

objections to the magistrate’s decision. On May 20, 2014, the trial court overruled 

Mother’s objections and granted MCCS’s motion for permanent custody. 
3

{¶ 4} Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising one 

assignment of error. 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT 

CUSTODY OF E.D. TO [MCCS] AS [MCCS] FAILED TO PROVE BY 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A 

DISPOSITION WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. 

{¶ 5} Mother contends that MCCS failed to prove that it was in E.D.’s best 

interest to grant it permanent custody. She contends that reasonable efforts were 

not made to reunify the child with Mother, and that E.D. could have been placed 

with her maternal grandmother, Angela. 

{¶ 6} The United States Supreme Court has recognized that parents’ 

interest in the care, custody, and control of their children “is perhaps the oldest of 

the fundamental liberty interests recognized” by the court. Troxel v. Granville, 530 

U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Parents who are suitable 

persons have a “paramount” right to the custody of their minor children. In re 

Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 97, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (1977). 

{¶ 7} In a proceeding for the termination of parental rights, all the court’s 

findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(E); 

In re J.R., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21749, 2007-Ohio-186, ¶ 9. However, the 

court’s decision to terminate parental rights will not be overturned if the record 

contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm 

belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of 

parental rights have been established. In re Forrest S., 102 Ohio App.3d 338, 
4

344-345, 657 N.E.2d 307(6th Dist.1995). We review the trial court’s judgment for 

an abuse of discretion. See In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 

N.E.2d 816, at ¶ 48 (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to trial court’s findings 

under R.C. 2151.414). 

{¶ 8} As is relevant to this case, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) states that “the 

court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines * * 

*, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant 

permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent 

custody,” and that, where the child is not abandoned or orphaned and has not been 

in the temporary custody of a public children services agency for twelve or more 

months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, “the child cannot be placed with 

either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with 

the child’s parents.” 

{¶ 9} R.C. 2151.414(D) directs the trial court to consider all relevant 

factors when determining the best interest of the child, including but not limited to 

“(1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, siblings, 

relatives, foster caregivers, out-of-home providers, and any other person who may 

significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the 

child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the 

child; (3) the custodial history of the child, * * *; [and] (4) the child’s need for a 

legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be 

achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency.” R.C. 2151.414(E) 

identifies factors for determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed 
5

with either parent within a reasonable time. If a court finds, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors exists, the court 

shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. In re H.T. & Z.T., 2d 

Dist. Greene Nos. 10-CA-29, 10-CA-30, 2011-Ohio-1285, ¶ 23; In re K.B.F., 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 24891, 2012-Ohio-1855, ¶ 51. These factors include, 

among all other relevant factors, the parent’s failure continuously and repeatedly to 

substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside the 

home, severe chronic mental illness or chemical dependency of the parent that 

makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home at the present 

time or, as anticipated, within one year of the hearing, the parent’s abuse or neglect 

of the child, and the parent’s demonstrated lack of commitment toward the child by 

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

that show an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child. 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(4). 

{¶ 10} Consideration of placement of a child with a relative is not a 

statutory requirement. In re F.C., 2d Dist. Montgomery. No. 23803, 

2010-Ohio-3113, ¶ 24. “That possibility is a matter that ought to be considered in 

connection with the child’s interaction and relationship with the child’s parents, 

relatives, foster caregivers, out-of-home providers, and any other person who may 

significantly affect the child.” Id., citing R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) and In re C.W., 2d 

Dist. Montgomery. No. 20140, 2004-Ohio-2040. 

{¶ 11} The following evidence was presented at the hearing: 
6

{¶ 12} Jennifer Reynolds, an early intervention coordinator with Help Me 

Grow, testified that E.D. was referred to her agency as an infant by the hospital at 

which she was a patient, due to the child’s prematurity of 12 weeks. E.D., who 

was 15 months old at the time of the hearing, continued to receive services from 

Help Me Grow at the time of the hearing. According to Reynolds, E.D. faced 

significant medical challenges and was treated by a cardiologist, an eye doctor, a 

developmental pediatrician, the “feeding therapy team” at Children’s Medical 

Center, and occupational, physical, and speech therapists. There had been 

improvement in some areas, such as the tracking of E.D.’s eyes, since birth, but 

she continued to be symptomatic in other areas, such as stiffness. E.D. was 

treated at the cerebral palsy clinic, although she did not yet have a definitive 

diagnosis of cerebral palsy, and had made “outstanding progress.” 

{¶ 13} According to Reynolds, parents with a child in Help Me Grow are 

expected to work closely with the agency, doctors, and therapists to develop skills, 

exercises, daily routines, etc. Although the foster family had been doing this very 

consistently with E.D., Mother had not attended any appointments with E.D.’s seven 

specialists. Reynolds reached out to mother, reviewed the agency’s service plan 

with her, and discussed and wrote out strategies, so that Mother could interact with 

E.D. and help her develop. However, after one month, Reynolds was unable to get 

in contact with Mother for approximately 6 months, and did not hear from her during 

that time. Reynolds then successfully contacted Mother by phone, but was unable 

to set up a visitation appointment. Reynolds’ last contact with Mother was in 

September 2013. Reynolds had been unable to observe mother at visitation with 
7

E.D. 

{¶ 14} Reynolds testified that E.D.’s foster family was meeting her needs, 

and that Mother may also be able to do so with proper support, but Mother was not 

in regular contact with Help Me Grow. Reynolds testified that she had seen the 

foster family with E.D. 17 times over the course of 15 months; “they adore her” and 

invest a lot of time in her care. E.D. interacts well and positively with other children 

in the foster home and is very bonded, especially with the foster mother. 

According to Reynolds, the foster parents attend all of E.D.’s medical appointments 

and are “good advocates for her medical needs.” 

Jill Meitzner, E.D.’s MCCS caseworker, had worked with E.D. and her mother, who 

was 21 years old, for a year at the time of the hearing. Meitzner testified that, 

because of her premature birth, E.D. “had to be on a monitor, and she had acid 

reflux, so she would spit up and choke.” The hospital contacted MCCS prior to 

E.D.’s release because Mother had visited the child only ten times in a two-month 

period, and hospital staff were concerned that Mother was not familiar enough with 

E.D.’s care to take her home. 

{¶ 15} Meitzner worked with Mother on a case plan, which included: 1) 

completing parenting classes and being able to practice what she learned; 2) 

obtaining a mental health assessment and following its recommendations; 3) 

attending E.D.’s medical appointments and understanding her care; 4) maintaining 

income and stable housing; and 5) caring for her own medical needs, which 

included diabetes that had contributed to E.D.’s premature birth. Based on 

numerous conversations with Meitzner, Mother seemed to understand the case 
8

plan objectives. Meitzner testified that, “every time we would talk about what 

needed to be done, [Mother would say] she was going to do it the next week.” 

{¶ 16} After her first referral for parenting classes, Mother attended only 

one class. She was later re-referred for the classes by MCCS, but still did not 

attend. Mother attended only one parenting class during the pendency of the 

case. Mother also missed appointments with Meitzner and visits with E.D. She 

was informed of many of E.D.’s medical appointments, but failed to attend any of 

them, even when E.D.’s foster mother offered to drive Mother to the appointments. 

E.D.’s maternal grandmother, Angela, with whom Mother was then living, did attend 

a couple of the medical appointments. 

{¶ 17} Mother eventually obtained a mental health assessment at 

Sojourner’s, which showed that she had “a cannabis dependence and depression;” 

the assessor was concerned that she was “self-medicating” and recommended that 

she attend weekly sessions and have drug testing done weekly. Mother did not 

comply with these recommendations. 

{¶ 18} Mother also did not obtain steady employment and did not receive 

any financial benefits that would allow her to support herself or E.D. Meitzner 

provided referrals to the Job Center and to specific employment opportunities, but 

Mother failed to follow through. Mother had briefly obtained independent housing 

(under her mother’s name), but there were problems with nonpayment of the 

electricity and rent, the residence became uninhabitable, and Mother moved in with 

friends and family. MCCS had difficulty contacting Mother during this period. 

Mother was living with her mother and had not obtained stable, independent 
9

housing, as required by the case plan. 

{¶ 19} At the time of the hearing, Mother had been staying with Angela 

(her mother) since she (Mother) was shot a few months earlier. Angela’s boyfriend 

and Mother’s best friend also lived in the home. Meitzner expressed concern 

about Angela’s boyfriend because, when Mother was a teenager, she had made 

allegations of voyeurism and sexual contact against the boyfriend, which led to 

Mother’s removal from Angela’s home. MCCS’s home study on Angela and the 

boyfriend was not approved, based on Angela’s “history of mental health” and the 

concern of past sexual abuse of Mother by Angela’s boyfriend. Meitzner had not 

been to Angela’s home herself, although two visits had been scheduled, because 

Mother had cancelled the appointments. 

{¶ 20} Mother did not visit with E.D. regularly while the child was in foster 

care. Meitzner testified that she had originally scheduled two two-hour visits with 

E.D. weekly, but Mother asked to reduce the visitation to one visit per week 

because “it was hard for her to get to the visits” and she was “overwhelmed”; then 

she canceled approximately three visits per month, leaving only one visit per month. 

 During a three-month period from August to November 2013, Mother did not visit 

E.D. at all. Meitzner also testified that E.D. became upset during visits with 

Mother, which was concerning because of the child’s heart condition; Meitzner 

believed that E.D.’s distress was attributable, in part, to the child’s unfamiliarity with 

Mother due to the infrequency of her visits, and Meitzner encouraged Mother to visit 

more often. Meitzner believed that Mother was bonded with E.D., because Mother 

became emotional when she saw the child, but she did not believe that E.D. had 
10

bonded with Mother. 

{¶ 21} Mother did not provide Meitzner with any verification that she was 

managing her own health issues, as required under the case plan. 

{¶ 22} In sum, Meitzner testified that Mother had not satisfied any of the 

case plan objectives, and Meitzner remained concerned about Mother’s ability to 

manage E.D.’s health needs. Mother did not have acceptable housing, had not 

followed through on mental health recommendations, did not have employment, 

and had not been consistent with visitation such that the child would be comfortable 

in her care. Mother’s general lack of follow-through with appointments was also 

cause for concern, due to E.D.’s medical needs and frequent doctor’s 

appointments. 

{¶ 23} According to Meitzner, E.D. was very bonded with her foster family, 

especially her foster mother, who spent a great deal of time and energy on her 

care, comfort, and therapy. Meitzner testified that the foster mother had “been an 

advocate for” Mother throughout the case, but “as things have progressed,” the 

foster mother did not want E.D. to leave her care; she wanted to offer E.D. a stable 

environment by adopting her. No other relatives were in a position to and/or had 

offered to take E.D. Meitzner testified that she did not think Mother’s inconsistency 

in attending appointments with or on behalf of E.D. had improved since the case 

began or would improve in the foreseeable future, and that it would be in E.D.’s 

best interests to grant permanent custody to MCCS. 

{¶ 24} Angela, E.D.’s maternal grandmother, reported “sporadic” visits with 

E.D. at the foster home; she had seen E.D. three times in the course of one year, 
11

although she stated that the foster family permitted her and Mother to visit at any 

time. Angela stated that she had an interest in raising E.D., but her home study 

had not been approved. She did not believe the allegation of inappropriate sexual 

conduct against her boyfriend that had been the cause of (then-teenaged) Mother’s 

removal from her home. 

{¶ 25} Mother testified that she was living with Angela at the time of the 

hearing. She had worked two jobs while pregnant with E.D. – at Arby’s and as a 

janitor at Sinclair Community College – and she had an interview scheduled at 

Cracker Barrel on the afternoon of the hearing. She admitted to occasionally 

smoking marijuana, but offered to “quit, though, if need be.” Mother stated that 

she had lost some weight, and she managed her diabetes through Metformin pills, 

rather than insulin. 

{¶ 26} Mother testified that she had “made up” the sexual allegations 

against her “stepfather” as a teenager because she was “unruly,” angry, and 

jealous of her mother’s attention; “he never * * * tried to do anything to me like that.” 

 Mother testified that she did not recall any inappropriate sexual condact by her 

mother’s boyfriend, such as “French kissing” or other advances (as she previously 

alleged), but then stated that nothing like that had happened “since she was 

younger.” She also stated that she “tr[ies] to stay away from him.” 

{¶ 27} Mother denied that she had requested any reduction in visitation; 

she testified that visitation was reduced to one day per week at the caseworker’s 

suggestion. Mother testified that she did not feel overwhelmed or scared when her 

daughter cried during visits, but she did not like to let the crying continue due to the 
12

child’s heart condition. Mother admitted that she had not paid any child support 

and that her visitation with E.D. had not been consistent; she also stated that E.D.’s 

foster mother had informed her (Mother) of the scheduling of medical 

appointments, but that she had never gone to an appointment. 

{¶ 28} Paula Good, the guardian ad litem, investigated a possible family 

placement with Mother’s aunt. 1 Based on a number of factors, including an 

impending move, the aunt indicated that it would not be possible for her to take 

E.D. Good filed a report with the court in March 2013 in which she recommended 

that E.D. stay in MCCS’s temporary custody, because it was in her best interest to 

do so. She stated at the hearing that she had visited with E.D. at the foster home 

every month, and that her assessment that placement with MCCS served E.D.’s 

best interest had not changed; she recommended that MCCS be granted 

permanent custody of E.D. 

{¶ 29} Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion 

that granting permanent custody to MCCS was in E.D.’s best interest. The 

caseworker testified that Mother had failed to complete any of her case plan 

objectives, and Mother acknowledged her failure to satisfy at least several of the 

objectives. At the time of the hearing, Mother did not have a job or independent 

housing, she had not completed parenting classes or the recommendations from 

her mental health assessment, she had not consistently visited with E.D., and she 

had not attended any of E.D.’s medical appointments or learned how to care for 

E.D. 
13

{¶ 30} Mother’s objections and her appellate brief assign blame for the lack 

of progress on Mother’s case plan objectives to MCCS, by asserting that MCCS did 

not make reasonable efforts to help her, but the record refutes this assertion. The 

trial court found that MCCS worked toward reunification with the family, that the 

caseworker met with Mother several times to discuss the case plan objectives, and 

that Mother was referred to several service providers in relation to the case plan 

objectives. The trial court reasonably concluded that MCCS had made reasonable 

efforts at reunification and, implicitly, that Mother’s failure to satisfy the objectives 

was not due to lack of effort on the part of MCCS. Given Mother’s minimal 

progress, if any, toward completing the case plan objectives over the course of 

one year, the trial court also reasonably concluded that E.D. could not be reunified 

with Mother within a reasonable time. 

{¶ 31} Finally, Mother suggests that her mother, Angela, should have been 

granted custody of E.D., as an alternative to granting permanent custody to MCCS. 

 However, a home study concluded that Angela’s home was not an appropriate 

placement for E.D. Angela’s boyfriend, who lived in and owned the home, had 

been accused of sexual impropriety by Mother when she was a teenager; this 

incident had led to Mother’s removal from the home by MCCS. Although Mother 

recanted and Angela discredited Mother’s prior claims against the boyfriend, these 

concerns provided a reasonable basis for MCCS’s and the trial court’s conclusions 

that placement with Angela was not in E.D.’s best interest. 

{¶ 32} The assignment of error is overruled. 

 1

The “aunt” is also referred to in the record as a family friend. 
14

{¶ 33} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

FAIN, J. and HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Carley J. Ingram 

Tiffany C. Allen 

Marshall G. Lachman 

Paula Good 

Hon. Anthony Capizzi