[Cite as In re M.J., 2015-Ohio-3327.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: M.J. 

 R.J. 

 I.S. 

 I.S. 

 W.W. 

 R.R. 

C.A. No. 27741 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE Nos. DN 13-4-234 

 DN 13-4-235 

 DN 13-4-236 

 DN 13-4-237 

 DN 13-4-238 

 DN 13-4-239 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: August 19, 2015 

 

HENSAL, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Cedrina S., (“Mother”) appeals from a judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights to her six minor 

children and placed them in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services 

(“CSB”). This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Cedrina S. is the mother of six children: M.J., born October 23, 1998; R.J., born 

November 23, 2000; twins I-h.S. and I-c.S., born January 8, 2004; W.W., born March 6, 2007; 

and R.R., born May 14, 2008. Robert J. is the father of M.J. and R.J. Warren W. is the father of 

W.W. and R.R. The father of the twins was never determined. None of the fathers or alleged 
2 

 

fathers of the children actively participated in the case or appealed from the judgment of the trial 

court. 

{¶3} This matter is the second custody case involving CSB and this family. In the first 

case, Mother reportedly left the children alone very late in the evening of March 22, 2011, to go 

food shopping, when police found one of the children outside the home, pounding on the door to 

get inside. The police discovered that the home was in deplorable condition and that there were 

insufficient beds for the children. All six children were removed from the home at that time, and 

CSB became involved. After a year of case planning services, the court found that Mother was 

keeping appointments for the children and that the condition of the home was appropriate. The 

children were gradually returned to Mother’s custody, and all of them were returned by May 11, 

2012. 

{¶4} Before long, CSB was again receiving concerning reports about the family. The 

reports alleged that the children were not regularly attending school or were not arriving on time, 

were falling asleep in school, and may not have been receiving adequate food at home. Several 

of the children claimed they were staying up all night to make sure they got to school because 

Mother did not get up with them and they were not permitted to wake her. R.J. was responsible 

for giving I-h.S. his prescribed medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) 

and for supervising I-h.S.’s home-reading each evening. In turn, I-h.S. was responsible for 

waking his kindergarten brother, W.W., helping him get ready for school, and walking him to 

school. Mother was said to be not attending meetings at school or taking the children to their 

counseling appointments. Significantly, CSB social workers made multiple visits to the home to 

follow up on these concerns, but Mother refused to grant the agency access to the home or the 

children. 
3 

 

{¶5} Accordingly, on April 3, 2013, based on concerns that the children’s basic needs 

were not being met, CSB filed a complaint in juvenile court, alleging that all of the children were 

dependent. The agency sought orders for access and protective supervision. The court 

immediately ordered Mother to provide CSB with access to evaluate the condition and 

environment of the children. Thereafter, following a hearing and upon Mother’s agreement, the 

trial court granted temporary protective supervision to CSB. 

{¶6} At adjudication, the magistrate found that fifteen-year-old M.J. had experienced 

several psychiatric hospitalizations as well as residential treatment. Her whereabouts were 

currently unknown, and a warrant was pending for her arrest based on a probation violation. The 

twins had been without their prescribed medications for ADHD and medical attention for some 

time. The behavior of one of the twins, I-c.S., had deteriorated to the extent that he was 

transferred to an alternative school. Both of the twins as well as W.W. had excessive absences 

and multiple tardy arrivals at school. Mother was often late in picking up the children after 

school. CSB service providers claimed that Mother reported having difficulty managing the 

children’s behavior. The children were adjudicated dependent. 

{¶7} The agency changed its dispositional request from protective supervision to 

temporary custody, and the trial court granted temporary custody to CSB at the time of 

disposition. The trial court also adopted the case plan proposed by CSB as an order of the court. 

{¶8} Mother’s case plan, as amended, required her to obtain and maintain a safe, clean, 

and stable home; comply with all medical, dental, and developmental appointments for the 

children; follow the recommendations from the children’s therapeutic providers; attend all school 

meetings regarding the children; provide for the children’s emotional and financial needs; 

complete a psychological/parenting evaluation and follow all recommendations. Upon 
4 

 

completion of the evaluation, the following recommendations were made: successfully complete 

individual mental health counseling aimed at developing insight and accountability for her 

responsibilities as a parent, as well as developing pro-social behaviors and reducing 

criminogenic behaviors; successfully complete parenting classes to learn basic care of children 

and develop effective parenting skills; and submit to regular drug screens due to minimization of 

past negative behaviors. 

{¶9} The trial court granted a six-month extension of temporary custody in March 

2014. On July 7, 2014, CSB moved for permanent custody of the six children. Following a 

hearing, the trial court granted permanent custody to CSB and terminated the parents’ parental 

rights. Mother has appealed and has assigned one error for review. 

II. 

Assignment of Error 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION WHICH TERMINATED 

MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AND PLACED THE CHILDREN IN THE 

PERMANENT CUSTODY OF SUMMIT COUNTY CHILDREN’S SERVICES 

AS IT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶10} Mother contends that the permanent custody decision of the trial court is against 

the weight of the evidence. Revised Code Section 2151.414(B)(1) establishes a two-part test for 

courts to apply when determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody to a public 

services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: 

(1) one of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) permanent 

custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing evidence 

is that which is sufficient to produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as 

to the facts sought to be established. Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three 

of the syllabus. 
5 

 

{¶11} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was 

satisfied because the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for at least 12 of the 

prior 22 months. Mother has not contested that finding, but has instead challenged the finding 

that permanent custody is in the best interest of the children. When determining whether a grant 

of permanent custody is in the best interests of children, the juvenile court must consider all the 

relevant factors, including those enumerated in Section 2151.414(D): the interaction and 

interrelationships of the children, the wishes of the children, the custodial history of the children, 

and the children’s need for permanence in their lives. See In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 

24834 & 24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11. “Although the trial court is not precluded from 

considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to consider all of the 

enumerated factors.” In re Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20711, 2002 WL 5178, *3, (Jan. 2, 

2002); see also In re Palladino, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2002-G-2445, 2002-Ohio-5606, ¶ 24. 

{¶12} At the time of the permanent custody hearing, the children ranged in age from 6 to 

16. All but the youngest have been placed in therapeutic foster homes. There is no evidence of a 

significant bond between any of the children and their fathers or with any other friends or 

relatives besides Mother. Because the children have significant but varied needs, we address 

them separately. 

{¶13} The oldest child, M.J., has been diagnosed with suicidal ideations and an alter 

ego. She has had several psychiatric hospitalizations. At the beginning of this case, she 

exhibited aggressive behavior and was placed in Belmont Pines, a children’s behavioral health 

hospital. She was later placed in a therapeutic “mentor home” and, according to the caseworker, 

has done well in that placement, with progress in counseling and improved behavior. She has an 

Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) in school to address mental health concerns. 
6 

 

{¶14} R.J., the next oldest child, has been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and 

symptoms of depression. He was placed with W.W. at one point, but was moved because of his 

aggressive behavior towards W.W. He is engaged in therapy with Barbara Casline. The 

guardian ad litem described R.J. as being much improved, despite a recent regression that he 

believes is related to the permanent custody hearing and the uncertainty about his future. 

{¶15} The two youngest children, W.W. and R.R., are also engaged in therapy with Ms. 

Casline. Eight-year-old W.W. has been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. He did not 

speak much at first, but his language and social skills have improved. He has difficulty 

demonstrating his emotions and has some acting-out behaviors. W.W. has had a difficult 

adjustment and has been in a couple different placements. He is currently placed with a foster 

mother who is in her 60s, and he is doing well there. He resides on the same street as R.J., and 

W.W. is said to now enjoy spending time with R.J. 

{¶16} Six-year-old R.R. has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Ms. Casline is 

attempting to get her to express her feelings and to decrease her emotional outbursts. R.R. has 

had a difficult time adjusting to the removal from her home and dealing with the uncertainty of 

where she will be living. She enjoys visits with Mother and is sad when Mother misses visits or 

they are cancelled. R.R. often talks about Mother and her siblings. 

{¶17} Ms. Casline believes the three children with whom she has worked, R.J., W.W., 

and R.R., have all made progress, but does not anticipate discharging any of them from therapy 

soon. She believes continued therapy would be beneficial for them and states that they need 

stability. 

{¶18} The twins are the middle children. Both of them take several prescription 

medications daily. Both had mental health assessments in 2013 and have been engaged in 
7 

 

therapy since then. Psychiatrist Elizabeth Stern testified that both boys have difficulty managing 

anger and feelings, expressing themselves, solving problems, getting along with peers, and 

communicating with adults. Both boys have been diagnosed with ADHD and have IEPs at 

school. In addition, Dr. Stern diagnosed I-c.S. with mild mental retardation and rule-out of 

pervasive developmental disorder. He receives mentoring and coaching for autism spectrum 

symptoms. I-c.S. is extremely angry and aggressive, and he has been violent to himself, his 

brother, peers, and adults at school. His progress has been difficult, but he has made some 

improvements in managing his anger. Dr. Stern diagnosed the other twin, I-h.S., with a mood 

disorder, along with symptoms of depression and anxiety. I-h.S. is a little more communicative 

than his twin and has done well in school. He tries to protect his twin brother and attempts to 

mitigate his behaviors. Since May 2014, he has refused to attend visits with Mother and his 

other siblings. 

{¶19} Allison Metz provides weekly therapy to both twins. In their sessions, she has 

focused on decreasing oppositional behaviors including verbal and physical aggression, 

improving social skills and ability to follow rules, and helping them communicate needs and 

feelings. Ms. Metz testified that it is still difficult for the boys to discuss their fears or emotions, 

and they speak little of Mother. 

{¶20} The psychiatrist, therapist, and guardian ad litem all emphasized that the twins 

should continue with their mental health treatment. According to the experts, the twins require a 

high level of involvement by their caregivers to tend to their multiple appointments, manage 

their medications, and maintain contact with their service providers. They need a structured 

environment, consistency and a lot of monitoring. Dr. Stern commented that “there are many 

loving parents who still cannot make that level of care possible.” 
8 

 

{¶21} The record reveals that Mother and the children share a close bond and the 

children also share a bond with each other. The children were said to always be excited to see 

Mother at visits. The visits were deemed appropriate, affectionate, and without problems except 

for some reports of behavioral issues surrounding visits. There were also allegations that Mother 

made unfulfilled promises of gifts and of their return to her home. 

{¶22} Despite testimony that Mother and the children were closely bonded and evidence 

that four of the children consistently wanted to return to Mother, the record reflects that the twins 

did not want to return to Mother and preferred to be adopted instead. The twins have behaved 

differently from each other in regard to their participation in visits. I-c.S. attended visits with 

Mother and his siblings throughout the case, although in October 2014, his visits were decreased 

in frequency from weekly to monthly on the recommendation of Dr. Stern based on reports of 

behavioral problems surrounding visits. Further, even if parental rights were terminated, I-c.S. 

expressed an interest in continuing to visit with Mother and his siblings. I-h.S., on the other 

hand, refused to attend any visits with his family from May 2014 until the close of the permanent 

custody hearing in February 2015, and he expressed no interest in future visits. 

{¶23} On appeal, Mother claims that the trial court failed to address what detrimental 

effects may have arisen due to the lack of visitation by I-h.S. Mother also claims that she was 

not aware that the matter was brought up to the trial court. In general, it is concerning to this 

Court when there is a lack of opportunity for children and parents to share visitation time when 

children are removed from the home of their parents and are in the temporary custody of a 

children services agency. In this case, the record demonstrates that CSB brought the issue of Ih.S.’s refusal to attend visits to the attention of the trial court and Mother by written notice filed 

on May 22, 2014. According to that notice, I-h.S. reported that Mother threatened him during a 
9 

 

visit and that he was afraid of her. The notice also indicated that the matter was being 

therapeutically addressed in the child’s weekly counseling sessions. Thereafter, the issue was 

judicially considered at a hearing before the magistrate on July 8, 2014. The record 

demonstrates that Mother and her attorney were present at the hearing. Based upon the evidence 

adduced, the magistrate found that I-h.S. was fearful of Mother and that Mother and R.J. had 

picked on him at visits. At that time, the court did not order the agency to require I-h.S to attend 

visits. 

{¶24} Mother did not object to the decision by the magistrate, nor did she file any 

subsequent motions with the court to require I-h.S. to either participate in visits or to otherwise 

pursue some sort of involvement with him, such as through joint counseling. Mother had an 

opportunity to cross-examine both the child’s psychiatrist and his counselor at the permanent 

custody hearing, but did little, if anything, to explore this issue with them. In fact, Mother’s 

attorney declined to pose any questions to the counselor. We agree with the caseworker that the 

lack of visitation for this amount of time is “upsetting.” Nevertheless, because Mother did not 

protect or pursue this issue before the trial court, perhaps making a tactical decision, we will not 

now speculate on the possible impact of the lack of visitation by this child upon him, his siblings, 

or the ultimate decision to terminate parental rights. 

{¶25} Despite the multitude of appointments, medical needs, and special needs of these 

children, Mother testified that she believes she can provide care for them. She points to the fact 

that the twins were born three months early and she cared for them. Also, she notes that she 

recently learned of services she can access to transport her children to their medical 

appointments. 
10 

 

{¶26} The record does not support a conclusion that Mother would be able to provide 

suitable care for her children on a permanent basis, however. Mother’s psychological evaluation 

indicated a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, with patterns of irresponsibility. The 

psychiatrist questioned Mother’s ability to understand basic parenting because Mother 

minimized the needs of her children even though they were quite serious. For example, Mother 

understood that M.J. had a mental health diagnosis and a history of psychological 

hospitalizations, but minimized whether that impacted her ability to babysit her siblings. In 

addition, the evaluation found that Mother had limited insight and judgment and tended to blame 

others for her problems. The evaluating psychologist found her to have a history of noncompliance with her children’s appointments. She was said to fail to plan ahead and have 

difficulty identifying the potential consequences of her actions. As a parent, she has failed to 

recognize her children’s needs, both medically and psychologically. 

{¶27} Furthermore, despite Mother’s claim that she substantially complied with her case 

plan and could have completed it within a six-month extension, the record reveals that she 

accomplished only minimal compliance with the objectives of her case plan. Mother has failed 

to demonstrate that she remedied the problems that caused the removal of the children or that she 

likely could have done so within the time of an extension. As to housing, Mother was transient 

for most of the case, staying with the maternal grandmother and friends until she obtained a lease 

on a home in October 2014, just one month prior to the start of the permanent custody hearing. 

The guardian ad litem and the caseworker expressed concern with the continued stability of this 

housing arrangement because Mother was not employed and had no income. Mother testified 

that her boyfriend of two years had paid the first few months of her rent and utility bills. Mother 

anticipated continuing to rely on the financial assistance of her current boyfriend along with 
11 

 

social security from the twins to maintain housing in the future. Her boyfriend does not reside in 

the home, is not on the lease, and is not the biological father of any of the children. 

{¶28} Mother has not secured employment during this case, except very briefly, and she 

provided no documentary evidence of that employment. Mother said that she has been too ill to 

hold a job but that she is nevertheless able to provide child care. Mother claims that her health 

has improved, and she expects to seek employment in the near future. At the same time, she has 

recently applied for social security disability insurance, has been in and out of the hospital during 

the last three months, and missed several recent visitations due to her health issues. 

{¶29} In further regard to her health, Mother explained that she has gotten sick every 

winter since 2012. Her physical condition renders her almost “immobile” during the winter 

months as she does not want to leave her home. Mother has admitted that her health has 

prevented her from working, attending counseling, and visiting her children on recent occasions. 

Mother testified that she has been diagnosed with hypokalemia, a potassium deficiency, which 

makes her muscles weak and causes disorientation. She has also been diagnosed with anemia, 

nausea, a benign pituitary tumor, chronic migraines, and anxiety. Mother claims to be unable to 

take buses because of breathing and heart issues, and she does not have a driver’s license. 

{¶30} In support of her argument that she substantially complied with her case plan, 

Mother points out that she completed the requested psychological/parenting evaluation. The 

results of that evaluation required Mother to engage in mental health counseling, do weekly drug 

testing, and complete parenting classes. Mother completed the intake procedure for mental 

health counseling but failed to engage in any counseling at all. According to the records 

custodian for Coleman Services at St. Thomas Hospital, Mother was discharged from that 

counseling program in February 2015, because of her failure to attend. This case plan objective 
12 

 

was intended to be directed largely at developing insight and accountability for Mother’s 

responsibilities as a parent. 

{¶31} Mother completed only one drug test, which was positive for benzodiazepines and 

opiates in November 2013. Mother claims the positive results were due to prescription 

medications but failed to provide documentary evidence of that and completed no further drug 

tests. The caseworker stated that there were no substance abuse concerns during the first case or 

in the complaint of the present case. The requirement appears to have been included as the result 

of a recommendation in Mother’s psychological/parenting evaluation. Accordingly, while 

substance abuse does not appear to be a significant issue in this case, Mother’s failure to produce 

a prescription for the drugs revealed by her drug test or to submit to any additional drug testing is 

troublesome. 

{¶32} Mother completed parenting classes at Helping Hearts in November 2014, but 

important concerns remain as to Mother’s ability to parent her children. Mother missed 28 of 85 

visits with her children, nearly one third of the scheduled visits. In the three months before the 

final day of the permanent custody hearing, Mother missed half of the 12 scheduled visits. 

Mother claims she missed these six recent visits due to illness and transportation problems, the 

same problems that existed at the beginning of the case. Mother failed to move beyond 

supervised visitation at the visitation center. 

{¶33} The caseworker testified, without objection, that she had requested a continuance 

in the midst of the permanent custody hearing from December 2014 until February 2015 “to give 

[M]other the benefit of the doubt” and give her an additional three months to work on her case 

plan objectives. Yet, during that time Mother made no meaningful progress on those obligations. 

In addition to her failure to regularly attend visits with her children, Mother failed to attend any 
13 

 

mental health counseling sessions. Mother attributes these failures to her health and lack of 

transportation. Thus, despite her claim that she is able to care for her children, there is little 

evidence that Mother is able to provide consistent and stable care for her children. 

{¶34} As discussed above, both twins expressed a desire to not return to Mother but, 

rather, to be adopted. The other four children have consistently expressed the wish to return to 

live with Mother. They conveyed their wishes to the guardian ad litem and, because his 

recommendation conflicted with those wishes, separate counsel was appointed to represent those 

four children. 

{¶35} The guardian ad litem testified at length explaining his position that permanent 

custody is in the best interests of the children. He agreed that there is a bond between Mother 

and the children. He reported that four of the children love their mother and “really, really want 

to be with her.” Nevertheless, he explained that the case is nearly two years old and that Mother 

has completed few matters on her case plan. He expressed concern with Mother’s ability to 

provide a stable, permanent home for her children for several reasons. Her housing is 

problematic because of Mother’s dependence on a boyfriend to finance it. Her current medical 

issues inhibit her ability to hold a job. Her failure to address the mental health component of her 

case plan raises questions. The children have mental health issues themselves, and Mother needs 

to understand her own mental health issues as well as how to parent her children. He stated that 

it is unclear how Mother would care for the children on a daily basis and address their medical 

issues. He did not believe she could care for the children given medical issues that currently 

prevent her from even getting out of the house to visit them. He believed that the four children 

(all but the twins) would be “a handful” for any adult to handle. 
14 

 

{¶36} The guardian ad litem stated that severing the parental bond could result in some 

adjustment problems for the children but specifically noted that the oldest child had “made 

peace” with the possibility that she may not be returned to Mother through her conversations 

with her therapist. He also believed that “all the current foster care providers, as well as the 

service providers are willing to work through any issues the children have.” He believes that the 

current foster parents would work together and provide an ongoing opportunity for the children 

to continue their relationships. He concluded that the children need permanency and 

recommended permanent custody as being in the best interests of the children. 

{¶37} The custodial history of the children indicates that they resided with Mother until 

they were removed from her home in March 2011. They were returned to her custody by May 

2012. The children were again removed in March 2013 in the present case and have remained in 

the custody of CSB until the permanent custody hearing, concluding in February 2015. Some of 

the children have been in multiple placements during the pendency of this case. They are 

currently placed in five different foster homes. 

{¶38} The evidence of record supports the conclusion that the only way to provide these 

children with a legally secure permanent placement is through permanent custody. The trial 

court properly found that Mother had not made substantial progress on her case plan and had not 

remedied the problems that caused removal. None of the fathers were interested or suitable for 

placement. Several relatives were considered for placement, but none were determined to be 

suitable. The caseworker testified that she believed permanent custody is in the best interests of 

all the children. She stated that Mother has had difficulty just taking care of herself, let alone six 

children with so many needs. These children have been in foster care for nearly three of the last 

four years. They have multiple needs that require numerous appointments and significant 
15 

 

attention. Mother has been unable to meet their needs in the past, and there is a lack of evidence 

to indicate that she can do so now. 

{¶39} Our review of the evidence supports the conclusion that permanent custody is in 

the best interests of the children. Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in 

reaching a similar conclusion. Thus, we cannot conclude that the decision of the trial court was 

against the weight of the evidence. Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶40} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

 Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 
16 

 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, J. 

MOORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

HOLLY KEHRES FARAH, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

BRENDON KOHRS, Attorney at Law, for Children. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. 

MICHAEL GOEBL, Guardian ad Litem.