[Cite as In re K.H.-T., 2022-Ohio-1504.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE K.H.-T. :

: No. 111001

A Minor Child :

:

[Appeal by Mother, S.T.] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 5, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Juvenile Division

Case No. AD-18-907898

Appearances:

Valore & Gordillo LLP and Dean M. Valore, for appellant. 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

S.T. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s decision terminating her 

parental rights and awarding permanent custody of her child, K.H.-T. to the 

Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”). After 

reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History

K.H.-T. was born on March 16, 2018. On June 22, 2018, CCDCFS 

filed a complaint alleging that K.H.-T. was abused and dependent after he was 

diagnosed with organic failure to thrive and observed at the hospital with 

unexplained bruises. In that complaint, CCDCFS also raised concerns regarding 

Mother’s mental health. On the same day, CCDCFS was granted emergency 

temporary custody.

K.H.-T. was adjudicated abused and dependent on December 4, 2018. 

On January 6, 2019, CCDCFS was granted temporary custody of K.H.-T.

CCDCFS filed a motion requesting permanent custody of K.H.-T. on 

June 14, 2019.

On October 14, 2020, K.H.-T.’s father, D.H. (“Father”), filed a motion 

seeking legal custody of K.H.-T. Mother also filed a motion seeking legal custody or 

in the alternative, legal custody be granted to Melvin Johnson. 

The court held a disposition hearing on the pending motions on 

October 28, 2021 (“the hearing”). At the hearing, Father withdrew his motion for 

legal custody and “agree[d] with the Agency’s request for permanent custody.”

Mother did not attend the hearing, however the juvenile court found 

“that the notice requirements [had] been met” and that “Mother [made] her 

appearance through counsel * * *.” In addition, Mother’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”)

was present. Mother’s counsel moved to continue the hearing. Father and K.H.-T.’s 

GAL opposed the motion, with K.H.-T.’s GAL arguing that continuance was not in 
the child’s best interest. The court found Mother’s motion not well taken and 

proceeded with the hearing. 

The following day, the court journalized an entry terminating

Mother’s parental rights and granting permanent custody of K.H.-T. to CCDCFS. It 

is from this order that Mother appeals.

II. October 28, 2021 Hearing

At the hearing, CCDCFS called Danielle Bailey (“Bailey”) as a witness. 

The GAL for K.H.-T., Elba Heddesheimer, submitted a written report prior to the 

hearing and also provided a recommendation on the record. In addition, three

exhibits were entered into evidence. The following testimony and information were 

presented at the hearing.

A. Danielle Bailey

Bailey testified that she is an “[e]xtended social worker” for CCDCFS 

who was assigned to work on K.H.-T.’s case in November 2019. After being assigned 

the case, Bailey reviewed K.H.-T.’s file and learned that CCDCFS became involved 

with K.H.-T. through an intake referral in June 2018, after he presented to the 

hospital with “unexplained bruises on his body,” and “was diagnosed with failure to 

thrive* * *.” As reflected in the complaint filed by CCDCFS requesting emergency 

custody and temporary custody of the child, CCDCFS was also concerned with 

Mother’s mental health.

K.H.-T. was adjudicated abused and dependent and committed to the 

temporary custody of CCDCFS. The agency developed a case plan with a 
permanency goal of reunification. In that case plan, Mother was referred to 

parenting services because CCDCFS was concerned with “the unexplained bruises 

on the child, as well as the concerns for his failure to thrive.” According to Bailey, 

Mother was referred to The Centers for Children and Families for parenting classes 

which she completed “in the fall of 2019.” However, when asked if she believed 

Mother demonstrated a benefit from the parenting classes, Bailey responded, “[i]t’s 

hard to tell * * * with her inconsistency with her visits.”

Mother was also referred for mental-health services through her case 

plan because she had diagnoses for “schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, and 

depression” when CCDCFS became involved with K.H.-T. According to Bailey, 

Mother’s “mental health was untreated and * * * [K.H.-T.] wasn’t really attending 

his doctor[’]s appointments * * *.” CCDCFS was concerned that when Mother was 

not treating her mental health and taking her medications, that she would not “be 

able to properly * * * attend to the needs of [K.H.-T.].”

Throughout the pendency of her case plan, Mother had received 

mental-health services from Murtis Taylor, NEON, Moore Counseling, and

OhioGuidestone. Prior to the hearing, Mother reported to Bailey that she had gone 

through an intake at OhioGuidestone and “was waiting to be assigned a therapist so 

that she can start with her medication and medication management services.”

According to Bailey, Mother was not consistent with her mentalhealth services. Bailey explained that Mother “switched providers multiple times 
during the time that [she] had the case, so it’s hard to say that she’s consistent since 

she hasn’t engaged with one provider.” 

Bailey elaborated, that when she was assigned the case, Mother had 

been receiving counseling and medication management through Murtis Taylor. In 

approximately “mid 2020” Mother switched to NEON for mental health services, 

but Mother stopped attending NEON “around November of 2020[.]” Following 

NEON, Mother scheduled an intake evaluation with Moore Counseling, but never 

actually received any services there because according to Mother, “they were going 

under construction * * * so they referred her to OhioGuidestone[.]” Bailey stated 

that Mother purported to start engaging with OhioGuidestone in June 2021. Mother 

gave Bailey different reasons for why she switched providers including: “she didn’t 

feel that they were helping her[,]” “that doctors have left at different facilities, so 

she needed to find new facilities[,]” and “she was looking for something more in her 

area[.]” 

“At one point, [Mother] was prescribed and taking Latuda.” 

Subsequently, Mother reported to Bailey that she “was still getting her medications” 

despite the fact that “[s]he had stopped going out to NEON for appointments.” 

Bailey was not able to confirm whether Mother’s assertion was true. Bailey did look 

at one of Mother’s prescription bottles, but she “was unable to even verify the date 

that that particular bottle was given to [Mother] as the date was removed.” At the 

time of the hearing, Bailey did not believe Mother was taking any medication for her 
mental health because Mother informed her “that she was waiting to engage with 

the therapist at OhioGuidestone so that she could get a new prescription[.]”

Bailey “notice[d] some change[s] in [Mother’s] mood and how she 

relate[d]” to her, which Bailey attributed to “when [Mother was] on and off her 

medication.” Bailey elaborated that when Mother “seems to be more guarded and 

defensive,” she assumed “that she’s off [her medication] as opposed to more open 

and able to converse when she’s on her medications.” Bailey based her assumption 

on “experience of watching others with their medications.” 

Turning to visitation, Mother was supposed to have weekly, in-person 

visits with K.H.-T. at The Centers for Children and Families, but Bailey stated that 

Mother had been inconsistent with attending. “She’ll attend for a while and then 

she’ll miss a few * * *. So it’s been very back and forth.” At the time of the hearing, 

Bailey reported that Mother had not been attending her visitations and believed the 

last visitation Mother attended had not been for a month. Bailey did not supervise 

Mother’s visitation, but Mother had a visitation coach. 

During the pendency of the case, Mother’s visitation plan had been 

modified, including going virtual when the COVID-19 pandemic started. When 

visitation was virtual, Bailey described Mother as “a little more consistent[.]”

However, Mother’s attendance at in-person visitations went “back and forth.” Bailey 

stated that “there were times where she was attending and she’d be doing good for 

like a month or so, then she would miss a few. She would state it was due to 

transportation.” Because of the transportation issue, Bailey recalled that The 
Centers for Family and Children “tried to put some things in place to help [Mother]

with transportation” including sending “an Uber to her home to pick her up[.]”. 

Despite the assistance, Mother “would miss a couple and then she would attend a 

couple.”

While in CCDCFS custody, K.H.-T. was placed in a foster home and 

started attending preschool where he had an IEP. K.H.-T. had been placed in his

current foster home for “over a year” at the time of the hearing. According to Bailey, 

K.H.-T. is “doing really well there. He’s progressing, definitely getting all of his 

needs met, talking more. They’re working on potty training. He’s doing really, really 

well there.” 

Bailey believed that it was in K.H.-T.’s best interest “[t]o be 

committed to the permanent custody of the Agency” because, in her opinion, Mother 

was not able to adequately parent K.H.-T. because of “her inconsistency with 

addressing her mental health and her inconsistency with attending her visits.”

B. K.H.-T.’s GAL

The GAL testified that in her opinion, granting CCDCFS permanent 

custody of K.H.-T. was in his best interest. In making this recommendation, the 

GAL noted Mother’s inconsistency with engaging in mental-health treatment, 

taking her medication, and “not complying with the case plan.”

The GAL recalled that at the August 19, 2021 semiannual review, 

Mother claimed to be receiving her medication through NEON. However, the GAL 
highlighted for the court that per the testimony from Bailey, Mother was “not a 

NEON patient or * * * engaged in any therapy with NEON” in 2021.

According to the GAL, when K.H.-T. was first placed with his current 

foster mother, “he was panicked about the changes and he * * * really had to have a 

lot of time to get used to her, her home, and her environment.” The GAL had “no 

concerns regarding his placement. He is thriving and he is really happy there.”

In her report, the GAL stated that K.H.-T. had been placed in his 

current foster home since April 6, 2020. According to her, K.H.-T. was “thriving at 

his placement. * * * The child has his own room [and] seemed to be growing well.” 

K.H.-T. gets along with his foster family and the other children in the home. K.H.-

T. receives social, emotional, and speech services. He was diagnosed with “a G6PD 

deficiency which is a food sensitive anemia” meaning, his “red blood cells would 

deplete and cause immediate harm to him” if he “were to ingest blueberries [or]fava 

beans * * *.” K.H.-T. attends preschool and has an IEP. In school, he has 

“flourished, he builds on his social emotional skills and independent skills along 

with addressing speech delays and working with an occupational therapist for fine 

motor skill development.”

During some visits, Mother was “engaged [and] ask[ed] questions 

about how the child [was] doing and play[ed] along with * * * her son.” However, 

during many virtual visits, K.H.-T.’s GAL reported that the foster mother observed

Mother “laying down with the Television [sic] playing loudly in the background and 

there [was] limited involvement from her * * *.” Mother’s scheduled visits, both 
virtual and in person have been cancelled and rescheduled frequently at Mother’s 

request.

Finally, in her report the GAL noted that K.H.-T. “has been moved 

several times in his life * * *. If the child should move again, he should be placed 

with someone who can provide consistency stability, and permanency and who is 

dedicated to ensuring his medical needs and educational needs are maintained. ”

III. Law and Analysis

In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues that “the trial court’s

award of permanent custody and termination of [her] parental rights is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.”

“An appellate court will not reverse a juvenile court’s termination of 

parental rights and award of permanent custody to an agency if the judgment is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re M.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 100071, 2013-Ohio-5440, ¶ 24. “Where clear and convincing proof is required 

at trial, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of 

fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” 

(Citations omitted.) In re V.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109966, 2021-Ohio-1818, 

¶ 27.

“Courts apply a two-pronged test when ruling on permanent custody 

motions.” In re De.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108760, 2020-Ohio-906, ¶ 16. To 

grant the motion, courts first must find that any of the factors in 

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, or that (B)(2) applies. Id. “Second, courts must 
determine that terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to the 

agency is in the best interest of the child or children using the factors in 

R.C. 2151.414(D).” Id.

A. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) Factors 

In its October 29, 2021 journal entry, the juvenile court made a

finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), that K.H.-T. “has been in temporary custody 

of a public children services agency or private child placing agency for twelve or 

more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.” This finding is supported 

by evidence in the record.

“For the purposes of division (B)(1) of this section, a child shall be 

considered to have entered the temporary 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 child from home.” R.C. 2151.414. 

Here, CCDCFS was granted emergency temporary custody of K.H.-T. on June 22, 

2018. Further, K.H.-T. was adjudicated abused and dependent on December 4, 

2018. K.H.-T. was continuously in CCDCFS’s custody from the original award of 

temporary custody through the date of the hearing on the agency’s motion for 

permanent custody held on October 28, 2021. Therefore, K.H.-T. was in CCDCFS’s

temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, 

satisfying R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Having found that K.H.-T. had been in CCDCFS’s custody for “twelve 

or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period” under 
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the juvenile court was not required to make further findings 

to determine whether or not K.H.-T. cannot or should not be placed with Mother 

within a reasonable time under subsection (E) of the statute. Nevertheless, the court 

did make an additional finding that K.H.-T. “cannot be placed with one of the child’s 

parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either 

parent” and made findings consistent with several (E) subsections. 

Under subsection (E)(1), the court found that Mother has “failed 

continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the 

child to be placed outside the child’s home.” 

Under subsection (E)(2), the court found that Mother has a “chronic 

mental illness * * * that is so severe that it makes [her] unable to provide an adequate 

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

year without consistent mental health services and medication management.”

Under subsections (E)(4) and (14), the court found that Mother has 

been “unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the 

child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or 

physical, emotional, or mental neglect.” 

Under subsection (E)(15), the court found that Mother has “caused or 

allowed the child to suffer abuse and the Court determines that the seriousness, 

nature, or likelihood of recurrence of the abuse or neglect makes the child’s

placement with the child’s parent a threat to the child’s safety.” 
Upon review, we find that all of the court’s subsection (E) findings are 

supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Mother has had mentalhealth services as part of her case plan since its inception. The court heard testimony 

from Bailey and the GAL that Mother had not consistently engaged mental-health 

services. Rather, she started and stopped therapy with various providers and had 

not demonstrated that she consistently took her prescriptions. Evidence presented 

demonstrated that CCDCFS was concerned that Mother would not be able to 

adequately care for K.H.-T.’s needs because she was not caring for her own. Further, 

while the court did hear that Mother had completed the parenting-classes portion 

of her case plan, it also heard that Bailey was unsure if Mother benefited from those 

classes as evidenced by her inconsistent visitation.

Accordingly, the juvenile court’s subsection (E) findings are 

supported by evidence in the record.

B. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (2) Best-Interest Factors 

In determining whether granting CCDCFS’s motion for permanent 

custody was in K.H.-T.’s best interest, the juvenile court looked at both 

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (D)(2). While the juvenile court was not required to look at 

both, the court’s findings under each are supported by evidence in the record. 

1. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)

In considering whether the grant of permanent custody was in K.H.-

T.’s best interest, the court considered the following R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors. 
Under subsection (a) “the interaction and interrelationship of the 

child with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, and foster parents[.]”; 

Under subsection (c) “the custodial history of the child, including 

whether the child has been in temporary custody of a public children services agency 

or private child placing agency under one or more separate orders of disposition for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period[.]”;

Under subsection (d) “the child’s need for a legally secure permanent 

placement[.]”;

Under subsection (e) “whether that type of placement can be achieved 

without a grant of permanent custody”[.];

Additionally, the court considered K.H.-T.’s age and the GAL report. 

In considering all of those factors, the court found “by clear and 

convincing evidence that a grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the 

child and the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a 

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.” This finding is 

supported by testimony from both Bailey and the GAL that Mother was inconsistent 

with her visitation with K.H.-T., that K.H.-T. had bonded with his foster family, the 

length of time K.H.-T. had been in agency custody, and Mother’s continued struggles 

with mental health. 

2. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)

Turning to R.C. 2151.414(D)(2), if all four of its subsections apply, 

“permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall commit 
the child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or private 

child placing agency.” The trial court analyzed the evidence in relation to each of the 

four subsections and found that permanent custody was in K.H.-T.’s best interest. 

Subsection (a) directed the juvenile court to determine whether one 

or more of the factors in division (E) of R.C. 2151.414 exist “and that the child cannot 

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

placed with either parent.” As addressed, the juvenile court found that evidence had 

been presented supporting five of the division (E) factors ,and our review affirmed 

the trial court’s analysis that K.H.-T. cannot or should not be placed with one of his

parents within a reasonable time. 

Subsection (b) directed the juvenile court to determine if K.H.-T. had 

been in agency custody for two years or longer and, therefore, no longer qualified 

for temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D). R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) states: 

the court shall not order an existing temporary custody order to 

continue beyond two years after the date on which the complaint was 

filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, whichever date is 

earlier, regardless of whether any extensions have been previously 

ordered pursuant to division (D) of this section. 

CCDCFS filed its complaint of abuse and dependency on June 22, 

2018, and was granted emergency temporary custody on the same day. Therefore, 

at the time of the October 28, 2021 hearing, K.H.-T. had been in agency custody for 

over two years. 

Subsection (c) directed the court to determine if the child met the 

requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to 
R.C. 2151.353(A)(5). If the child did not meet the requirements, then this element 

was satisfied. Here, CCDCFS did not request for K.H.-T. to be placed in a planned 

permanent living arrangement and there is no evidence that any of the statutory 

requirements were met. 

Finally, subsection (d) directed the court to determine whether, “prior 

to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed or been 

identified in a motion for legal custody of the child.” The record does not indicate 

any such motion was filed. 

Because the evidence presented at the hearing supported all four 

subsections of (D)(2), the juvenile court was required to find that CCDCFS’s motion 

for permanent custody was in K.H.-T.’s best interest. 

The juvenile court concluded that the allegation in CCDCFS’s motion 

had “been proven by clear and convincing evidence.” We agree.

In reviewing permanent custody proceedings, we are mindful that 

“the power of the trial court to exercise discretion is peculiarly important. The 

knowledge obtained through contact with and observation of the parties and 

through independent investigation cannot be conveyed to a reviewing court by 

printed record.” Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952). This 

court has additionally held that the “discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in 

determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child 

should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the 
impact the court’s determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In 

re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist.1994). 

Accordingly, we find the court acted within its discretion, consistent 

with the clear and convincing evidence in the record, when it terminated Mother’s 

parental rights and granted permanent custody of K.H.-T. to CCDCFS. Mother’s 

sole assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR