[Cite as In re L.J. , 2019-Ohio-5231.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTERS OF: L.J.. C.J., N.J., S.J. JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : : : Case No. 2019 CA 0079 : 2019 CA 0080 : 2019 CA 0081 : 2019 CA 0082 : : : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Licking County C ourt of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. F2017-0667, F2017-0668, F2017- 0669 & F2017-0670 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 13, 2019 APPEARANCES: For Licking County JFS For Father – Jeffrey Jacobs WILLIAM C. HAYES ROBIN LYN GREEN Licking County Prosecutor Box 157 By: MANDY R. DELEEUW Newark, OH 43058-0157 Assistant Prosecutor 42 S. Second St., 4 th Floor Newark, OH 43055 For – Benecia George Guardian Ad Litem CAROLYN E. FITTRO STACY JEWELL 1335 Dublin Road, Ste. 1041 9 South Third St. Columbus, OH 43215 Newark, OH 43055 Attorney Advocate SCOTT SIDNER 55 S. Main St., Ste C Johnstown, OH 43031Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 2
Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant-mother [“Mother”] appeals the July 26, 2019 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Divisi on, which terminated her parental rights with respect to her minor children and gran ted permanent custody of the children to appellee, Licking County Jobs and Family Servic es [“LCJFS”]. Facts and Procedural History {¶2} Mother and Father were married on February 5, 2006. [1T. at 25 ]. 1 The couple has four children: Child 1, b. 09.11.2006; Child 2, b. 0 1.09.2008; Child 3, b. 12.30.2008 and Child 4, b. 06.18.2014. {¶3} On September 21, 2017, LCJFS requested an ex-parte order for Emergency Shelter Care Custody. An order of Protective Supervi sion expired on June 9, 2017, ending a previous case that had been opened since Augu st 2014. It had been alleged that the family's home was in deplorable conditions and a potential eviction was being filed against the parents. It was also alleged that the parents had issues in their relationship and with drug use. On September 22, 2017, the chi ldren were found to be dependent minors and were placed in the temporary custody of LC JFS. The next day, LCJFS filed a Motion for Permanent Custody of all of the childr en. The matter was set for a contested hearing and was heard by a Magistrate on Februa ry 12, 13, and March 1, 2018. The Magistrate denied the LCJFS’ Motion by Judgment Entr y filed April 2, 2018.

1 For clarity, the transcript of the Permanent Custody trial tha t took place on January 29, 2019 will be referred to by volume and page number as “1T.”; the continua tion of the permanent custody trial that took place on February 6, 2019 will be referred to by volume an d page number as “2T.” and the continuation of the permanent custody trial that took place on April 9, 2019 will be referred to by volume and page number as “3T.”Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 3 [Docket Entry 72]. The magistrate’s opinion was adopted by the trial court by Judgment Entry filed April 2, 2018. [Docket Entry 73]. {¶4} On August 22, 2018, LCJFS filed a second Motion for Permanent C ustody, with support from the Guardian ad Litem ("GAL"). The GAL filed her report on January 22, 2019. The matter was then heard on January 29, 2019, Febru ary 6, 2019 and April 9, 2019. The court also conducted an in-camera interview with the children. Permanent Custody Trial. {¶5} LCJFS began working with this family on June 9, 2014. All four children were adjudicated dependent and ordered into the temporary custo dy of LCJFS on August 6, 2014. {¶6} On May 9, 2016, the children were returned to the parents subje ct to a Protective Supervision Order [“PSO”] for six months. The PSO w as extended an additional six months on November 29, 2016. {¶7} Mary Ellen Greenwaldt, a social worker that had been involved w ith the family, testified that during the first case the family's issue s were homelessness, financial instability, mental health, employment and finances. LCJFS mad e referrals to counseling, housing, parenting classes, mental health counselors, and homem aking assistance. Throughout the first case, the parents had difficulty completin g a monthly budget and struggled to ensure their monthly bills were paid. In February 2016, the social worker and Alma Lease, the homemaker, had a family team meeting with the f amily to discuss the lingering concerns, which were the cleanliness of the home, uns table finances and personal hygiene. The family made progress and LCJFS began tra nsitioning the children home.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 4
{¶8} LCJFS provided the family with new beds for the children, clean ing supplies, closet systems and other items to help set the family up for su ccess once the case closed. LCJFS assisted in showing the family how to clean and physicall y helped them clean the rooms of the children and build the beds. The PSO ultimately e xpired on June 9, 2017. {¶9} Three months later, in September 2017, a referral came into LCJ FS. Social worker Greenwaldt went back to the home. She observed deplorab le conditions. She testified the home looked completely different from when LCJFS closed their case in June 2017. Some of the furniture LCJFS had purchased was still unbu ilt and some was broken. There was trash throughout the home. A friend of the father's was living the basement. He was asleep with an unknown woman. The social worker observe d drug paraphernalia in the basement. Due to the presence of drug paraphernalia, dr ug screens were requested of both parents. Father tested positive for methamph etamine. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine one time. {¶10} After the first permanent custody trial, in an attempt to impro ve efforts at working with the family, LCJFS assigned social worker Matthew T racy to work with the parents. Social worker Greenwaldt continued to work with the c hildren. Mr. Tracy was assigned the case on May 21, 2018. He created an updated Case Plan with the goal of reunification, which was filed on June 1, 2018. He created thi s plan with input from the parents, with four primary areas to work on: 1) housing (both m aintaining a home and ensuring the home was clean and appropriate); 2) finances and b udget; 3) substance abuse issues; and 4) mental health issues. Mr. Tracy did not b elieve the substance abuse was a problem for either Mother or Father. He testified he doe s "believe the parents that it was probably a one or two-time thing" but he has not seen si gns of ongoing issues.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 5
{¶11} 

### Testimony established that the parents had maintained their hom e for the entirety of the case. However, there were concerns expressed t hat the parents could not maintain the cleanliness of their home, by Alma Lease, a fa mily aide and the caseworker. {¶12} Caseworker Tracy testified that an aspect of the case plan deal t with budgeting. Testimony confirmed that the parents had attempted to do budgeting with LCJFS and Mid-Ohio, a counseling service. However, LCJFS conti nued to have concerns because the parents had only provided them with a budg et listing their major expenses and had not reported to him the miscellaneous expenses and receipts. {¶13} 

### Another aspect of the case plan counseling for the parents. Te stimony confirmed that the parents had requested this objective be list ed on the case plan and that both parents were engaged in individual counseling and mar riage counseling. {¶14} 

### Home visits were another area of concern for Mr. Tracy. Unanno unced home visits have been a struggle with this family. He made "ma ny attempts.” Since he began his involvement with the family, Mr. Tracy has been in th eir house unannounced on two occasions. {¶15} 

### The first unannounced visit took place on February 6, 2019. Th e house was very dark and the social worker asked them to turn some lig hts on; however, the family said that they had no working light bulbs. The house wa s barely furnished. In the kitchen, Mr. Tracy opened the freezer and discovered that the e lectric had been turned off. Additionally, he observed the freezer covered in bugs. T here was no food in the refrigerator or freezer. He testified, "It was pretty disgusti ng." The Father told Mr. TracyLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 6 

### that they had elected to turn off the gas downstairs to save so me money, and the water pipes burst because they froze. {¶16} 

### The second home visit took place on Thursday prior to the final day of trial. Mr. Tracy had to knock four or five times "pretty aggressively because [he] could hear somebody inside.” When no one answered the door, Mr. Tracy put a business card in the door. He then went to the other door of the home and knock ed with no response. As he was leaving, he could see the side door and noticed the card was gone. Mr. Tracy went back and knocked again. The Father answered and allowed hi m in the home. This time the electric in the home was on. The refrigerator was bro ken. The smoke detector was beeping, indicating that it needed new batteries. {¶17} 

### The last aspect of the case plan addressed visiting the childr en. Testimony confirmed that the parents attended visits with the c hildren throughout the life of the case {¶18} 

### The children are in foster care and have been in foster care, i ncluding in the previous case for a total of 37 months. Since their removal in September 2017, the children have been placed together and remained in one placemen t the entire time. All four of the children have some behavioral issues. Visits never progressed from supervised at the Agency. Social worker Greenwaldt testified t hat the children were scared to go home and were very angry with their parents. {¶19} The magistrate filed a decision granting LCJFS’s motion for per manent custody on June 27, 2019. The Judge then adopted and approved the Magistrate's Decision on the same day. Mother , through t rial counsel, filed an Objection to theLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 7 Magistrate's Decision on July 3, 2019. Father, through trial c ounsel, filed an Objection to the Magistrate's Decision on July 9, 2019. {¶20} By Judgment Entry filed July 26, 2019, the trial court, after c onducting an independent examination of the record, overruled the Father and the Mother’s objections and approved and adopted the decision of the magistrate. Assignments of Error {¶21} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING BY CLEAR AND CO NVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE IN TH E BEST INTERESTS [OF THE CHILDREN] TO PERMANENTLY TERMINATE THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THEIR PARENTS AND THEM [sic.] IN THE PERMANE NT CUSTODY OF LICKING COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILDREN SERVICES DEPARTMENT. {¶22} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT [THE CHILDREN] C OULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THEIR MOTHER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME OR SHO ULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THEIR MOTHER.” I & II. {¶23} In her First Assignment of Error, Mother first contends that th e Permanent Custody hearing was not conducted within 120 days as mandated b y R.C. 2151.414(A)(2). {¶24} R.C. 2151.414(A)(2), however, provides that the court for “good cause shown” may continue the hearing beyond the 120-day deadline. M other does not argueLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 8 that the trial court abused its discretion in scheduling the pe rmanent custody trial beyond the 120-day deadline. {¶25} An abuse of discretion exists where the reasons given by the co urt for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice, or where the judgment reaches an end or purpose not justified by reason and the evidence. Tennant v. Gallick, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26827, 2014-Ohio-477, ¶35; In re Guardianship of S .H ., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0066–M, 2013–Ohio–4380, ¶ 9; State v. Firouzmandi, 5th Dist. Licking No.2006–CA–41, 2006–Ohio–5823, ¶54. {¶26} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the sch eduling of the permanent custody trial. Mother has cited no prejudice or evid ence that would indicate that the trial court’s scheduling was untenable, legally incorr ect, or amount to a denial of justice. {¶27} In her First and Second Assignments of Error, Mother asserts th at the trial court’s decision is against the sufficiency and weight of the e vidence. [Mother’s Brief at 10; 11]. Burden of Proof {¶28} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civ il right.” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169(1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551(1972). A parent's inte rest in the care, custody and management of his or her child is “fundamental.” Id.; Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599(1982). The permanent termination of a parent's rights has been described as, “* * * the family law equivalent to the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith , 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45(6th Dist. 1991).Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 9 Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and subst antive protection the law allows.” Id. {¶29} An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and conv incing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). The Ohio Supreme Court has def ined “clear and convincing evidence” as “[t]he measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the alle gations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but n ot to the extent of such certainty as required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.” In re Estate of Haynes , 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986). STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW. {¶30} The Ohio Supreme Court has delineated our standard of review as follows, Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to de termine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof. See Ford v. Osborne , 45 Ohio St. 1, 12 N.E. 526, Cole v. McClure , 88 Ohio St. 1, 102 N.E. 264, and Frate v. Rimenik, 115 Ohio St. 11, 152 N.E. 14. Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E. 2d 118 (1954). A court of appe als will affirm the trial court's findings “if the record contains compe tent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction t hat the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been establi shed.” In re Adkins, 5th Dist. Nos. 2005AP06–0044 and 2005AP07–0049, 2006-Ohio-431, 2006 WL 242557, ¶17.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 10
{¶31} In Cross , the Supreme Court further cautioned, The mere number of witnesses, who may support a claim of one o r the other of the parties to an action, is not to be taken as a basis for resolving disputed facts. The degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself. Credibility, intelligence, freedom from bias or prejudice, opportunity to be informed, the disposition to tell the truth or otherwise , and the probability or improbab ility of the statements made, are all tests of testimonial value. Where the evidence is in conflict, the trier of facts may determine what should be accepted as the truth and what should be rejected as false . See Rice v. City of Cleveland , 114 Ohio St. 299, 58 N.E.2d 768. 161 Ohio St. at 477-478. (Emphasis added). Requirements for Perman ent Custody Awards {¶32} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must foll ow when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) m andates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide no tice upon filing of a motion f or permanent custody of a child by a public children services agency or private child pla cing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long- term foster care. {¶33} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private a gency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply:Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 11 (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in th e temporary custody of one or more public children services agenc ies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a c onsecutive twenty-two-month period, or has not been in the temporary custo dy of one or more public children services agencies or private child plac ing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month per iod if, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state, and the child cannot be placed with either of th e child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with t he child's parents; (b) the child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the ch ild who are able to take permanent custody; or (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies fo r twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the ch ild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children se rvices agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more m onths of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in divisi on (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 12
{¶34} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstan ces delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. 1 . Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time–R.C. 2151.414(B)( 1)(a). [Mother’s Second Assignment of Error (Mother’s Brief at 9)]. {¶35} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determinin g the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151 .414(E). The statute also indicates th at if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)—(15), the court shall determi ne the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base i ts decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or shou ld not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) fa ctors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot b e placed with the parent within a reasonable time. See In re William S ., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996–Ohio–182, 661 N.E.2d 738; In re Hurlow , 4th Dist. Gallia No. 98 CA 6, 1997 WL 701328 (Sept. 21, 1998) ; In re Butcher , 4th Dist. Athens No. 1470, 1991 WL 62145(Apr. 10, 1991). {¶36} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to conside r in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a re asonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. Specifically, Section ( E) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 13 (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either paren t within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the pare nts, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of t he Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child ’s parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed wit h either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either pa rent: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the pa rents have substantially remedied those cond itions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other s ocial and rehabilitative services and materi al resources t hat were made a vailable to the parents for changing parental conduct to allow them to resume a nd maintain parental duties. * * * (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 14
{¶37} R.C. 2151.414(D) requires the trial court to consider all relev ant factors in determining whether the child’s best interests would be served by granting the permanent custody motion. These factors include but are not limited to: (1) the interrelationship of the child with others; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the cus todial history of the child; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether suc h a placement can be achieved without permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply. {¶38} As set forth above, the trial court’s findings are based upon c ompetent credible evidence. The record includes the recommendation of t he guardian ad litem for the children, and the testimony of the witnesses at trial. The trial court was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. {¶39} In the denial of the First Motion for Permanent Custody, the ma gistrate cautioned the parents as follows, The Magistrate completely understands the position of the State and the guardian ad litem. In fact, the Magistrate finds that the State of Ohio proved all of the elements of its case except in regard to the best interest of the children. Because the children would still like to be reun ited with their parents and because some of the problems that led to the curren t removal were genuinely isolated incidents, the Magistrate DENIES the st ate’s motion for permanent custody. However, if the parents develop new problems, let up in their e fforts to work the case plan, or are not ready to assume custody of th eir children by the time these cases are one year old, the Agency should imm ediatelyLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 15 file a new motion for permanent custody. In other words, this Decision represents one last chance for the parents. Decision of the Magistrate , filed April 2, 108. [Docket Entry 72]. {¶40} The parents had a very long history with LCJFS. LCJFS began wo rking with this family on June 9, 2014. After just three months of c losing their original case, LCJFS had another referral and the home was in deplorable condi tion. In September 2017 when the LCJFS became involved again, some of the furnitur e that had been purchased was still unbuilt and some was broken. There was tra sh throughout the home. A friend of the father's was living the basement. He was aslee p with an unknown woman. The social worker observed drug paraphernalia. Father tested p ositive for methamphetamine and Mother admitted to methamphetamine use. Th e parents failed to allow the social workers into the home unannounced on multiple occasions, and on the two times they did allow them in the home, there were major con cerns. {¶41} The evidence demonstrated the successful efforts Mother had mad e on the case plan. On that point, the evidence demonstrates that any i mprovement that Mother has made in her life is tentative and, perhaps, temporary, and that she is at risk of relapse. The trial court found that, regardless of Mother’s compliance w ith aspects of his case plan, she was still not able to be a successful parent to these children. It appears that Mother cannot raise her children without the structure and the support of LCJFS. Without the involvement of numerous outside resources, Mother simply is unable to maintain a safe and structured environment in the home. {¶42} In the case of In re: Summerfield , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005CA00139, 2005- Ohio-5523, this court found where, despite marginal compliance with some aspects of theLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 16
case plan, the exact problems that led to the initial removal r emained in existence, a court does not err in finding the child cannot be placed with the par ent within a reasonable time. {¶43} “Reasonable efforts” have been described as the state's efforts to resolve a threat to a child's health or safety before removing the child from the home or permitting the child to return home, which follow an intervention to prote ct a child from abuse or neglect. See In re C.F ., 113 Ohio St. 3d 73, 862 N.E. 2d 816, 2007– Ohio– 1104, at ¶ 28, citing Will L. Crossley, Defining Reasonable Efforts: Demystifying the State's Burden Under Federal Child Protection Legislation (2003), 12 B.U. Pub.Int.L.J. 259, 260. These efforts are required because of the fundamental nature of the r ight to parent one's children . In re C.F., 2007– Ohio– 1104, at ¶ 21, 113 Ohio St. 3d 73, 862 N.E. 2d 816

. {¶44} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the trial court is not obl igated by R.C. 2151.419 to make a determination that the agency used reas onable efforts to reunify the family at the time of the permanent custody hearing unless the agency has not established that reasonable efforts have been made prior to tha t hearing. See In re C.F., 2007– Ohio– 1104, at ¶ 41; ¶ 43; See , also , R.C. 2151.419. The trial court is only obligated to make a determination that the agency has made reas onable efforts to reunify the family at “adjudicatory, emergency, detention, and temporar y-disposition hearings, and dispositional hearings for abused, neglected, or dependent children, all of which occur prior to a decision transferring permanent custody to the state.” In re C.F ., 2007– Ohio– 1104, at ¶ 41. A parent’s successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification. The ultimate questi on under R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) is whether the parent has substantially remedied theLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 17

conditions that caused the child’s removal. In re Shchigelski (Oct. 20, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 99–G–2241, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4900, 200 0 WL 1568388; In re McKenzie (Oct. 18, 1995), 9th Dist. No. 95CA0015, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4618, 1995 WL 608285. A parent can successfull y complete the terms of a case plan yet not substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed—the case plan is simply a means to a goal, but not the g oal itself. Hence, the courts have held that the successful completion of case plan requirements does not pr eclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services agency. In re J.L., 8th Dist. No. 84368, 2004–Ohio–6024, at ¶ 20; In re Mraz , 12th Dist. Nos. CA2002– 05–011, CA2002–07–014, 2002–Ohio–7278. In re C.C ., 187 Ohio App.3d 365, 2010–Ohio–780, 932 N.E.2d 360, ¶ 25 (8t h Dist.). {¶45} Based upon the foregoing, as well as the entire record in this case, the Court properly found the children could not or should not be returned to Mother within a reasonable time. Despite offering numerous services, Mother wa s unable to mitigate the concerns that led to the children’s removal. 2. The Best Interest of the Children [Mother’s First Assignment of Error (Mother’s Brief at 9)]. {¶46} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent cu stody hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all rel evant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and inte rrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and ou t-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wi shes of the child asLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 18 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. {¶47} The focus of the “best interest” determination is upon the chil d, not the parent, as R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically prohibits the court fr om considering the effect a grant of permanent custody would have upon the parents. In re: Awkal , 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 315, 642 N.E.2d 424(8th Dist.1994). A finding that it is in the best interest of a child to terminate the parental rights of one parent is not dependent upon the court making a similar finding with respect to the other parent. The trial co urt would necessarily make a separate determination concerning the best interest of the chil d with respect to the rights of the mother and the rights of the father. {¶48} The trial court made findings of fact regarding the children’s best interest. It is well-established that “[t]he discretion which the juvenile c ourt enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest o f 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 con cerned.” In re: Mauzy Children , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073(Nov. 13, 20 00), quoting In re Awkal , 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424(8th Dist. 1994). {¶49} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether the re is relevant, competent and credible evidence, upon which the fact finder could base its ju dgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-5758, 1981 WL 6321(Feb. 10, 1982). “Re viewing courtsLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 19

should accord deference to the trial court’s decision because t he trial court has had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, gestures, and v oice inflections that cannot be conveyed to us through the written record, Miller v. Miller , 37 Ohio St. 3d 71, 523 N.E.2d 846(1988).” {¶50} In the present case, the trial court's decision indicates it c onsidered the best interest factors. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court's finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in the children’s best interest. The trial court concluded the children’s need for le gally secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to LCJFS. {¶51} Evidence was introduced that the children were scared to go hom e and were very angry with their parents. 1T. at 250-251.The childre n had an in-camera interview as well as expressed their wishes through their guard ian ad litem. The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody be granted to LCJFS. Th erefore, this factor also weighs in favor of granting permanent custody. {¶52} The Magistrate noted, The children were first removed back in June of 2014, some 58 months before this permanent custody hearing ended. In that 58 -month period, these children have only been in the physical care and custody of their parents for 16 months. [Child 4] is just shy of five yea rs old. He has been placed outside of the home or custody of a parent for almo st 75% of his life. [Child 1], the oldest child, is 12 years old, and sh e has spent 30% of her life in substitute care. For this much time to have pas sed, and theLicking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 20 [Parents] still not able to assume the role of full-time parent and provide a stable and clean home for these children is simply inexcusable. Magistrate’s Decision, filed June 27, 2019 at 13. {¶53} There was testimony to suggest that Father and Mother love the children. There was also some evidence to suggest that the children love Father and Mother. However, the record does not demonstrate that if Mother had bee n offered different case plan services, or additional time to complete services the resu lt would have been different. {¶54} There was sufficient evidence presented at the trial for the co urt to form a firm belief or conviction that it was in the children’s beset i nterest to grant LCJFS motion for permanent custody. Conclusion. {¶55} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the sch eduling of the permanent custody trial. {¶56} We further find that the trial court’s determination that Mothe r had had failed to remedy the issues that caused the initial removal and therefore the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not b e placed with her was based upon competent credible evidence and is not against the m anifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. We further find that the trial co urt’s decision that permanent custody to LCJFS was in the children’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.Licking County, Case Nos. 2019CA0079, 2019,CA0080, 2019CA0081, 2019CA0082 21
{¶57} Because the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s j udgment, we overrule Mother’s two assignments of error, and affirm the deci sion of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division. By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Wise, John, J., concur