[Cite as In re A.S., 2013-Ohio-4018.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

A.S., V.S., and Z.S. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : 

 : Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Divison, Case Nos. 

11-01-0070AB, 11-01-0071AB, and 

 11-01-0072AB 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 11, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Kitty Slaven For DCDJFS 

PAMELLA A. LAMMON KATHERYN L. MUNGER 

103 North Union Street, Suite D 140 North Sandusky St., 3rd Floor 

Delaware, OH 43015 Delaware, OH 43015 

For Oral Slaven Guardian ad Litem 

O. ROSS LONG CELESTE M. BRAMMER 

125 North Sandusky Street 13290 Centerburg Road 

Delaware, OH 43015 Sunbury, OH 43074 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On January 19, 2011, appellee, the Delaware County Department of Job 

& Family Services, filed a complaint for temporary custody of A.S. born May 24, 2006, 

V.S. born May 24, 2006, and Z.S. born April 14, 2009, alleging the children to be 

neglected and dependent. Mother of the children is appellant, Kitty Slaven; father is 

Oral Slaven. Following a shelter care hearing, the trial court placed the children in 

appellee's temporary custody on January 24, 2011. By judgment entry filed April 15, 

2011, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent and granted temporary custody 

to relatives. The children were eventually returned to appellee's temporary custody in 

July 2011 (A.S. and V.S.) and December 2012 (Z.S.). 

{¶2} On July 26, 2012 (A.S. and V.S.) and January 16, 2013 (Z.S.), appellee 

filed motions for permanent custody of the children based upon the parents' failure to 

comply with the case plan. A hearing commenced on March 26, 2013. By judgment 

entry filed April 12, 2013, the trial court granted permanent custody of the children to 

appellee. 

{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS' (SIC) DISCRETION AND VIOLATED 

APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN IT DENIED HER REQUEST FOR A 

CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL ON THE DELAWARE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (HEREINAFTER DCDJFS) MOTION OF PERMANENT 

CUSTODY." 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 3 

II 

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS' (SIC) DISCRETION WHEN IT DID 

NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE DCDJFS HAD MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO 

RETURN THE CHILDREN SAFELY HOME WITH EITHER PARENT." 

III 

{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS' (SIC) DISCRETION WHEN IT 

DETERMINED THAT THE CHILDREN COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THEIR 

MOTHER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE TRIAL ON THE 

DCDJFS'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY." 

IV 

{¶7} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS' (SIC) DISCRETION WHEN THE 

WHEN (SIC) IT DETERMINED THAT THE CHILD, [Z.] S., DID NOT NEED TO BE IN 

THE CUSTODY OF THE DCDJFS FOR 12 OUT OF 22 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS 

PRIOR TO THE DCDJFS FILING A MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY 

RELATED TO [Z.] S." 

I 

{¶8} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion for a 

continuance of the permanent custody hearing. We disagree. 

{¶9} The grant or denial of a continuance rests in the trial court's sound 

discretion. State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981). In order to find an abuse of that 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 4 

{¶10} We note appellant's request was not done via a formal written motion, but 

was a "me too" argument advanced at the commencement of the hearing in relation to 

father's filed motion for a continuance. T. at 7. Father had requested a continuance 

based upon the uncertainty of appellant's criminal status. Without stating reasons, the 

trial court denied the motion. T. at 10. 

{¶11} In July 2010, appellant was sentenced to intervention in lieu of conviction 

after pleading guilty to nine counts of deception to obtain a dangerous drug. T. at 45. 

Appellant was non-compliant. T. at 48. As a result, appellant was going to be arrested 

so she voluntarily relinquished custody of her children to appellee in December of 2010. 

T. at 105-106. Michelle Leighty, an intake investigator involved with the family, tried to 

convince appellant to go into a community-based correctional facility (hereinafter 

"CBCF") for the sake of the children, but appellant rejected the suggestion and opted for 

a prison sentence in Marysville instead, away from her children. T. at 113, 116. 

Consequently, in January 2011, appellant received a split sentence whereby she 

received some prison time and some community control time. T. at 51-52. Appellant 

was granted judicial release in June of 2012. T. at 52. However, she violated the terms 

of her judicial release and was ordered to successfully complete a CBCF program. T. at 

53. Because appellant was unsuccessfully terminated from the CBCF program, a 

violation was filed and she was awaiting disposition set for April 24, 2013. T. at 54. We 

note father was incarcerated, serving a fifty-eight year prison term. 

{¶12} Appellee received temporary custody of the children in January 2011. 

Following relative placement, A.S. and V.S. were returned to appellee's temporary 

custody in July 2011 and Z.S. was returned in December 2012. The motions for 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 5 

permanent custody were filed on July 26, 2012 (A.S. and V.S.) and January 16, 2013 

(Z.S.). A joint motion for a continuance based on judicial economy was granted on 

January 23, 2013. The permanent custody hearing was set for March 7, 2013. On 

January 29, 2013, appellee filed a motion for a continuance due to the unavailability of 

counsel. The trial court granted the motion and reset the hearing for March 27, 2013. 

Appellant was to have had a criminal hearing on March 18, 2013 to address the 

aforementioned violation, but it was rescheduled to April 24, 2013. The permanent 

custody hearing commenced on March 26, 2013. The continuance requested by 

appellant and father based upon the outcome of appellant's criminal hearing would have 

had to have been for thirty days at least. Appellant was hoping for no further prison 

time so she could work on the case plan. 

{¶13} In order to accommodate the parties, the trial court continued the case on 

the two occasions, causing the permanent custody motions to be pending at the time of 

trial for two hundred and forty-three/sixty-nine days, respectively. As a result of the 

rescheduling of appellant's criminal hearing, the trial court at the time of the permanent 

custody hearing did not know what appellant's disposition would be. 

{¶14} However, under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), appellant's criminal disposition 

would have no effect given the lapse of some twelve months between appellee's 

temporary custody of A.S. and V.S. to the filing of their permanent custody motion: 

(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court 

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

determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 6 

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 any of the following apply: 

(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more 

public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the 

child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children 

services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more 

months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, 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. 

{¶15} As for Z.S., appellant's own actions and decisions contributed to her 

progress on the case plan. The case plan was filed on February 14, 2011. At the time, 

appellant was in prison, opting-out of CBCF. Appellant was granted judicial release in 

June 2012, but violated the terms and was ordered to CBCF. Appellant was 

unsuccessfully discharged from CBCF and was awaiting sentencing. At the time of the 

hearing, the case had been open for twenty-six months. 

{¶16} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

appellant's request for a continuance. 

{¶17} Assignment of Error I is denied. 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 7 

II, III 

{¶18} Appellant claims the trial court erred in granting permanent custody to 

appellee without addressing reasonable efforts. We disagree. 

{¶19} A trial court may grant an agency permanent custody of a child upon clear 

and convincing evidence of certain factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414. Clear and 

convincing evidence is that evidence "which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts 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. See also, In re Adoption of 

Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985). "Where the degree of proof required to sustain an 

issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to 

determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the 

requisite degree of proof." Cross, at 477. 

{¶20} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) cited above specifically applies to A.S. and V.S. as 

they had been in appellee's custody for some twelve months at the time of the filing of 

their motion for permanent custody. Therefore, it is not necessary to find that these 

children cannot reasonably be placed with appellant another year forward. 

{¶21} As for Z.S., the trial court found the child "cannot be placed with either 

parent within a reasonable time" under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) which states: 

(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court 

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

determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 8 

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

permanent custody and that any of the following apply: 

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the 

temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or 

private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive 

twenty-two-month period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one 

or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies 

for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period 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 the child's 

parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's 

parents. 

{¶22} The record establishes appellee's efforts at reunifying appellant and all 

three children. Ms. Leightly first became involved with the family in October 2010. T. at 

100. Ms. Leightly helped appellant with diapers, food, housing issues, and schooling for 

the children. T. at 102-104. At the time, appellant was on probation. T. at 101. The 

case was closed in the middle of November 2010. T. at 105, 115. Ms. Leighty became 

involved with the family again in December of 2010 after appellant called because she 

was going to be arrested for violating her probation. T. at 105-106. Ms. Leighty helped 

to find relative placement for the children, but was unsuccessful. T. at 106. As a result, 

appellant signed a voluntary agreement to surrender the children to appellee with the 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 9 

knowledge that she could have the children returned within thirty days. Id. Ms. Leighty 

tried to convince appellant to go into a CBCF program for the sake of the children, but 

appellant rejected the suggestion and opted for a prison sentence instead. T. at 113, 

116. She was granted judicial release in June of 2012 and was ordered to successfully 

complete CBCF. T. at 52-53. While at CBCF, appellant received counseling and an 

assessment, but did not complete the program because she was unsuccessfully 

discharged. T. at 53, 144. Because of the discharge, appellant's intensive supervision 

officer, Kara Clark, filed a violation. T. at 54. At the time of the permanent custody 

hearing, appellant was awaiting sentencing and had over 2000 days left on her original 

sentence. T. at 68. Ms. Clark was going to recommend returning appellant to prison to 

fully complete the remainder of her prison term as she was not amenable to community 

control. T. at 57. 

{¶23} Ashley Keller, the family's ongoing caseworker, testified to the following 

supportive services offered to the family (T. at 156): 

Many referrals for the boys. They're involved with the Delaware 

County Board of Disabilities. COMH made referrals. IEP, keeping up with 

meetings. We would attend those meetings if our schedules allowed. 

Attended meetings at COMH, made our visits to the foster home, signed 

off on any type of paperwork that services were needed for the boys, 

especially recently with [V.] needing his weighted vest, blanket, his 

compression shirts, things like that, made visits to both Kitty and Dennis, 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 10 

spoke with them about the case, any type of advice or recommendations 

for the foster parents, as well. 

{¶24} Caseworkers conducted supervised visitations with the children with each 

parent while they were in prison. T. at 148-150, 164. 

{¶25} As explained by our brethren from the Twelfth District in In re K.M., 12th 

Dist. Butler No. CA2004-02-052, 2004-Ohio-4152, ¶ 23: 

In determining whether the agency made reasonable efforts to 

prevent the removal of the child from the home, the issue is not whether 

the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the 

reasonableness standard under the statute. In re Hughley (Oct. 26, 

2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77052, citing In re Tirado (Jan. 22, 1998), 

Mahoning App. No. 97 CA 26; In re Brewer (Feb. 12, 1996), Belmont App. 

No. 94–B–28. "Reasonable efforts" does not mean all available efforts. 

Otherwise, there would always be an argument that one more additional 

service, no matter how remote, may have made reunification possible. In 

re Fast (Mar. 25, 1992), Summit App. No. 15282. 

{¶26} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in granting permanent 

custody of the children to appellee on the issue of reasonable efforts. 

{¶27} Assignments of Error II and III are denied. 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 11 

IV 

{¶28} Appellant claims it was error to include Z.S. in the permanent custody 

hearing when he had not been in appellee's custody for twelve of the last twenty-two 

months. We disagree. 

{¶29} As we concluded in Assignments of Error II and III, there was ample 

evidence in the record to support the award of permanent custody of all three children to 

appellee apart from R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) alone. As Z.S. had not been in appellee's 

temporary custody for twelve of the last twenty-two months prior to the filing of the 

motion for permanent custody, we find R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), cited above, applies. 

{¶30} Z.S. was removed from appellant's custody at her request and placed in 

appellee's temporary custody from December 2010 to March 2011, and then placed in 

relative placement. T. at 80, 105-106. All relative placements failed with Z.S. and the 

child was once again placed in appellee's temporary custody in December 2012. T. at 

80. Because of her criminal troubles, appellant was not available to complete a case 

plan from January 2011, and she was facing at the time of the hearing the possibility of 

2000 more days in prison. T. at 47-48, 51-55, 57, 68. 

{¶31} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in including Z.S. in the 

permanent custody hearing. 

{¶32} Assignment of Error IV is denied. 

 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAF 05 0040 12 

{¶33} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, 

Juvenile Division, is hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Sheila G. Farmer 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. William B. Hoffman 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. John W. Wise 

SGF/sg 8/19
[Cite as In re A.S., 2013-Ohio-4018.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

A.S., V.S., and Z.S. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : CASE NO. 13 CAF 05 0040 

 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, Juvenile Division is 

affirmed. Costs to appellant. 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Sheila G. Farmer 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. William B. Hoffman 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. John W. Wise