[Cite as In re J.W. , 2018-Ohio-3897.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: J.W. M.H. D.H. F.V. C.A. Nos. 28966 28976

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 16 08 0635 DN 16 08 0636 DN 16 08 0637 DN 16 08 0638

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 26, 2018

CALLAHAN, Judge. {¶1} Appellants Mother and Father H. (“Father”) separately appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Divi sion, that terminated their parental rights and awarded permanent custody of the subject children to Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). This Cour t dismisses Mother’s appeal and affirms the dispositional order.

I. {¶2} Mother is the biological mother of J.W. (d.o.b. 2/22/10), M.H. (d.o.b. 7/26/13), D.H. (d.o.b. 7/26/13), and F.V. (d.o.b. 5/ 4/15). Father is the biological father of F.V. Father S., the biological father of J.W.; and Father K., th e biological father of M.H. and D.H., did not participate in the cases below and are not parties to this appeal.2

{¶3} In August 2016, the Akron Police Department investigated a report that the children were being locked in a room in an unsanitary and unsafe home where Mother resided

with her then-husband. 1 Based on the filthy conditions and l ack of food in the home, as well as the captivity of the children, the police removed J.W., M.H., D.H., and F.V. from the home and placed them in the protective custody of CSB. The agency filed complaints alleging that all four children were abused (endangered), neglected, an d dependent. At the adjudicatory hearing, CSB withdrew its allegations of abus e, and the juvenile court found each child to be neglected and dependent. The children were placed in the temporary custody of the agency after the dispositional hearing, and the juvenile court adopted the case plan as the order of the court. The court later maintained the children in the temporary custody of CSB after a review hearing. {¶4} In June 2017, CSB filed a motion for perman ent custody in which it alleged that

the children could not or should not be returned to Mother within a reasonable time based on her failure to remedy the conditions which gave rise to the children’s removal. The agency alleged

that all the fathers had abandoned their childre n. Moreover, it alleged that an award of permanent custody was in the children’s best inte rest. In November 2017, Father filed a motion

for a first six-month extension oftemporary custody, while Mother orally moved for a first sixmonth extension at the final dispositional hearing. At the conclusion of the two-day permanent custody hearing, the juvenile court denied the parents’ motions for a six-month extension of temporary custody, granted CSB’s motion for perm anent custody, and terminated all parental rights as to each of the four children. Mother and Father filed separate timely notices of appeal. Mother failed to file an appellate brief, while Father raises two assignments of error for review.

1 Mother’s then-husband is not the biological father of any of the children at issue in this case.3

II. Appeal No. 29876 Although Mother timely filed a notice of a ppeal from the juvenile court’s judgment awarding permanent custody of J.W., M.H., D.H., a nd F.V. to CSB, she has failed to file a merit brief or assert any assignments of error. As Mother has effectively abandoned her appeal, Appeal No. 28976 is dismissed. See In re M.O. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28351, 28371, 28383, 2017-Ohio-7691, ¶ 21. Appeal No. 28976 dismissed. Appeal No. 28966

FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF [F.V.] IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE AGENCY FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNIFY FATHER WITH HIS CHILD[.] {¶5} Father argues that the juvenile court erred by granting permanent custody of F.V.,

because CSB failed to use reasonable efforts to facilitate his reunification with the child. This Court disagrees. {¶6} R.C. 2151.419 addresses when the juvenile court must determine whether CSB

has made reasonable efforts towards reunification of a child with her parents. It is now well settled that the statute imposes no requirement for such a determination “‘at the time of the permanent custody hearing unless the agency has not established that reasonable efforts have been made prior to that hearing.’” In re A.C.-B. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28330 and 28349, 2017- Ohio-374, ¶ 22, citing In re H.H. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 25463, 2010-Ohio-5992, ¶ 12, quoting

In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 41-43.4

{¶7} In this case, at the shelter care hear ing, the magistrate found that exigent circumstances prevented CSB from using reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children from their home, because the police removed the children pursuant to Juv.R. 6. However, the magistrate found at the adjudicatory hearing, the initial dispositional hearing, and a subsequent review hearing that CSB had used reasonable efforts to prevent the continued

removal of the children from their home. In a ddition, the magistrate granted the agency’s motion for a judicial determination of reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan when it filed its motion for permanent custody. Despite Father ha ving been properly served with notice of the proceedings, and verification that he is the biological father of F.V., Father failed to challenge the reasonable efforts findings either by timely objection or motion to set aside. As a result, he has forfeited the issue on appeal except for a claim of plain error. See In re S.D. , 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010864 and 15CA010867, 2016-Ohio-1493, ¶ 25; citing In re B.C. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26976 and 26977, 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 24; Juv.R. 40( D)(3)(b)(iv). Father has not alleged plain error, and this Court declines to construct an argume nt on his behalf. See In re N.C. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 27116 and 27118, 2015-Ohio-1627, ¶ 62, citing Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv), App.R. 12(A)(2), and App.R. 16(A)(7). Moreover, in the absence of transcripts of the hearings at which the juvenile court made its reasonable efforts determinations, this Court must presume regularity in relation to those determinations. See In re S.D. at ¶ 25, citing In re T.K. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24006, 2008-Ohio-1687, ¶ 22. {¶8} Nevertheless, the record includes subs tantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that CSB used reasonable efforts to prevent the continued removal of F.V. from her parents’ custody. The first protective caseworker testified that, as Father was living in Illinois, he requested that Father establish paternity and execute releases so that the caseworker5

could coordinate with service pr oviders out of state to determin e whether Father could meet the basic needs of the child and pa rent appropriately. That casew orker testified that he never received releases from Father during the eight months he provided case management services to the parents. In addition, Father never engaged in any services during that time; never contributed any financial support for the child; and, in fact, never expressed any desire for legal custody. Father merely indicated a desire that F.V., whom he had never met or visited, know him. {¶9} The second caseworker assigned to the case testified that she spoke to or sent letters to Father every month to discuss specific actions to allow her to assess Father’s ability to meet F.V.’s basic needs. By the time she began managing the case, Father was expressing a desire for legal custody of the child. As Father was living with his girlfriend and several other people in a home, the caseworker sent background check forms for each person living in the home. She only received completed forms from Fa ther and his girlfriend, so she was unable to

assess whether or not the other adults in the hom e were appropriate. The caseworker requested that Father engage in a drug and alcohol as sessment, urine screens, and a mental health assessment, because she knew nothing about him. She attempted to contact a counselor Father was seeing, but the counselor did not return he r calls. The caseworker contacted a parenting class provider in Illinois, but that provider re ported that there were no appropriate parenting classes available for Father, w ho required developmental paren ting classes. The caseworker testified that she made a referral for Father for appropriate parenting classes in Illinois, but the provider would not call either her or Father back. She acknowledged Father’s and her own frustration with service providers in Illinois. {¶10} Father did not explain to the caseworke r why he would not leave Illinois to facilitate his desire to parent F.V. The caseworker knew Father was on probation for criminal6

offenses (burglary and escape) in Illinois, but she did not know if the terms of his probation prevented him from leaving the state. Father never informed her that he was unable to leave Illinois. Nevertheless, he never sought to vi sit with the child, although he asked about F.V.

whenever he called the caseworker. {¶11} Approximately three weeks before the second day of the permanent custody hearing, Father moved to Ohio to try to establish a relationship with F.V. He signed releases twelve days before the hearing. The caseworker made a referral to Portage Path for assessments, but Father failed to appear for his appointment . The caseworker made a referral for parenting classes. Father attended only on e session. CSB scheduled visitations for Father and F.V. He attended his first visit, but he cancelled his second because it was “too cold” and “snowy out.”

He also claimed to have had a blister after twisting his ankle when slipping in the snow. {¶12} When evaluating whether the agency has made reasonable efforts, this Court considers the following: In determining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child’s health and safety shall be paramount. [R.C. 2151.419( A)(1)]. Although [R.C.] Chapter 2151 does not define reasonable efforts, courts construe the term to mean [t]he state’s efforts to resolve the threat to the child before removing the child or to permit the child to return home after the threat is removed[.] In re T.B.-W. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27544, 2015-Ohio-992, ¶ 15, quoting In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007- Ohio-1104, at ¶ 28, quoting Will L. Crossley, Defining Reasonable Efforts: Demystifying the State’s Burden Under Federal Child Protection Legislation , 12 B.U.Pub.Int.L.J. 259, 260 (2003). In a reas onable efforts determination, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness st andard under the statute. In re C.M. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24380, 2009-Ohio-943, ¶ 21, citing In re Myers , 4th Dist. Athens No. 02CA50, 2003-Ohio-2776, ¶ 18. (Internal quotations omitted.) In re K.C. , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011135, 2017-Ohio-8779, ¶

24.7

{¶13} A review of the record indicates that both CSB caseworkers provided case management services to Father and kept in regular contact with him. Despite the lack of responsiveness on the part of service providers in Illinois, the second caseworker continued to try to facilitate services for Father there. While Father’s frustration was understandable, his failure to comply with objectives within his control was not. He offered no excuse for failing to send

releases to the first casewor ker or ensuring that all me mbers in his household provided information for background checks. Moreover, Fa ther offered no reason why he could not have moved to Summit County, where he could have obtained the necessary services, earlier than three weeks before the second day of the perm anent custody hearing. Furthermore, the

caseworker facilitated services and visitations for Father imme diately upon his relocation to Summit County. Nevertheless, Fath er failed to take full advantag e of those services, failing to appear for appointments and cancelling one of his two opportunities to visit with his child he had never met. This Court has recognized not only the obligation of the agency to use reasonable reunification efforts, but al so the obligation of the parent to pa rticipate in the services provided.

See In re N.G. , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010812, 2016-Ohio -168, ¶ 17. Here, Father must be held accountable for failing to engage in the services and opportunities facilitated by CSB. See

id . Under the circumstances, the record fails to support Father’s argument that the juvenile court’s finding that the agency used reasonable ef forts to prevent the continued removal of F.V. from her home was against the mani fest weight of the evidence. {¶14} To the extent that Father, citing In re H.H. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 25463, 2010- Ohio-5992, ¶ 17, has noted one instance in which this Court considered an argument alleging the8

agency’s lack of reasonable efforts within the context of the best interest of the child, 2 he has not provided any analysis of the issue. He merely cited the best interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) without arguing how CSB’s alleged lack of reasonable efforts related to any of the factors. This Court again declines to create an argument on Father’s behalf. See In re N.C. , 2015-Ohio-1627, at ¶ 62. For the above reasons, Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.

FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ARBITRARILY DENYING FATHER’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PERMANENT CUSTODY TRIAL[.] {¶15} Father argues that the juvenile cour t abused its discretion by denying his attorney’s motion to continue the first day of the hearing due to Father’s absence. This Court disagrees. {¶16} The denial or granting of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse ab sent an abuse of that discretion. In re L.A. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 21531, 2003-Ohio-4790, ¶ 41, citing State v. Unger , 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the abuse of discre tion standard, this Cour t may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).

2 The majority cited no authority for its novel appr oach. The concurring opinion cited the Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis of the issue as enunciated in In re C.F. at ¶ 43, and would have concluded that the juvenile cour t was not required to make a reas onable efforts determination at the permanent custody hearing. In re H.H. at ¶ 33 (Carr, J., concurring in judgment only).9

{¶17} In exercising its discretion, the trial c ourt must balance “‘any potential prejudice to a [party against] concerns such as a court’ s right to control its own docket and the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice.’” (Alteration in original.) In re A.S. , 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 14CA010532 and 14CA010534, 2014-Ohio-2458, ¶ 36, quoting Unger at 67.

The Unger court adopted a balancing test, wherein the following factors should be considered: the length of the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigan ts, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whet her the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the requ est for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case. Id. at 67-68; see also In re T.B. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27334, 2014-Ohio-4040, ¶ 11. In addition, specific to juvenile law, Juv.R. 23 provi des that “[c]ontinuances shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties.” {¶18} In this case, CSB filed its motion for permanent custody on June 13, 2017. Given that he was residing out of state, Father wa s not served with the motion until August 22, 2017. Nevertheless, he was notified of the November 28, 2017 hearing date by magistrate’s decision filed July 25, 2017. Despite several months’ advanc e notice, Father notified his attorney by text message at 11:30 p.m. on the night before the hear ing that “his ride’s oil pump in the car was faulty and could not get here for [the hearing].” Father’s attorney requested a continuance, which the juvenile court denied. Father’s attorney was present for the entire first day of hearing, and he cross-examined all witnesses presented by CSB. {¶19} At the conclusion of the agency’s case-in-chief, Mother’s attorney informed the court that Mother had gone into labor and counsel requested a continuance for that reason. No party objected, and the juvenile c ourt scheduled a second hearing date for two months later. The juvenile court specifically indicated that it was granting the continuance in part to allow Father to10

be present. Moreover, the trial court informed Father’s attorney that it would allow Father torecall any witness who had testified during the first day of hearing and to present his own casein-chief. {¶20} During the second day of the permanent custody hearing, Father was present with his attorney. CSB recalled the protective casew orker, and Father had the opportunity to be present for her testimony and to question her. Father did not ask to recall any other prior

witnesses. He testifie d in support of his motion for a firs t six-month extension of temporary custody. {¶21} Father has not explained how he was prej udiced by the denial of his motion for a continuance. He was represented by counsel dur ing the first day of the hearing and given a full and fair opportunity to recall a nd question any prior witness on the second day. He had been aware of the hearing date for several months, and yet waited until the last minute to try to travel

to Ohio in the winter. He did not inform his at torney when he would be able to be present in Ohio, so counsel could not indi cate the length of the delay re quested. CSB was present and prepared to present the testimony of its seven witnesses. Mother was present and expecting another child, requiring that any continuance be for a substantial enough time to accommodate her delivery and recovery. The juvenile court ultimately granted a continuance of the permanent custody hearing, in part to accommodate Father . Under the circumstances, this Court concludes that the juvenile court’s initial denial of Father’s motion for a continuance did not constitute an

abuse of discretion. Father’s second assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed.11

III. {¶22} As to Appeal No. 28966, Father’s two assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. As Mother abandoned her appeal, Appeal No. 28976 is dismissed. Appeal No. 28966 affirmed, and Appeal No. 28976 dismissed.

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 manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent 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. Costs taxed to Appellants.

LYNNE S. CALLAHAN FOR THE COURT

CARR, P. J. CONCURS. HENSAL, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.12

APPEARANCES: ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.