[Cite as In re C.P., 2020-Ohio-4978.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: CP : JUDGES: 

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

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2020 CA 0015 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Juvenile Court, 

Case No. F2017-0503 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 21, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

ANDREW E. RUSS PAULA M. SAWYERS 

1000 Taylor Station Road 20. S. Second Street 

Suite G Fourth Floor 

Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Newark, OH 43055 

 

 LAURIE WELLS 

 GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

 195 E. Broad St. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 2 

 Pataskala, OH 43062 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant mother L.P., filed this appeal from the judgment entered in Licking 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, which terminated all parental 

rights, privileges and responsibilities with regard to the 4-year-old child, C.P., and ordered 

permanent custody of the minor child be granted to appellee, the Licking County 

Department of Job and Family Services, (LCJFS or the agency). 

{¶ 2} The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 3} On July 18, 2017, an Emergency Ex Parte Order of Removal was issued 

authorizing C.P. to be taken into custody by LCJFS pursuant to R.C. 2151.31(A)(3). 

Concerns leading up to the involvement of LCJFS included unexplained bruising on the 

child's face, mother's unemployment and history of homelessness, mother's cannabis 

use, mother leaving C.P. with inappropriate caretakers, and failing to attend C.P's medical 

appointments as scheduled. C.P has DiGeorge Syndrome, a genetic disorder caused 

when part of chromosome 22 is missing. The disorder can cause a host of physical and 

behavioral issues. In C.P's case cardiac and behavioral issues make C.P's attendance at 

medical appointments imperative. 

{¶ 4} On July 19, 2017, LCJFS filed a complaint alleging C.P. was an abused 

and/or dependent child. An adjudicatory hearing was held on September 14, 2017. 

Mother did not attend and C.P. was adjudicated a neglected and dependent child. He was 

placed in the temporary custody of LCJFS and the case plan documents were approved 

for mother. C.P. was placed in a foster family home. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 3 

{¶ 5} Matthew Tracy was assigned to work with mother as her ongoing 

caseworker. Tracy developed case plan goals for mother which included both mental 

health and a drug abuse assessments with follow through as to any recommendations, 

random drug screens, obtain and maintain stable employment and housing, gain 

understanding of C.P.'s needs and attend his medical appointments. 

{¶ 6} Initially, mother struggled to address the case plan objectives and had very 

little contact with Tracy. On July 6, 2018, by agreement of the parties, the Order of 

Temporary Custody was extended to January 18, 2019. Mother made some progress 

toward case plan goals thereafter. The Order of Temporary Custody was extended a 

second time by agreement of the parties of February 15, 2019. 

{¶ 7} On June 18, 2019, after mother failed to meet the case plan objectives, 

LCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody. A hearing was held on the motion on 

September 13, 2019. 

{¶ 8} Ongoing caseworker Tracy testified he discussed the above mentioned 

case plan with L.P, who while initially angry about C.P. being removed from her custody, 

appeared motivated to engage in services and correct the identified issues. L.P. was to 

work toward increasing her parenting knowledge by better understanding C.P.'s special 

needs and developing an understanding of the importance of C.P.'s medical 

appointments. At the beginning of the agency's involvement, Tracy stated L.P. minimized 

C.P.'s medical issues, but did develop an understanding of his needs through the life of 

this matter. Nonetheless, Tracy continued to harbor concerns regarding L.P.'s ability to 

follow through with what is necessary for C.P.'s medical wellbeing. Tracy did not believe 

L.P. had progressed to a point where there was no longer a concern for C.P. in her care. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 4 

{¶ 9} As for other aspects of her case plan, Tracy stated L.P initially did not want 

to engage in mental health counseling, and made no progress toward substance abuse 

treatment. Although L.P. had eventually did engage in mental health treatment, according 

to Tracy, she had failed to demonstrate consistency in attendance and following through 

with recommendations. L.P. admitted she continued to use marijuana which Tracy felt 

presented a safety risk for C.P. due to his need for 24-hour supervision. 

{¶ 10} When L.P did eventually engage in mental health treatment in July 2018, 

she was evaluated at Behavioral Healthcare Partners of Central Ohio (BHP). Theresa 

Gehr, L.P.'s counselor, diagnosed L.P. with post-traumatic stress disorder, attention 

deficit, cannabis abuse, bipolar disorder and personality disorder. Her attendance at BHP 

and a recommended anger management group was sporadic. From November 2018 until 

the September 2019 permanent custody hearing, L.P. had attended only 7 individual 

counseling sessions, two of which were in August, 2019. Gehr believes L.P.'s mental 

health issues drive her substance abuse issues and that the former must be addressed 

before the latter will resolve. In short, L.P. continues to struggle with mental health and 

substance abuse issues. 

{¶ 11} At the time of the permanent custody hearing, L.P. had secured appropriate 

income-based housing, however animal odors and feces were observed in the home. As 

to employment, at the permanent custody hearing L.P. testified she was working as a 

bartender at one downtown Columbus bar and as a dancer at another. L.P. stated she 

earns between $800 and $900 a night dancing, which she does 3 nights a week, and 

tends bar the remaining nights. Despite this report, L.P. had never provided Tracy with 

any evidence of stable income or employment. Due to her reported high income, Tracy 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 5 

also had concerns regarding L.P.'s compliance with her income-based housing 

arrangement. As of the permanent custody hearing, L.P. had never paid rent due to her 

inability to maintain employment. 

{¶ 12} Of further concern was the fact that L.P. had no child care plan in place. 

She acknowledged she was not able to immediately meet C.P.'s needs. Her intent, 

however, was to obtain childcare for C.P. from 8:00 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. She would then 

pick him up and take him home to sleep the rest of the night. Additionally, a major concern 

surrounding C.P.'s removal was his exposure to inappropriate individuals in L.P.'s life who 

may have caused his injuries. L.P. continued to have contact with I.W., one such 

individual of concern, and had at one point after C.P.'s removal, cohabitated with I.W. 

Over the life of this matter, there were two instances of violence between the two and as 

late as two weeks before the hearing I.W. was observed in the home at least once a week. 

{¶ 13} In November 2018 L.P. was charged with misdemeanor theft after a 

shoplifting incident. She was granted intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) in February 

2019. L.P. failed to comply with the requirements of ILC. Her conditions essentially 

mirrored her case plan in the instant matter, with the additional requirement of a daily call 

in to see if she was to submit to a random drug screen beginning in May 2019. As of 

September 2019, L.P. had failed to call in on 14 occasions and had failed to report as 

directed for 11 drug screens. She further failed to produce proof of employment and failed 

to follow the recommendations of BHP. As a result of her non-compliance, L.P.'s ILC was 

revoked on September 12, 2019. She was sentenced to 30 days incarceration, 21 days 

suspended. She was to begin serving her jail time shortly after the permanent custody 

hearing. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 6 

{¶ 14} L.P's visitation with C.P. was supervised throughout the pendency of this 

matter. After L.P. was in a car accident in February 2019, visitation occurred in her home 

supervised by C.P.'s foster mother B.B. Visits went well and L.P. exhibits a bond with C.P. 

L.P attended the majority of C.P.'s medical appointments with C.P.'s foster mother and 

demonstrated an ability to apply tools and coping mechanisms provided by C.P.'s doctors 

to manage C.P.'s difficult behaviors. 

{¶ 15} C.P. has resided with his current foster family since August 2018. C.P. is 

very attached to his foster mother and the family has expressed interest in adopting C.P. 

as no relatives or kinship placements have expressed interest in caring for C.P. 

{¶ 16} Attorney Laurie Wells served as Guardian ad Litem (GAL) for C.P. She 

observed C.P. had made significant positive progress in his current placement, and that 

his basic and special needs were met. Her final report recommended a grant of 

permanent custody to LCJFS would be in C.P.'s best interest, and this remained her 

recommendation after hearing the evidence presented at the permanent custody 

hearing.. 

{¶ 17} On October 23, 2019, the trial court issued its judgment entry granting 

LCJFS's motion for permanent custody. It is from this entry that L.P. appeals raising two 

assignments of error as follow: 

I 

{¶ 18} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FAILING 

TO CONSIDER ALL FIVE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e)." 

II 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 7 

{¶ 19} "THE JUVENILE COURT'S JUDGMENT GRANTING PERMANENT 

COURT COMMITMENT OF THE MINOR CHILD TO LICKING COUNTY CHILDREN'S 

SERVICES WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE." 

I, II 

{¶ 20} We address L.P.'s assignments of error together. In her first assignment of 

error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to consider all of the factors for 

determining the best interests C.P. as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). In 

her second assignment of error, L.P. argues the trial court's granting of LCJFS's motion 

for permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

Permanent Custody 

{¶ 21} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states permanent custody may be granted to a public 

or private agency if the trial court determines by clear and convincing evidence at a 

hearing held pursuant to division (A) of R.C. 2151.414, that it is in the best interest of the 

child and any of the following apply: 

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned* * *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. 

(b) The child is abandoned. 

(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who 

are able to take permanent custody. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 8 

 

(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* * 

* 

(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents 

from whose custody the child has been removed has been 

adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three 

separate occasions by any court in this state or another state.

{¶ 22} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) provides a two-pronged analysis the 

trial court is required to apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In 

practice, the trial court will determine whether one of the four circumstances 

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. 

Best Interests 

{¶ 23} In determining the best interest of a child for purposes of permanent 

custody disposition, the trial court is required to consider the factors contained in R.C. § 

2151.414(D). These factors are as follows: 

(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's 

parents, siblings, relatives, foster care givers and out-of-home 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 9 

providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the 

child; 

(2) The wishes of the child, as 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, including whether 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 * * *; 

(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 to the agency; 

(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section 

apply in relation to the parents and child. 

Standard of Review 

{¶ 24} 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, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the 

syllabus. See also, In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 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. As an 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 10 

appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent and 

credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or her judgment. Cross Truck 

v. Jeffries, Guernsey App. No. CA-5758, 1982WL2911 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, 

judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential 

elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 

578 (1978). Furthermore, it is well-established that the trial court is in the best position to 

determine the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., In re Brown, Summit App. No. 21004, 

2002-Ohio-3405, ¶ 9, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St .2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). 

Mother's Arguments 

{¶ 25} Although L.P. argues the trial court failed to consider each of the required 

best interests factors, she fails to identify which factor or factors were not considered. 

Moreover, our review of the trial court's judgment entry clearly indicates the trial court did 

consider all of the relevant factors. Magistrate's Decision, October 23, 2019 at 15-17. We 

therefore find L.P.'s first assignment of error without merit. 

{¶ 26} As to L.P.'s second assignment of error, the record here reflects C.P. had 

been in the custody of the LCJFS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-twomonth period, from July 18, 2017 through June 18, 2019, when LCJFS filed its motion for 

permanent custody. L.P. does not dispute this fact. This court has adopted the position 

that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a 

consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. In 

the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 11 

4018; In re S.H, 5th Dist. Knox No. 13CA17, 2013-Ohio-4441, ¶ 11. Therefore, a finding 

that grounds existed for permanent custody cannot be against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 

{¶ 27} Even if that were not so, as discussed in our statement of facts L.P. failed 

to adequately address her employment situation, mental health issues, and substance 

abuse issues. T. 26-37, 184, 188-189, 190, 196-198, 215-216. She further continued to 

have contact with inappropriate individuals who could pose a threat to both herself and 

C.P. T. 128-130. 

{¶ 28} Further, C.P. had been in the same foster home for more than a year at the 

time of the permanent custody hearing. T. 123-124. C.P.'s foster family sees to his special 

needs, is interested in adopting C.P. and even permitting L.P to remain a part of C.P.'s 

life if L.P. remains appropriate. T. 141, 146-147. 

{¶ 29} Finally, C.P.'s GAL filed a report in this matter recommending permanent 

custody be granted to LCJFS. She reiterated this recommendation at the conclusion of 

testimony at the permanent custody hearing. T. 313. 

{¶ 30} Thus, while L.P. did make progress toward understanding and being 

attentive to C.P.'s special needs, regrettably, she still failed to remedy crucial aspects of 

her case plan. We find the record as a whole therefore supports the trial court's 

conclusions that LCJFS made reasonable efforts and permanent custody to LCJFS is in 

the best interests of the child. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, John, J. concur. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0015 12 

 

EEW/rw