[Cite as In re T.H. , 2020-Ohio-3571.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. T.H. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Crai g R. Baldwin, J.

Case No. 20CA000003

O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 18JC00136

JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 30, 2020

APPEARANCES:

For Christopher Dau g hert y For Brian Hard y JEANETTE MOLL LINDSEY DONEHUE ANGLER P.O. Box 461 217 N. 8 th Stree t Zanesville, Ohio 43702 Cambrid g e, Ohio 43725

For Guernse y Count y Children Services For CASA

MELISSA M. WILSON MARGARET BOYD LaPLANTE 274 Hi g hland Avenue 139 W. 8 th Stree t Cambrid g e, Ohio 43725 Cambrid g e, Ohio 43725Guernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Appellant Christina Hoskins (“Mother”) appeals the January 17, 2020 Journal Entry entered by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pl eas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to her minor child (“the Child”), and granted permanent custody of the Child to appellee Guernsey County Children Services (“GCCS”).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} Mother and Brian Hardy, Jr. (“Father”) are the biological paren ts of the Child. On April 3, 3018, the trial court placed the Child in t he emergency temporary custody of GCCS after Mother was arrested during a drug raid. T he Child was with Mother at the time. Father was incarcerated throughout the majority of the case. GCCS filed a complaint on April 4, 2018, alleging the Child was a dependent, neglected, and abused. {¶3} At a hearing on April 4, 2018, the trial court found there was probable cause to believe the Child was a dependent child, and ordered the Chi ld continue in the temporary custody of GCCS. The trial court ordered Court Appoi nted Special Advocate (“CASA”) Cheryl Gadd to serve as guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for the Child. At an adjudicatory hearing on June 11, 2018, Mother admitted the Chil d was dependent, and the trial court so found. The trial court conducted a disposit ional hearing and case plan hearing on June 28, 2018, and maintained the status quo. {¶4} The GAL filed a report on September 25, 2018. Therein, the GAL noted Mother continued to test positive for THC. Mother was living w ith a friend, who had an open case with GCCS, despite GCCS expressing concerns regarding the arrangement. Mother reported she attends group counseling at Life Springs Re covery in Columbus, Ohio, as she is a recovering meth addict, and is prescribed Sub oxone. Mother’sGuernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 3

paramour had displayed aggression toward GCCS workers on multip le occasions. In addition, court staff had to escort Mother’s paramour out of th e court house during the dispositional hearing. Mother was evasive when asked if her pa ramour was violent with her. The GAL recommended the Child remain in the temporary cus tody of GCCS and visitation remain supervised at GCCS. The GAL also indicated h er belief Mother would benefit from attending mental health counseling at a local faci lity. {¶5} The GAL filed updated reports on February 1, April 30, and July 26, 2019. Mother continued to test positive for THC. Although Mother had indicated she was getting a medical marijuana card, she had yet to do so. Mother failed to complete a mental health

assessment. GCCS could not confirm whether Mother had stable h ousing. Mother attended Life Springs, and later Muskingum Valley Heath Center (“MVHC”), for drug treatment and to maintain her prescription for Suboxone. Mothe r was living with her paramour, and the GAL recommended he participate in counseling to address his anger

issues. {¶6} The trial court conducted review hearings on November 20, 2018, February 7, and May 3, 2019, and maintained the status quo each time. A t the May 3, 2019 review hearing, the trial court granted GCCS’s request for a six month extension to give Mother additional time to provide clean drug screens and to complete h er mental health

assessment and follow recommendations. The trial court conduct ed a review hearing on July 27, 2019, and again maintained the status quo. {¶7} GCCS filed a motion for permanent custody on September 13, 2019 . The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion of January 9, 202 0.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 4

{¶8} Stacy Yakupcak, the ongoing GCCS caseworker assigned to the fam ily, testified Mother had prior involvement with GCCS relative to he r other two children due to concerns of Mother’s drug use, her being incarcerated, and t he family’s homelessness. Mother no longer had custody of those children. Yakupcak expla ined GCCS took custody of the Child on April 3, 2018, after Mother was arrested during a drug raid. The Child was

with Mother at the time. {¶9} Ykupcak detailed the requirements of Mother's case plan. Mothe r was required to complete a mental health assessment and follow all recommendations. Mother completed a mental health assessment at MVHC in Septembe r, 2019. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and a history of substance abuse, in remission. Mother was prescribed medication, but stopped takin g the prescriptions

because she did not care for how the medications made her feel. Mother was also involved in a Soboxone program at MVHC. {¶10} The case plan also required Mother to complete a drug and alcoh ol assessment and follow all recommendations, as well as comply with random drug screens. Mother attended counseling every two weeks at MVHC. Mother consistently tested positive for THC. Out of a total of 47 screens, Mother had zero negative screens. Yakupcak had multiple conversations with Mother about her marij uana use. Mother acknowledged she needed to stop and informed Yakupcak she was t rying. Yakupcak and Mother discussed Mother obtaining a medical marijuana card, but Mother never pursued the option. Mother told Yakupcak she used marijuana to deal with anxiety and

stress.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 5

{¶11} In addition, Mother was required to obtain and maintain stable housing, and

maintain sufficient economic resources to care for the Child an d meet his basic needs. Yakupcak testified housing was an ongoing issue. Mother had sa fe and appropriate housing for a period of ten months, between November, 2018, and August, 2019. During the remaining time, Mother was homeless and staying with friend s and family. In the spring of 2019, Mother worked on weekends at a warehouse in Sug arcreek. Mother commenced employment at Quality Inn in April, 2019. Between Se ptember, and December, 2019, Mother worked for Packaging Materials. Mother was unemployed at the time of the hearing. Mother did not have any form of incom e when she was not working. {¶12} The Child was 44 months old, and had been in the custody of GCC S for 21 months. Yakupcak testified it would be difficult for Mother to have the type of bond a mother should have with a child of the Child’s age due to the l ength of time the Child had been in GCCS custody. Yakupcak had not observed any behavior c hanges in Mother during her involvement with GCCS. Yakupcak did not believe Mot her could be reunified with the Child within a reasonable time, noting Mother continue d to test positive for THC even after the filing of the motion for permanent custody. The Child had been in the custody of GCCS for 465 days. {¶13} GCCS explored 10 kinship options for the placement of the Child . These options were either not appropriate or not interested in placem ent. {¶14} Cheryl Gadd, CASA and GAL, testified she believed granting perm anent custody to GCCS was in the Child's best interest. Gadd explaine d Mother continued to use marijuana despite conversations during which she was advise d reunification wouldGuernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 6

not occur if she continued to use marijuana. Mother repeatedl y stated she intended to get a medical marijuana card, but never did so. Mother remaine d in an abusive relationship with her paramour. Gadd did not think reunificati on was possible even if Mother was given additional time to work on her case plan. {¶15} Via Journal Entry filed January 17, 2020, the trial court termi nated Mother's parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to the Child and granted permanent custody of the Child to GCCS. The trial court found t he Child could not and should not be placed with Mother, and it was in the Child's bes t interest to grant permanent custody to GCCS. {¶16} It is from this journal entry Mother appeals, raising the follo wing assignments of error:

I. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST

INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY THE

GRANTING OF PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE

MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

II. THERE WAS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR

THE TRIAL COURT TO FIND THAT THE MINOR CHILD SHOULD NOT

BE PLACED WITH APPELLANT AND THAT IT WAS IN THE MINOR

CHILD’S BEST INTEREST TO BE PLACED IN THE PERMANENT

CUSTODY OF GUERNSEY COUNTY CHILDREN’S SERVICES.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 7

{¶17} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be co nsidered in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C). I, II {¶18} We elect to address Mother’s first and second assignments of er ror together. In her first assignment of error, Mother contends th e trial court erred in finding it was in the Child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to GCCS. In her second assignment of error, Mother challenges the trial court's findin g the Child could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be place d with her. {¶19} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, Stark App. No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential el ements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidenc e. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). {¶20} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must fol low when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) ma ndates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a moti on for permanent custody of a child by a public children services agency or private chil d placing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long- term foster care. {¶21} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenil e 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 grantGuernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 8

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with eith er 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; or (d) the child has been in the tem porary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placeme nt agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,

1999. {¶22} 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 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; 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. {¶23} 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.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 9

{¶24} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to w hether the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable p eriod of time or should not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial c ourt must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial c ourt is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing eviden ce, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist wi th respect to each of the child's parents. {¶25} As set forth in our statement of the facts and case, supra, Mot her failed to complete her case plan. Mother continued to use marijuana desp ite being advised

reunification could not occur if she continued to do so. Mothe r completed 47 out of 47 random drug screens; she tested positive for THC each time. Mo ther testified she uses marijuana to make her feel numb and not think or feel. Mother is a self-admitted former “meth addict”. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar affective dis order and a history of substance abuse, in remission. She was prescribe medication, b ut stopped taking the medications due to how the prescriptions made her feel. Mother attended counseling to address her mental health and drug addiction issues. {¶26} Mother failed to obtain and maintain stable housing and employm ent. At the time of the hearing, Mother was residing with her own mothe r, Freddie Hoskins. Hoskins’ long-term, live-in boyfriend had previously been incar cerated for a violent crime. Prior to living moving into Hoskins’ home on December 27, 2019, Mother lived with her abusive paramour. {¶27} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding it was in the best interest of the Child to grant permanent custody to GCCS is not against the manifestGuernse y Count y , Case No. 20CA000003 10

weight of the evidence. We further find the trial court's findi ng the Child could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with her is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶28} Mother’s first and second assignments of error are overruled. {¶29} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juve nile Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Gwin, J. and Baldwin, J. concur