[Cite as In re S.W. Children, 2011-Ohio-1353.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

S./W. CHILDREN 

 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 2010CA00321 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Family Court Division, 

Case No. 2008JCV00849 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 21, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellee For Appellant 

LISA A. LOUY AARON KOVALCHIK 

Legal Counsel 116 Cleveland Ave NW 

Stark County Department Suite 808 

Of Job and Family Services Canton, Ohio 44702 

221 Third Street SE 

Canton, Ohio 44702 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant Francesca Steadman (“Mother”) appeals the October 19, 2010 

Judgment Entry and October 19, 2010 Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law 

entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, which 

terminated her parental rights, privileges and obligations with respect to her four minor 

children and granted permanent custody of the children to Appellee Stark County 

Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”). 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of G.S. (DOB 10/8/98), D.W. (DOB 

12/29/01), S.W. (DOB 10/24/05), and E.W. (DOB 6/19/07). On July 24, 2008, Mother 

and David Wise, Jr., father of D.W., S.W., and E.W., were arrested and incarcerated for 

felony intimidation of a witness.1 The condition of Mother’s home was unacceptable for 

the children. The maternal grandmother reported she had been providing care for the 

children as Mother was not doing so. SCDJFS permitted the children to stay with 

maternal grandmother. However, on July 27, 2008, SCDJFS learned maternal 

grandmother had threatened to kill the children and put antifreeze in their bottles. 

Maternal grandmother was arrested for aggravated menacing and endangering 

children. The children were removed from her home and were found to be infested with 

lice. The trial court conducted an emergency shelter care hearing on July 30, 2008, and 

placed the children into the temporary custody of SCDJFS. 

{¶3} The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on October 8, 2008. At 

that time, SCDJFS moved to delete the allegations of neglect, which the trial court 

 

1

 David Wise, Jr. and the father of G.S. are not parties to this Appeal. 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 3

granted. Mother stipulated to a finding of dependency. The trial court appointed 

Attorney Brent A. Barnes as guardian ad litem for the children. 

{¶4} SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody on June 11, 2009. The trial 

court conducted a dispositional review hearing on August 18, 2009, at which time the 

trial court extended temporary custody for six months as Mother was making progress 

on her case plan. The trial court subsequently extended temporary custody an 

additional six months until July 28, 2010. SCDJFS refilled its motion for permanent 

custody on June 3, 2010. Mother filed a motion for a return of custody to her and for the 

termination of SCDJFS’s involvement. 

{¶5} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for permanent custody 

on October 14, 2010. 

{¶6} Wanda Pounds, the ongoing family service worker with SCDJFS assigned 

to the case, testified, via a pre-adjudicatory order, Mother was to have a psychological 

evaluation/parenting evaluation at Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health. The order also 

required David Wise, Jr. to have a psychological evaluation at Melymbrosia. Mother 

had her psychological evaluation/parenting evaluation conducted at Melymbrosia. 

SCDJFS accepted the change of mother’s evaluation by Melymbrosia as the evaluation 

had already been completed. The Melymbrosia report revealed Mother was in the low 

range mentally and was unable to parent the children independently. The evaluator 

recommended Mother have long-term parenting instructions and individual therapy, but 

even with that, the evaluator did not feel Mother could handle parenting on her own. 

{¶7} Mother attended Goodwill parenting, and received a certificate of 

attendance. The parenting instructor noted Mother struggled to pay attention to all of 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 4

the children, recalling several instances during which Mother was more involved with 

the two youngest children and left the older two children to play independently or to play 

with other children. On one occasion, D.W., the oldest daughter, struggled to get 

Mother’s attention. After saying, “Mom”, a number of times, the child sat down and 

cried for the last half-hour of the visit. While engaged in the Goodwill parenting 

program, Mother was arrested for complicity to theft and obstructing official business. 

{¶8} Pounds recalled a conversation with Mother regarding her need for a bus 

pass as her car had been impounded. Mother could not get her car out of impound 

because she did not have a driver’s license. Mother then admitted she “skirted” around 

Alliance as not to run into the police and get in trouble for driving without a license. 

{¶9} Mother’s case plan required her to attend individual counseling. Mother 

started sessions at Trillium. The therapist reported Mother was not making much 

progress. After SCDJFS filed its first motion for permanent custody, Mother began 

doing some meaningful work and started to make progress. The therapist indicated 

Mother had successfully completed the Trillium program, but felt her issues could be 

better addressed with a more intensive parenting program. At that point, SCDJFS 

contacted Goodwill Home-based to begin a home-based parenting program with 

Mother. Mother completed the coursework and met with the instructor regularly. 

Although Mother showed some frustration in balancing all four children, the Goodwill 

instructor felt Mother was doing enough to proceed to unsupervised weekend 

visitations. After the first weekend visit, the children reported maternal grandmother had 

spent the weekend at Mother’s home. Mother had been informed on numerous 

occasions maternal grandmother was not to have contact with the children. In addition, 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 5

Pounds asked Mother not to take the children out excessively over the weekend as 

S.W. was recovering from pneumonia. Nonetheless, Mother took the children out a 

number of times. When the SCDJFS aid arrived ten minutes early to pick up the 

children, Mother had the children waiting at the door with their coats on. Pounds 

described Mother as frustrated and eager for the children to leave. 

{¶10} During this time, Mother became involved with an individual named Ryan 

Collins with whom she had her fifth child, C.C.2

 Mother’s probation officer showed up 

unannounced and Mother let him in only after he threatened to call the police and 

violate her probation. While walking through the home, the probation officer found 

Collins in one of the bedrooms, wearing female underwear with his hands down his 

pants. After looking into Collins’ history, the probation officer learned Collins had a long, 

ongoing history of inappropriate sexual behavior with young children. Pounds also 

recalled when Mother became pregnant with C.C., she denied she was pregnant, and 

took steps to avoid detection of the pregnancy and the birth of the child. At the time of 

the hearing, Mother was still involved with Collins. Due to her involvement with Collins 

and allowing the children to be with maternal grandmother, Mother’s unsupervised 

weekend visits were terminated. Goodwill home-based parenting terminated Mother 

from their program. 

{¶11} Pounds also testified during the best interest portion of the hearing. 

Pounds stated the children are Caucasian. G.S., the oldest, has been diagnosed with 

ADHD, and is currently receiving therapy through Children and Adolescent Service 

Center. During the summer, he spent time in therapeutic groups, learning social skills, 

 

2

 C.C. is the subject of a separate Appeal. 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 6

and anger management skills. G.S. also has some cognitive issues and has an 

independent education plan at school, but his therapist feels he needs a more extensive 

evaluation. S.W., who was five at the time of the hearing, has speech delays and a lazy 

eye. The girl recently had tubes implanted in her ears. She attends Head Start and is 

receiving speech services, and her speech is improving rapidly. E.W., who was three at 

the time of the hearing, has temper tantrums, but nothing which requires any 

therapeutic services. Pounds indicated there were no issues with eight year old D.W. 

{¶12} The three oldest children, G.S., D.W., and S.W., are in the same foster 

home and have been there since July, 2008. In August, 2010, E.W. was moved into a 

placement with C.C. All four children are doing well in their placement. Pounds 

indicated SCDJFS has a prospective adoptive situation and the family is interested in 

adopting all five children. Pounds also noted, although the children are bonded with 

Mother, the children need a permanent home. Adoption would give the children stability 

and safety, which remain issues in Mother’s home. 

{¶13} Via Judgment Entry filed October 19, 2010, the trial court terminated 

Mother’s parental rights, privileges and obligations with respect to the children, and 

granted permanent custody of the children to SCDJFS. On the same day, the trial court 

filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 

{¶14} It is from this judgment entry and the trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, Mother appeals, raising as her sole assignment of error: 

{¶15} “I. JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST INTERESTS 

OF THE MINOR CHILDREN WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING OF 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 7

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

{¶16} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered 

in compliance with App. R. 11.1(C). 

I 

{¶17} In her sole assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court’s finding a 

grant of permanent custody to SCDJFS would be in the children’s best interest was 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶18} 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 (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA5758. 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 Constr. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578. 

{¶19} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when 

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court 

schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody 

of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has 

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care. 

{¶20} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to 

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court 

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 8

grant 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 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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody 

of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after 

March 18, 1999. 

{¶21} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody 

hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the 

child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home 

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; 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. 

{¶22} 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 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. 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 9

{¶23} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, then the focus turns to whether 

the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or 

should not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must 

consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is 

required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

one or more of the factors enumerated in R .C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with 

respect to each of the child's parents. 

{¶24} As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, all of the 

service providers, after working with Mother, determined Mother was unable to parent 

the children independently. During visits, Mother was unable to give her attention to all 

of the children. D.W. became so frustrated trying to get Mother’s attention, she cried for 

the last half-hour of one visit. When service providers believed Mother had progressed 

to unsupervised weekend visitation, Mother went against Wanda Pounds’ directives. 

Mother allowed maternal grandmother to stay with the children after maternal 

grandmother had been charged with four counts of child endangering. Mother also 

became involved with Collins, who has a long history of sexually inappropriate behavior 

involving children. Mother either chose not to incorporate what she learned into her 

parenting or was unable to do so. 

{¶25} At the time of trial, the children had been in the custody of SCDJFS for 

more than two years. G.S. was diagnosed with ADHD, and was receiving the 

appropriate services. S.W. had delayed speech, but such was addressed with surgery 

and speech therapy. All of the children are doing well in their placements and are 

bonded with one another. The foster family caring for E.W. and C.C. are interested in 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 10

adopting all five of the children. Pounds testified the children’s need for stability and 

security outweighed the bonds that would be broken due to a grant of permanent 

custody. 

{¶26} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court’s finding it was in the 

children’s best interest to grant permanent custody to SCDJFS was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶27} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶28} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court 

Division, is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Edwards, J. and 

Wise, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 s/ John W. Wise______________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00321 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

S./W. CHILDREN : 

 : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2010CA00321 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark 

County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is affirmed. Costs assessed to 

Appellant. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 s/ John W. Wise______________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE