[Cite as In re A.G. , 2020-Ohio-6754.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

: JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. IN RE A.G. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. : : Case No. 2020 CA 00045 : : : : : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court o f Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. F 20180675

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 17, 2020

APPEARANCES:

Fo r Mothe r -Appellant: Fo r LCJFS-Appellee: JERMAINE L. COLQUITT WILLIAM C. HAYES 33 W. Main St. LICKIN G COUNTY PROSECUTOR Suite 109 Newark, OH 43055 PAULA M. SAWYERS 20 S. Second St., 4th Floo r Newark, OH 43055Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 2

Delaney, J. {¶1} Mother-Appellant appeals the June 19, 2020 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting perma nent custody of A.G. to the Appellee, Licking County Job & Family Services and placi ng S.B. into a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement with Appellee, Licking County Job & Family Services.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} Mother-Appellant is the biological mother of four children : S.B. (born on July 28, 2003); A.G. (born on July 25, 2006); and twins A.G. and J.G . (born on June 9, 2008). The twins are not part of this appeal. {¶3} The father of S.B. is H.B. The father of A.G. is R.N. The fathers had no relationship with their children and were in prison. Mother was in a 15-year relationship with J.G., the biological father of the twins. J.G. has a histo ry of substance abuse and criminal activity, including a felony domestic violence convict ion in February 2019. {¶4} Appellee Licking County Job & Family Services (“LCJFS”) be came involved with Mother and her children in September 2018 based on allegat ions of neglect. It was alleged that Mother and J.G. were involved with drugs and had c ommitted domestic violence. The home was unkempt, infested with insects, and the children exhibited symptoms of chronic head lice. Upon investigation by LCJFS, it filed a complaint alleging dependency on October 3, 2018. The four children were removed f rom the home and placed in the Emergency Shelter Care Custody of LCJFS on Octobe r 3, 2018. The twins were placed in the temporary custody of their caregiver, subjec t to protective supervision. S.B. and A.G. were placed in separate foster care homes.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 3

{¶5} An uncontested adjudicatory hearing was held on December 3 1, 2018. The children were determined to be dependent and placed in the temp orary custody of LCJFS. {¶6} On August 29, 2019, LCJFS filed a Motion for Permanent Cus tody for A.G. LCJFS also filed a Motion to Modify Disposition to a Planned Pe rmanent Living Arrangement (PPLA) for S.B. The motions were set for a hearing before the Magistrate on January 14, 2020. The following facts were adduced at the he aring. {¶7} Mother’s case was assigned to Caitlin Gladstone, ongoing s ocial worker with LCJFS. Gladstone filed Mother’s first case plan on October 30, 2018. Gladstone met with Mother on November 27, 2018 to review the case plan. The c ase plan had four objectives: substance abuse, housing, employment, and parenting . Mother’s drug of choice was methamphetamines. The case plan required her to obta in substance abuse treatment and drug screening. Mother was required to secure sta ble employment and housing which would place her in a position to provide for the financial and housing needs for her children. She finally had to complete parenting classes . Mother did not agree with all the case plan objectives and felt she only needed to addres s housing and employmen t. {¶8} The case plan provided for supervised visitation with S.B. and A.G. Mother had her first visit on October 16, 2018. Her second visit was s cheduled for October 30, 2018 and Mother did not appear. From October 2018 to July 2019, Mother was deep into her drug addiction. She did not participate in visitation or an y services provided by LCJFS.

She did not contact Gladstone or LCJFS. {¶9} On February 1, 2019, Gladstone filed an amended case plan that removed Mother from the cover page due to Mother’s lack of contact with LCJFS.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 4

{¶10} After the children were removed from the home, Mother was homeless. In June 2019, Mother moved to a recovery house and engaged service s with the Alcohol and Drug Freedom Center of Knox County. She completed her diagn ostic assessment on June 4, 2019, where she was diagnosed with severe amphetamin e type stimulant use disorder, severe cannabis use disorder, and mild cocaine stimul ant use disorder. Her treatment plan was to attend intensive outpatient program and w eekly individual counseling. She started individual counseling on June 14, 2019 and IOP on June 17,

2019. {¶11} Mother reached out to Gladstone in July 2019 and expresse d an interest in reunifying with her children. Mother and Gladstone met on Augus t 12, 2019, where Mother admitted she had a substance abuse disorder, but her las t use was May 24, 2019 when she got high on her birthday. {¶12} Mother moved from the recovery house and rented a room in a boarding house. She lived there for a few months and in September 2019, Mother rented an apartment with J.G. Gladstone would not conduct a home visit to the apartment because J.G. threatened her. In January 2020, Mother received a voucher for subsidized housing and independently leased a two-bedroom apartment. J.G. was in p rison. Mother slept in the common room of the apartment and stated the four children c ould share the two

bedrooms. {¶13} Mother had no employment. She had time restrictions due t o her substance abuse treatment that limited her working hours. She had a job a s a gas station attendant for a few weeks and did some cleaning work. She consistently ap plied for employment and was applying for Social Secu rity disability due to her subs tance abuse disorder.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 5

{¶14} Mother completed IOP on November 25, 2019. She still atte nded individual counseling sessions. She took drug screens on June 21, 2019, Ju ly 24, 2019, and January 9, 2020, which were negative. {¶15} When J.G. was arrested and incarcerated, Mother obtained independent housing. Mother visited him once in jail. She stated she was no longer in a relationship

with him but remained in contact with him because of the childr en. She stated she was unaware he was using drugs and understood his substance abuse w as a risk to her own recovery. Gladstone, at Mother’s request, gave J.G. a separate case plan for reunification

with the twins. {¶16} Mother attended parenting classes and successfully comple ted the session. During the pendency of the case, Mother had a poor relationship with S.B. and A.G. Mother appeared for her first visit with the children on Octobe r 16, 2018, but she did not appear for her second visit on October 30, 2018. On November 6, 2018, Gladstone met with both children and they expressed they no longer wished to visit with Mother. Mother reappeared in July 2019 and expressed a desire to reunify with her children. Mother said she wanted to participate in joint counseling sessions with the children. The children’s case manager stated the children had no desire to participate i n joint counseling with

Mother and it would be detrimental to their individual trauma r ecovery. {¶17} The children were placed in separate foster care in Octob er 2018. Neither child has special physical needs, but they require mental healt h treatment due to trauma. S.B. is bonded with his foster parents and siblings. He struggl es in school and needed to repeat the ninth grade. He was in counseling and was being taug ht independent living skills. S.B. expressed to the Guardian ad Litem that he did not wish to be reunified withLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 6

Mother and preferred to remain in his foster home. He did not w ant to be adopted. A.G. started her placement with the caregiver for the twins. A.G. wa s moved to a foster family

but was transitioned to Maternal Aunt after A.G. struck a foste r sibling. A.G. was removed from Maternal Aunt’s home due to behavioral issues. A.G. was pl aced in a foster to adopt home, where she is doing better, and the family wants to adopt her. She struggles socially and with anger management. A.G. does not want to go back to Mot her’s care. {¶18} The Guardian ad Litem recommended that A.G. be placed in the permanent custody of LCJFS and a PPLA be granted for S.B. {¶19} The Magistrate issued his Decision on April 16, 2020. He first found the children were placed in the temporary custody of LCJFS on Decem ber 31, 2018, approximately 13 months before the January 14, 2020 hearing. Th e Magistrate found reasonable efforts were made to prevent the continued need for removal, but notwithstanding the reasonable case planning and diligent effor ts by LCJFS, the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the ho me had not sufficiently improved to allow for reunification. The Magistrate found the b iggest issue was Mother’s relationship with the children: Both children have expressed that they don’t want to see [Mothe r] or live in her home. This is understandable, as both are angry with her fo r disappearing from their lives in October of 2018 to August of 2 019. These children are old enough to understand and appreciate these case s and the circumstances which gave rise to these cases. [Mother] expresse d that she wants to engage in counseling with the children. This is not a bad idea. However, this would only work if the children are able and will ing to do so.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 7

Counseling isn’t something that will make it all better in a co uple of weeks. It may take months and given where this case stands, it is unli kely that a single extension of temporary custody would give enough time fo r this counseling to be successful enough for reunification to occur. (Magistrate’s Decision, Apr. 16, 2020). {¶20} The Magistrate considered the statutory best interest fac tors and recommended it was in the best interests of the children that p ermanent custody of A.G. be granted to LCJFS. The Magistrate ordered that S.B. be placed in a PPLA with LCJFS. {¶21} On June 1, 2020, Mother filed objections to the Magistrat e’s Decision. {¶22} On June 19, 2020, the trial court overruled Mother’s obje ctions and adopted the Magistrate’s Decision. It is from this judgment entry that Mother now appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶23} Mother raises two Assignments of Error: {¶24} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY

OF A.G. AND PPLA OF S.B. TO LCDJFS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AN D CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE THAT A.G. CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH MOTHER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY SHOWINGS FOR PPLA, AND DID NOT PROVE THAT

GRANTING EITHER MOTION WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST. {¶25} “II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING

PERMANENT CUSTODY IS SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE , WHETHER THE AGENCY MADE THE NECESSARY STATUTORY SHOWINGS INLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 8

SUPPORT OF ITS PPLA MOTION, AND WHETHER EITHER OF THESE MOTIONS

WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.”

ANALYSIS

I. and II. {¶26} In her two Assignments of Error, Mother argues the trial court erred when it granted permanent custody of A.G. to LCJFS and granted LCJFS’s motion to place S.B. in a planned permanent living arrangement with LCJFS. We separa tely consider Mother’s arguments as to each child’s dispositional order. A.G. and Permanent Custody {¶27} Mother contends in her first and second Assignment of Err or that the judgment of the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of A. G. to LCJFS was not supported by clear and convincing evidence, nor was the judgmen t in the best interest of the child. We disagree.

Standard of Review {¶28} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basi c’ civil right.” In re Murray , 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of per manent custody must be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing

evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the mind of th e 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). “Where the degr ee of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine th e record to determine

whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degreeLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 9

of proof.” Id . at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case supports the trial court's j udgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for th at of the trial court. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co ., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). {¶29} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the w eight to be given to the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland , 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is “crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evide nce in the parties'

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record wel l.” Davis v. Flickinger , 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). {¶30} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court mus t follow 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. {¶31} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court may gran t permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the h earing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the chi ld to 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 pri vate child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twe nty-twomonth period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one o r moreLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 10

public children services agencies or private child placing agen cies 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 th e child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with t he child's parents. (b) The child is abandoned. (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the ch ild who are able to take permanent custody. (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies fo r twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the ch ild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children se rvices agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more m onths of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in divisi on (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. (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 a n abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasio ns by any

court in this state or another state. * * * *.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 11

{¶32} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turn s to whether 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. {¶33} R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the t rial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practic e, a trial court will usually

determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R .C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) is present before proceeding to a determination reg arding the best interest of the child. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), in determining the best interest of a child in a permanent custody proceeding, the court shall consider all rele vant factors.

12 Out of 22 Months {¶34} In the Magistrate’s Decision, the Magistrate notes that A .G. was placed in the temporary custody of LCJFS on December 31, 2018, “some 13 m onths before this hearing.” (Magistrate’s Decision, Apr. 16, 2020). R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) allows the juvenile court to grant permanent custody when the child has be en in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or pri vate child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month per iod. When calculating this time period, however, “the time that passes between the fi ling of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not co unt toward the 12-Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 12

month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” In re Dylan B ., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007- CA-00362, 2008-Ohio-2283, 2008 WL 2025086, ¶ 24. {¶35} In the case sub judice, the children were removed from th e home on October 3, 2018. They were adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary custody of LCJFS on December 31, 2018. LCJFS filed its motion for perma nent custody on August 29, 2019. December 31, 2018 to August 29, 2019 was a period of seven months and 20 days. When LCJFS filed its motion for permanent custody, A.G. h ad not been in the temporary custody of LCJFS for twelve or more months of a conse cutive twenty-twomonth period. At the time of the hearing, A.G. had been in the temporary custody of LCJFS for 12 months and 14 days. The trial court’s mention of R .C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) as one of the reasons to grant permanent custody of A.G. to LCJFS is not decisive of the ultimate issue of custody. “If a ground other than R.C. 2151.41 4(B)(1)(d) exists to support a grant of permanent custody, the agency may move for permanent custody on that other ground.” In re Dylan B ., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007-CA-00362, 2008-Ohio-2283, 2008 WL 2025086, ¶ 26 citing In re: C. W .,104 Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-6411 at ¶ 27, 818 N.E.2d at 1180. LCJFS moved for permanent custody of A.G. on other gro unds and the juvenile court found those were demonstrated by clear and convincing evi dence.

Reasonable Efforts {¶36} Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found th at A.G. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. The juvenile co urt relied upon R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4) in making its decision. The relevant sta tutory provisions state: (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) o f this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of t he RevisedLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 13

Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the pare nts, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's ho me and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuous ly and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the par ents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other s ocial and

rehabilitative services and materi al resources that were made a vailable to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to all ow them to resume and maintain parental duties.

* * * (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visi t, or communicate with the ch ild when ableLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 14

to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provi de an adequate permanent home for the child; {¶37} Mother argues by evidence of the completion of her case p lanning objectives, she did not fail continuously and repeatedly to sub stantially remedy the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside the child 's home. Mother also contends LCJFS did not engage in reasonable case planning nor d id it make diligent efforts in this case because it unambiguously refused to facili tate visitation between

Mother and the children. Mother states that when the children s tated they did not want to visit with Mother, LCJFS made no further attempts promote Mothe r’s relationship with her

children. {¶38} The juvenile court described Mother’s efforts during the pendency of the case as having “mixed results.” (Magistrate’s Decision, Apr. 16 , 2020). We agree with the juvenile court’s characterization of Mother’s efforts. The juve nile court found that Mother failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the childre n to be placed outside of the home and demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do s o, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child. Mother contends the completion of her case plan objectives is evidence that she remedied the problems and has a willingness to provide an adequate home for the children. Mother had a significant substance abuse issue, which she did not addr ess for the first six months

of the case. She started treatment in June 2019 and had maintai ned her sobriety at the time of the hearing. She did report using marijuana to celebrat e her birthday. Mother had inconsistent housing. Her longest period with stable housing wa s with J.G. through theLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 15

fall of 2019. She obtained a voucher for housing and independen tly moved into an apartment one week before the hearing. Mother completed parenti ng classes. Mother had no income, but she was applying for jobs and Social Security di sability income. She did some house cleaning. {¶39} The record in this case shows Mother exhibited a lack of commitment towards her children by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with them when she was able to do so. We will further discuss this argument in the best interest analysis,

but Mother contends it was not her lack of commitment but the f ailure of LCJFS to facilitate the relationship between her and the children; therefore, there was no reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist Mother. I t is an undisputed fact that Mother disappeared from the lives of her children from October 2018 to July 2019 to pursue her drug addiction. During the time their Mother was gon e, her teenaged children

moved forward with their lives in new homes. Mother entered sub stance abuse treatment in June 2019. In July 2019, Mother reengaged with Gladstone and wanted to reconnect with her children. At that time, S.B. was 16 years old and A.G. was 14 years old. S.B. had been in the same foster home and was working towards independen t living, as he was only two years away from being a legal adult. A.G. had been in four foster placements, the last being a foster-to-adopt home where the family was inte rested in pursuing adoption. Gladstone asked the children if they would meet with Mother and they refused. The GAL reported the children would not meet with Mother. The c hildren’s case manager

recommended that the children not meet with Mother. Mother did not file a contempt motion against LCJFS for lack of visitation.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 16

{¶40} As the juvenile court noted, counseling between Mother an d children would be a good idea but was not feasible. The children were not will ing to work on the relationship and based on the status of the case and the age of the children, a single extension of temporary custody might not be enough time to repa ir the relationship to

allow reunification. {¶41} LCJFS gave Mother visitation with the children and Mother attended only one visit before disappearing until July 2019. The children’s r efusal to meet with Mother when she chose to return was the consequence of Mother’s disapp earance from her children’s lives. We cannot say in this case that LCJFS did not use diligent efforts to facilitate a relationship between Mother and her teenaged child ren. Best Interests {¶42} The next step in the analysis is whether LCJFS showed by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of permanent custody was in th e best interest of the children. R.C. 2151.414(D) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors in determining whether the child's best interests would be served by granting the permanent custody motion. Those factors include: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home provider s, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) 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; (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the c hild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children service s agenciesLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 17

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; (d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement a nd whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of perma nent custody to the agency; (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of t his section apply in relation to the parents and child. {¶43} Mother’s successful completion of a case plan is not disp ositive on the issue

of reunification. In re B.P ., 5th Dist. Licking No. 2000 CA 00031, 2020-Ohio-3734, 2020 WL 4013125, ¶ 32 citing In re W.A.J ., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99813, 2014-Ohio-604. While it may be in Mother's best interest to complete the case plan, this is only one factor

for a trial court to consider what is in the best interest of t he child. In re A.H ., 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA96, 2019-Ohio-1509, 2019 WL 1777306, ¶ 38. Whe re a parent has participated in his case plan and completed most or all of the plan requirements, a trial court may still properly determi ne that such parent has not sub stantially remedied the problems leading to agency involvement. In re A.H ., 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA96, 2019- Ohio-1509, 2019 WL 1777306, ¶ 39 citing In the Matter of A.L. and J.L., 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 11 CA 23, 2012-Ohio-481.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 18

{¶44} The wishes of the children were expressed through the chi ldren’s statements to the GAL. The GAL report filed on January 3, 2020 stated the children both expressed that they did not want to visit or live with Mother. The GAL recommended it was in the best interests of A.G. to be placed in the permanent custody of LCJFS and S.B. placed in PPLA with LCJFS. {¶45} Mother contends the juvenile court could not make a deter mination as to the interaction and interrelationship with the child and parent because Mother had not been permitted to visit with the children since July 2019. In s upport of her argument, she

cites this Court to In re C.S ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25344, 2010-Ohio-4463. In that opinion, the majority held the juvenile court’s award of permanent custo dy was against the weight

of the evidence because the child had not visited with mother f or 18 months. The case plan allowed for visitation but with parameters due to the moth er’s history of abuse of the

child. The mother did not follo w the parameter s and the agency would not permit visitation. The juvenile court granted permanent custody, but t he Ninth District reversed, holding it could not say the agency made reasonable efforts tow ard reunification or that it was in the best interests of the child by granting permanent cu stody because there was no evidence of the interaction or interrelationship with the ch ild and the mother. Id . at ¶ 10. In dissent, Judge Carr noted that limitations or restrictio ns on visitations based on the well-being of the child were common in cases of children adjudi cated dependent or neglected. Id . at ¶ 60. The agency did not deny the mother visitation. The m other failed to abide by the limitations put in place by the agency and ther efore, visitation could not

occur. Id . at ¶ 62-63. “The only person who foreclosed the opportunity f or visitation

between Mother and the child was Mother herself. It does not fu rther the best interests ofLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 19

children to allow their parents to balk at the requirements des igned to ensure the safety of their children during visitation and then cry procedural fou l when their parental rights

have been terminated.” In re C.S ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25344, 2010-Ohio-4463, 2010 WL 3683392, ¶ 63 (Carr, dissenting). {¶46} The facts of In re C.S. are different from those in the present case. In our case, it was the children who refused visitation with Mother an d LCJFS supported the children’s choice based on their well-being. The reason for ref using visitation, however,

was similar to that in In re C.S . LCJFS did not deny Mother visitation at the inception of the case. Mother foreclosed the opportunity for visitation with her children when she attended one visit with the children and disappeared from the c hildren’s lives. {¶47} Based on the evidence in the record, we find the juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of A.G. to LCJFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. LCJFS presented evidence to allow the juvenile court to find, b y clear and convincing evidence that the award of permanent custody was in the best in terest of A.G. A.G. is a teenager who expressed a desire to remain with her foster-to-ad opt family and achieve permanence and stability. We affirm.

S.B. and PPLA {¶48} Mother next argues that LCJFS failed to meet its burden b y clear and convincing evidence that S.B. should be placed in a PPLA with L CJFS. We disagree. {¶49} A planned permanent living arrangement, or PPLA, is defin ed as a juvenile court order that: (1) gives a public children services agency l egal custody of a child without terminating parental rights; and (2) also lets the agency “make an appropriate placement of the child and to enter into a written agreement with a foste r care provider or with anotherLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 20

person or agency with whom the child is placed.” R.C. 2151.011( A)(38). Both R.C. 2151.353 and R.C. 2151.415 contain provisions that allow PPLAs to be granted in juvenile

cases. {¶50} In this case, LCJFS filed a Motion to Modify Disposition pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A)(5) and (C)(1)(c), requesting an order for placing S .B. in a PPLA with LCJFS. R.C. 2151.415(A) states: (A) * * * [A] public children services agency * * * that has be en given temporary custody of a child pursuant to section 2151.353 of th e Revised Code, * * * shall file a motion with the court that issued the order of disposition requesting that any of the following orders of disp osition of the child be issued by the court:

* * * (5) An order that the child be placed in a planned permanent li ving arrangement;

* * * {¶51} If a PPLA is requested, R.C. 2151.415(C)(1) outlines the following evidentiary standard for which the juvenile court to determine if a PPLA is appropriate: (C)(1) If an agency pursuant to division (A) of this section re quests the court to place a child into a planned permanent living arrangement, t he agency shall present evidence to indicate why a planned permanent livi ng arrangement is appropriate for the child, including, but not li mited to, evidence that the agency has tried or considered all other poss ible dispositions for the child. A court shall not place a child in a plannedLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 21

permanent living arrangement, unless it finds, by clear and con vincing evidence, that a planned permanent living arrangement is in the best interest of the child, that the child is sixteen years of age o r older, and that one of the following exists: (a) The child, because of physical, mental, or psychological pr oblems or needs, is unable to function in a family-like setting and must remain in

residential or institutional care. (b) The parents of the child have significant physical, mental, or psychological problems and are unable to care for the child bec ause of those problems, adoption is not in the best interest of the chi ld, as determined in accordance with division (D)(1) of section 2151.4 14 of the Revised Code, and the child retains a significant and positive relationship with a parent or relative; (c) The child has been counseled on the permanent placement opt ions available, is unwilling to accept or unable to adapt to a perma nent placement, and is in an agency program preparing for independen t living. {¶52} If a PPLA is granted, R.C. 2151.415(C)(2) requires the fo llowing: If the court issues an order placing a child in a planned perma nent living arrangement, both of the following apply: (a) The court shall issue a finding of fact setting forth the r easons for its finding;Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 22

(b) The agency may make any appropriate placement for the child and shall develop a case plan for the child that is designed to assist th e child in finding a permanent home outside of the home of the parents. {¶53} There is no dispute that at the time of the hearing, S.B. was 16 years old. As of the date of this opinion, S.B. is now 17.5 years old. {¶54} At the hearing, LCJFS presented evidence that S.B. has be en counseled on the permanent placement options available, was unwilling to accept or unable to adapt to a permanent placement, and was in an agency program preparin g for independent living. Gladstone and the GAL reported that S.B. was counseled on his permanent placement options and he was consistent with his desire to stay in his foster home without adoption. He did not want to visit or live with Mother or his f ather. The case plan filed on October 30, 2018 stated that S.B. would be provided an independ ent living social worker who would work with him on independent living skills. The amend ed case plans included training in independent living skills for S.B. {¶55} Based on our analysis of best interest for A.G., we likew ise find the evidence presented by LCJFS supports the juvenile court’s determination it was in the best interest of S.B. to be placed in a PPLA with LCJFS. {¶56} We find pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(C)(1) and (C)(2), there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determinati on that S.B. be placed in a

PPLA with LCJFS.Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00045 23

CONCLUSION {¶57} Based on the foregoing, we overrule Mother’s two Assignme nts of Error. {¶58} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division is affirmed. By: Delaney, J., Wise, John, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J., concur.