[Cite as In re Maj.A., 2018-Ohio-575.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LUCAS COUNTY 

In re Maj.A., Mal.A. Court of Appeals Nos. L-17-1172 

 L-17-1173 

 L-17-1174 

 Trial Court Nos. JC 17261062 

 JC 17262940 

 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

 Decided: February 13, 2018 

* * * * * 

 Stephen D. Long, for appellant mother. 

 Adam H. Houser, for appellant father. 

 Kevin J. Ankney, for appellee. 

* * * * * 

PIETRYKOWSKI, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellants, M.B. (mother), and D.A. (father), have filed separate appeals 

from the June 16, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 
2.

Division, granting permanent custody of Maj.A. and Mal.A. to Lucas County Children 

Services (“LCCS”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm this consolidated appeal. 

{¶ 2} On March 2, 2017, LCCS filed a complaint in dependency and neglect and a 

motion for permanent custody as to appellants’ two minor children Maj.A. and Mal.A. 

The complaint alleged that LCCS had been involved with the family since 2010, and that 

mother had two older children who were in legal custody of relatives. The main reasons 

for LCCS’ past and current involvement were mother’s substance abuse (opiates) and 

domestic violence between mother and father. The complaint stated that in 2014, 

Maj.A.’s cord blood tested positive for methadone and she was placed on morphine for 

severe withdrawal. During her pregnancy with Maj.A., appellant tested positive for 

illegal substances several times. The complaint stated that in 2015, mother was able to 

keep Mal.A. upon his birth because she was compliant with services including substance 

abuse, mental health, parenting, and housing. Maj.A. was returned to mother and 

protective supervision of both children was terminated in November 2016. 

{¶ 3} The complaint stated that on February 16, 2017, LCCS received a referral 

regarding a domestic dispute between mother and father; mother was 21 weeks pregnant 

at the time, physical violence was involved, and father was the alleged perpetrator. 

Mother admitted to the incident. On February 21, 2017, a second referral was received 

alleging that mother was using fentanyl and Xanax because she had stopped using 

methadone. Mother admitted to the drug use and on February 24, 2017, tested positive 

for fentanyl and methadone. 
3.

{¶ 4} At a shelter care hearing held the same day, appellants agreed to interim 

temporary custody being awarded to LCCS. On May 22, 2017, the children’s maternal 

great-grandfather filed a pro se complaint for custody in a separate action. 

{¶ 5} On May 25, 2017, the adjudication hearing was held. Mother and father 

both testified on cross-examination. Mother admitted the allegations in the complaint. 

Mother was also questioned about and denied leaving her children in father’s care for 

three to four weeks while she was hospitalized. Conversely, father testified that he had 

the children during that time. Father denied the February 9, 2017 domestic violence 

incident; he stated that on that date he was trying to drop off the children so he could go 

to work. According to father, he realized that she was using drugs again so he left the 

house with the children. He denied breaking mother’s phone and throwing items in the 

home. 

{¶ 6} A Toledo Police officer testified regarding the February 11, 2017 domestic 

violence report mother filed against father. The officer stated that mother had been 

hiding at a friend’s house because she was afraid of father. The officer stated that she 

showed him her cracked cell phone screen. He further stated that he found her story 

credible; she was afraid and aware of the consequences of making the report with both 

father and LCCS. 

{¶ 7} Several exhibits were admitted into evidence including judgment entries 

relating to mother’s prior LCCS’ cases, the police report documenting the February 9, 

2017 incident, records pertaining to mother’s hospitalization for withdrawal, and drug 
4.

screen reports. The court then found the children to be dependent by clear and 

convincing evidence. 

{¶ 8} The matter then proceed to disposition with the court first taking judicial 

notice of the evidence presented during adjudication as well as deeming the prior exhibits 

admitted. It was also noted that the father would not be present for the hearing. 

{¶ 9} An LCCS caseworker testified that she was the family’s caseworker in the 

prior case, from November 2014 to October 2016. The caseworker stated that substance 

abuse, parenting, housing, mental health, and income were all concerns addressed in the 

prior case plan. The caseworker stated that mother complied with services, was reunified 

with her children, and, ultimately, protective supervision was terminated. 

{¶ 10} As to father, the caseworker stated that he minimally engaged in case plan 

services. He had a substance abuse assessment, inconsistently attended treatment, and 

was discharged unsuccessfully. Father failed to complete objectives pertaining to 

parenting, domestic violence, housing, and income. 

{¶ 11} The caseworker stated that mother and her children lived with the maternal 

great-grandfather who also provided financial support and transportation. She stated that 

according to mother, great-grandfather frequently stayed at his girlfriend’s house and had 

hobbies that occupied his time. 

{¶ 12} A second caseworker with LCCS testified that she became the family’s 

caseworker in October 2016. She stated that the current concerns with the family involve 

mother’s substance abuse and domestic violence perpetrated by father. 
5.

{¶ 13} The caseworker testified that just three weeks after the agency officially 

closed the family’s case, LCCS received referrals regarding a domestic violence incident 

and mother’s substance abuse. She stated that mother tested positive for fentanyl and 

methadone on February 24 and March 3, 2017. As to father, the caseworker stated that 

she discussed the domestic violence concerns with him; he denied any issues. Father 

further stated that he had the children for the month of February; mother denied this. The 

caseworker testified that mother admitted to staying with father for three days following 

the domestic violence incident and prior to her hospital admittance because she had 

nowhere else to go. The caseworker testified about unsuccessful attempts to find 

appropriate relative placement for the children. She stated that the maternal greatgrandfather was mentioned by the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) but that she had not spoken 

with him. 

{¶ 14} The caseworker stated that she believed that LCCS should be awarded 

permanent custody of the children due to mother’s substance abuse history, father’s 

failure to complete any prior case plan services, and domestic violence between the 

parties. She further stated that the children were doing well in their current placement 

and that the foster parents were interested in adoption. 

{¶ 15} On cross-examination and regarding mother, the caseworker testified that 

upon her discharge from the hospital, mother immediately went back into the methadone 

program. She further acknowledged that domestic violence services were not part of any 

prior LCCS’ involvement. 
6.

{¶ 16} The children’s great-grandfather, J.A., testified next. He stated that he filed 

a motion for legal custody of the children because he wanted to “keep the children in the 

family.” He stated that Maj.A. resided in his home upon reunification with mother and 

Mal.A. resided there from birth and until they were taken into LCCS’ custody. J.A. 

denied staying at his girlfriend’s house; he stated that at 11:00 p.m., he gets “sent home.” 

As to his level of involvement with the children, J.A. stated that he would read to and 

play with them approximately every other day or a few days in a row. J.A. stated that he 

never watched them more than an hour-and-a-half at-a-time because he felt that mother 

needed to take care of her own children. He had also provided transportation to the 

family at different times. J.A. stated that he is prepared to care for and protect the 

children if he is awarded legal custody. He indicated that two of his daughters were 

planning on helping with their care. 

{¶ 17} J.A. testified that he believes that mother is trying to stay sober and that he 

can often tell if she is using drugs. J.A. denied witnessing any domestic violence 

between mother and father but stated that he believed mother’s version of the events. 

{¶ 18} During cross-examination, J.A. admitted that there was no current home 

study on file and that he did not know the birthdays of the children. J.A. also 

acknowledged that mother and the children were gone for about three weeks in February 

and that since March 5, 2017, she was residing with his daughter (her mom.) 

{¶ 19} J.A. also stated that he would abide by any orders the court would put in 

place including mother’s and father’s access to the children. J.A. stated that he waited 
7.

until May 2017 to file the complaint for legal custody because no other family members 

came forward. 

{¶ 20} K.F., mother’s mother, testified that she has had custody of mother’s oldest 

son, 11, since he was a baby. K.F. indicated that her family was unable to take the 

children at issue due to space and financial concerns. 

{¶ 21} K.F. stated that she and mother’s relationship had been strained in the past 

(to the point of not speaking) but that mother has matured, she is respectful, and she is 

“doing the things she’s supposed to do.” K.F. testified that the February 9, 2017 

altercation between mother and father was the first incident she knew of. K.F. surmised 

that had the incident not happened, mother would not have missed her drug counseling 

appointments and not been dismissed from the program; she then would not have 

suffered from withdrawal. K.F. testified that mother is now back on track and is 

attending all her classes and counseling sessions. 

{¶ 22} Regarding her father’s petition for legal custody, K.F. stated that she fully 

supports it and is willing to help with the children. K.F. indicated that if mother were to 

start using drugs again, she would not let her around the children and would call LCCS. 

{¶ 23} During cross-examination, K.F. explained that she got legal custody of 

mother’s oldest child in 2007, when he was nine months old. Thereafter, LCCS called 

and asked her to take her second grandson after mother admitted to being addicted to 

heroin. K.F. was aware of domestic violence between mother and second son’s father. 
8.

K.F. testified that since 2010, she believes mother’s longest period of sobriety was when 

she was pregnant with Mal.A. 

{¶ 24} Mother testified that she has had substance abuse issues since 2010, and 

that when she had her first child at 15, she was immature, irresponsible, and just wanted 

to be a normal teen. Mother stated that in 2010, when her second son was seven months 

old, she began using fentanyl after her son’s father was sentenced to a significant prison 

term. She stated that she did not know that it was heroin. After LCCS involvement, the 

child was placed in the custody of a relative. 

{¶ 25} In 2014, LCCS opened a new case involving Maj.A. Mother stated that 

from September 26, 2014, until February 14, 2017, she remained sober (though using 

methadone) which also allowed her to take her son Mal.A. home from the hospital 

following his birth and reunite with Maj.A. 

{¶ 26} Mother stated that due to the February 9, 2017 altercation with father she 

missed her drug counseling appointment and her dose of methadone, including her “takehome” doses. Mother testified that attendees had to be “extremely compliant” (including 

two counseling appointments per week) in the program to be eligible for take-homes. 

Mother stated that because she missed an appointment they were requiring that she attend 

daily counseling again. 

{¶ 27} Upset that she had to attend daily and deciding that she wanted to stop 

using methadone altogether (she had been tapering), appellant stopped attending the 

program. Mother stated that she did not believe that the withdrawal symptoms would be 
9.

bad but that it was the worst withdrawal she had ever experienced. Mother testified that 

she started using fentanyl to ease the symptoms but that after a few days she went to the 

hospital. After three days in the hospital she was released and reengaged in treatment and 

methadone use. Mother stated that she had been sober since February 18, 2017, and has 

attended daily counseling. Mother also stated that she initiated domestic violence classes 

on her own. 

{¶ 28} Mother was questioned about the time around her hospitalization and the 

fact that father had the children. She denied that they were with him continuously for 

three to four weeks. Mother did acknowledge that father had them at the time of the 

altercation and during her hospitalization. She also admitted that she lied to hospital 

personnel when she told them that the children were with her mother. 

{¶ 29} Mother was also questioned about why, if her last use of fentanyl was on 

February 18, 2017, she tested positive on February 24 and March 2, 2017. Mother 

replied that she believed that the drug could stay in the body for a few weeks. Thereafter, 

appellant was questioned about an intervening drug test, on February 27, when she tested 

negative for opiates. She initially denied providing a urine sample on that date but later 

admitted to the testing. 

{¶ 30} The GAL for the children testified next. She stated that she was first 

appointed for the family in 2010 for mother’s child, D.W. She was appointed to Maj.A.’s 

case in 2014, and Mal.A.’s case in 2015. As to great-grandfather’s request for legal 

custody, the GAL stated that she did not believe that it would be in the children’s best 
10. 

interests. The GAL explained that he is a dedicated great-grandfather, but she did not 

believe he was in a place to raise a one and a two-year old. 

{¶ 31} The GAL was asked whether she would be opposed to a case plan for 

mother. She could not say that she would be opposed but noted that “we’ve been down 

this road a few times.” The GAL elaborated that mother completed her 2010 case plan 

services but that she had been using narcotics prior to Maj.A.’s birth, and the baby 

suffered serious medical issues and severe withdrawal. The GAL stated that mother is 

pregnant again, had been using drugs, was still on methadone, and was still living with 

relatives. 

{¶ 32} The GAL testified that she believed that an award of permanent custody to 

LCCS was in the children’s best interests because although mother has been through all 

the services offered by LCCS, she continued to make poor decisions, and she had not 

been honest with either LCCS or others in her life. The GAL’s report mirroring her 

testimony was admitted into evidence. 

{¶ 33} During cross-examination, the GAL agreed that the children were bonded 

with mother and that they interact appropriately with each other. It also appeared that 

they were up-to-date on immunizations and had no other health concerns. 

{¶ 34} The GAL agreed that during mother’s longest period of sobriety—from 

September 2014 to February 2017, she appeared motivated to remain sober. When asked 

about the fact that mother stopped taking methadone following the February 2017 

domestic violence incident, the GAL indicated that she was more concerned that she 
11. 

stopped the methadone when she was far along in her pregnancy due to the withdrawal 

effects. The GAL agreed that going to the hospital was a good decision. 

{¶ 35} Following the parties’ closing arguments, the trial court granted LCCS’ 

complaint for permanent custody and denied J.A.’s complaint for legal custody. The 

court filed its judgment entry on the adjudication and disposition on June 16, 2017. After 

adjudicating that the children were dependent, the court then proceeded to its 

dispositional findings. The court first found that mother’s chemical dependency was so 

severe that she was unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children, R.C. 

2151.353(A)(4) and 2151.414(E)(2). The court further found that father failed to 

participate in the proceedings and had a criminal case pending for domestic violence 

against mother, R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) and 2151.414(E)(16). The court found that there 

were no suitable relatives able to accept placement of the children and that, under R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(a),(b), (d), it was in the children’s best interests to award permanent 

custody to LCCS. 

{¶ 36} Mother and father appealed and raise similar assignments of error, 

respectively, as follows: 

The trial court’s finding that the children could not be returned to 

appellant within a reasonable time was not supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. 
12. 

The trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 

{¶ 37} R.C. 2151.353 provides, in relevant part: 

(A) If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent 

child, the court may make any of the following orders of disposition: 

* * *. 

(4) Commit the child to the permanent custody of a public children 

services agency or private child placing agency, if the court determines in 

accordance with division (E) of section 2151.414 [2151.41.4] of the 

Revised Code that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents 

within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and 

determines in accordance with division (D) of section 2151.414 [2151.41.4] 

of the Revised Code that the permanent commitment is in the best interest 

of the child. * * *.” 

{¶ 38} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E), which were relied upon by the trial court 

provide: 

(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this 

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 

[2151.35.3] of the Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with 

either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed 

with the parents, the court shall consider all the relevant evidence. If the 
13. 

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 [2151.35.3] 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: 

* * *. 

(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual 

disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is 

so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent 

home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year 

after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or 

for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised 

Code; 

* * *. 

(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant. 

{¶ 39} As set forth in the above-quoted statutory sections, the trial court’s findings 

must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Ohio Supreme Court has held 

that clear and convincing evidence is: 

[T]hat measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere 

“preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as 
14. 

is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will 

produce 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. 

{¶ 40} Further, when reviewing the juvenile court’s judgment under a manifest 

weight of the evidence standard, an appellate court “‘weighs the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in 

resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created 

such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new 

[hearing] ordered.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), 

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). 

When weighing the evidence, “we defer to the trial court’s determinations on matters of 

credibility, which are crucial in these cases, where demeanor and attitude are not 

reflected well by the written record.” (Citations omitted.) In re E.W., 4th Dist. Athens 

No. 17CA10, 2017-Ohio-7258, ¶ 34. See also In re E.B., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 16AP352, 16AP-395, 16AP-443, 16AP-448, 2017-Ohio-2672, ¶ 50-51. 

{¶ 41} Mother argues that she had been compliant with her substance abuse 

treatment until the unforeseeable circumstance of the domestic violence incident which 

caused her to miss her methadone dose and created a domino effect resulting in her 

relapse. We disagree and conclude that the court’s finding as to mother under R.C. 

2151.414(E)(2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The facts at issue took 
15. 

place just a few months after LCCS terminated protective supervision of the children. 

Mother admitted that she stopped taking methadone while pregnant rather than attending 

treatment every day. She admitted to using fentanyl prior to admitting herself to the 

hospital and tested positive for fentanyl after her withdrawal period was over and she was 

discharged from the hospital. Following the domestic violence incident, mother stayed 

with father for three days and lied about the how long the children had remained with 

father. 

{¶ 42} Further, we cannot say that the court erred when it concluded that the 

termination of father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The court 

found R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) applicable in that father failed to complete any of the prior 

case plan requirements and was the perpetrator of domestic violence against mother. 

Further, father failed to attend the dispositional hearing which also evidenced a lack of 

commitment to the children. 

{¶ 43} Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s judgment is supported by 

competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Mother’s and father’s assignments of error are not well-taken. 

{¶ 44} On consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice was done the 

parties complaining, and the decision of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellants are ordered to equally 

pay the court costs of this appeal. 

 Judgment affirmed. 
16. 

 In re Maj.A 

 Case Nos. L-17-1172 

 L-17-1173 

 L-17-1174 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE