[Cite as In re J.H., 2020-Ohio-4026.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

PERRY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 J.H. and P.H. 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 

 19 CA 00023 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile division, Case Nos. 2016 C 

250 and 2016 C 251 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 10, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant Mother For Appellee 

JAMES S. SWEENEY JESSICA L. MONGOLD 

285 South Liberty Street Post Office Box 502 

Powell, Ohio 43065 Lancaster, Ohio 453130 

Guardian Ad Litem 

SANDRA L. BRANDON 

Post Office Box 160 

Rockbridge, Ohio 43149 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant-Mother appeals the November 4, 2019, decision of the Perry 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental rights, 

privileges, and responsibilities with respect to her minor children J.H. and P.H. and 

granting permanent custody of the children to Appellee Perry County Children Services. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} Appellant B.B. is the biological mother of two children: J.H. (DOB 

10/14/2013) and P.H. (DOB 6/25/2010). J.H. is the biological father of both children. 

Paternity was established by genetic testing. (T. at 94). Father did not attend the hearing 

on the motion for permanent custody and has not appealed the trial court's decision. 

{¶3} On August 9, 2016, Perry County Children Services (PCCS) became

involved with the family based on allegations of drug possession and abuse by AppellantMother arising out of an incident in which Appellant-Mother and Father appeared to be 

under the influence at a gas station. This eventually resulted in a traffic stop of the vehicle 

in which Appellant-Mother, Father, P.H. and J.H. were riding. During this traffic stop the 

driver of the vehicle was charged with OVI, Father was arrested on a non-support warrant, 

and Appellant-Mother was found with methamphetamine, prescription drugs, and drug 

paraphernalia on or about her person. (Complaint, Pg. 2-3). 

{¶4} On August 10, 2016, Appellant-Mother signed a Temporary Care 

Agreement. (T. at 95). 

{¶5} On August 19, 2016, a complaint was filed in Case No. 2016-C-251 alleging 

that P.H. was a dependent child. On the same date, another complaint was filed in Case 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 3

No. 2016-C-250 alleging that J.H. was an abused child. Temporary custody of both 

children was granted to Perry County Children's Services. (PCCS). (T. at 95). 

{¶6} On August 30, 2016, Appellant-Mother signed an extension of the

Temporary Care Agreement. Id. 

{¶7} On November 1, 2016, the minor children were adjudicated and placed in 

the temporary custody of a relative. Id. 

{¶8} On June 16, 2017, Perry County Children Services received temporary 

custody of J.H. (T. at 96). 

{¶9} On July 20, 2017, Perry County Children Services received temporary 

custody of P.H. Id. 

{¶10} The minor children remained in the temporary custody of Perry County 

Children Services from those dates until the date of the oral hearing on the motion seeking 

permanent custody on September 4, 2019. Id. 

{¶11} On March 6, 2018, Perry County Children Services filed motions seeking 

permanent custody of P.H. and J.H. 

{¶12} On May 16, 2018, a hearing was held on the motions for permanent 

custody. 

{¶13} On June 28, 2018, the trial court granted the motions for permanent 

custody, and Mother appealed the decision. 

{¶14} On January 17, 2019, this Court reversed and remanded the trial court's 

decision "with instructions for the court to appoint a GAL to represent the interests of J.H. 

and P.H. and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion." 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 4

{¶15} On September 4, 2019, a second hearing on the motions seeking 

permanent custody was held. At said hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Daniel 

Kelty and Tracy Milner – licensed social workers, Kim Hardin – a drug and alcohol 

counselor, Regina Yost – a substance use disorder clinical manager, Emily Earle – a 

senior outpatient clinician, Kelly Valentine and Lacy Bateson – ongoing caseworkers with 

PCCSS, Melissa Kennedy a drug court probation officer, Appellant-Mother BB, and the 

Guardian ad Litem Sandra Brandon. 

{¶16} Daniel Kelty testified that he is an independent social worker licensed in the 

State of Ohio who specializes in play therapy. (T. at 12). He testified that he began 

working with P.H. and J.H. approximately two and a half years before the hearing on the 

motion for permanent custody, and that his last sessions with the children took place on 

February 8, 2019, because he switched jobs. (T. at 13-14). He explained that he 

diagnosed J.H. “with an adjustment disorder with ruling out of attachment”. (T. at 14). At 

the time of J.H.'s diagnosis, Mr. Kelty observed some red flags regarding J.H.'s 

attachment and continued to monitor his attachment. Id. He testified that over the course 

of counseling with J.H., he had observed the minor child become less anxious and less 

dependent upon his sibling, P.H., for instruction and less dependent on P.H. for 

containment of his emotions. (T. at 19). 

{¶17} Mr. Kelty diagnosed P.H. “with attachment disorder and anxiety”, in part due 

to her parentified relationship with J.H. (T. at 14-15). He explained that P.H.'s inability to 

relate well to peers, difficulty attaching with caregivers and adults, being overly clingy, 

needy and having successive distant relationships, acting out behaviors, and her 

parentified relationship with J.H. led to her diagnoses. (T. at 14-15). He further explained 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 5

that when a child is diagnosed with attachment disorders as a result of abuse/neglect, 

oftentimes they will parentify a younger sibling because that sibling is not getting what it 

needs from his parents so the older child tends to act as the parent, and that is what he 

observed between P.H. and J.H. (T. at 15). He also testified that P.H. disclosed witnessing 

substance abuse in the removal home, seeing a white powder being sucked up by a 

straw, as well as witnessing sexual activity. (T. at 16). 

{¶18} Mr. Kelty testified that the children's foster parents followed his 

recommendations, and that the children were very bonded with their foster mother. (T. at 

18). He recalled that at the time he stopped counseling with the minor children, he had 

observed a significant increase in their ability to bond in a family setting with the foster 

family, which he attributed to their long-term stability in their foster home as well as the 

parenting education within the foster home. (T. at 20-21). 

{¶19} Mr. Kelty also testified as to a letter he wrote on April 11, 2018, indicating 

that, in his professional opinion, having visits take place between the children and their 

biological parents after the passing of so much time between contact was not in the best 

interest of the minor children's emotional development. (T. at 21). He also verified that he 

wrote another letter on December 14, 2018, indicating that a reintroduction of visitation 

with biological parents at that point would have been detrimental to the children's 

development and would place them at a higher risk for reactive attachment issues making 

it more difficult for them to create and maintain healthy relationships, and being 

reintroduced with biological parents would most certainly have a negative impact on their 

condition. (T. at 24). He testified that his opinion regarding the children having contact 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 6

with biological parents and the negative impact it would have on the children had not 

changed. (T. at 24-25). 

{¶20} Tracy Milner testified that she is a licensed social worker and that she began 

working with P.H. and J.H. as their primary counselor in May, 2019, after Daniel Kelty 

changed jobs. (T. at 34-36). Ms. Milner stated that she completed new mental health 

assessments of the minor children when she began counseling with them and that she 

diagnosed J.H. with an unspecified adjustment disorder. (T. at 36). She testified that the 

factors that led to this diagnosis included adjusting to a new living arrangement after 

disruptive placements and removals, outbursts, display of mixed emotions and difficulty 

transitioning. (T. 37-38). 

{¶21} Ms. Milner diagnosed P.H. with post-traumatic stress disorder for under the 

age of six, as well as adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct disturbances. 

(T. at 36). She explained that the factors that led to P.H.'s diagnosis of post-traumatic 

stress disorder included her removal from home, a couple of different placements before 

the age of six, and neglect before the age of six. (T. at 37). She further explained that the 

factors that led to P.H.'s diagnosis of adjustment disorder included her removals, 

disruptive placements, outbursts, display of mixed emotions and difficulty transitioning. 

(T. at 37-38). Ms. Milner also testified that P.H. also shows characteristics and traits of 

reactive attachment disorder. (T. at 38). 

{¶22} She explained that the stability provided by the children's foster parents 

and the extended family of the foster parents was "major" for the children, and that if the 

children lost the stability provided by the foster parents they would regress. (T. at 40). 

She warned that the children would have more acting out behaviors and would have to 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 7

relearn how to love and trust again if they lost the stability provided by the foster parents. 

(T. at 41). Ms. Milner emphasized that permanency was absolutely important for both 

children's long-term progress. Id. She testified that J.H. had been able to assimilate to the 

foster family very well because he did not have a recollection of living with his biological 

parents and as a result was not subject to the same amount of trauma as P.H. (T. at 42-

43). 

{¶23} Kim Hardin testified that she is a LCDC II drug and alcohol counselor and 

caseworker for Integrated Services, and that she was working with Appellant-Mother to 

help her obtain housing and to monitor her recovery. (T. at 54-55). Ms. Hardin testified 

that while Mother had obtained housing, it had not been inspected nor had Mother moved 

in. (T. at 55). 

{¶24} Regina Yost testified that she is a substance use disorder clinical manager 

for Perry Behavioral Health and that a clinician at Perry Behavioral Health completed an 

assessment of Appellant-Mother in 2016 with a recommendation for outpatient treatment. 

(T. at 61-64). She testified that Appellant-Mother received an approved discharge from 

counseling on February 7, 2017, but that Mother was re-referred for another assessment 

in January, 2018, by Muskingum County Adult Probation as part of a presentence 

investigation. (T. at 65). Ms. Yost completed the re-assessment and recommended 

residential treatment for substance use disorder followed by intensive outpatient 

treatment and standard outpatient aftercare, both group and individual sessions, to 

continue mental health treatment, and to maintain abstinence and attend 12-step 

meetings. (T. at 67). She stated that Appellant-Mother did not follow the treatment 

recommendations because she became incarcerated and was discharged from Perry 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 8

Behavioral Health on February 28, 2018. (T. at 68). She stated that Appellant-Mother 

remained incarcerated for nine (9) months on that occasion. (T. at 70). 

{¶25} Emily Earle testified that she is a senior outpatient clinician at Allwell 

Behavioral Health. (T. at 74). Ms. Earle told the court that Appellant-Mother did not 

participate in counseling between February 7, 2018, and April 4, 2019. (T. at 74-76). 

{¶26} Kelly Valentine testified that she is an ongoing caseworker with Perry 

County Children Services and had been assigned to this family from June, 2019, through 

the date of the permanent custody hearing. (T. at 80). Ms. Valentine testified that she had 

no contact with Father, and his whereabouts were unknown. (T. at 81). She further 

testified that Appellant-Mother had been in drug court with the Perry County Municipal 

Court the entire time she had been assigned as the family's caseworker. (T. at 82). Ms. 

Valentine testified that Appellant-Mother had been compliant with her case plan from 

June, 2019, except that Appellant-Mother would not share if she obtained housing. (T. 

84, 89). 

{¶27} Lacy Bateson also works for Perry County Children Services as an ongoing 

caseworker and worked with P.H., J.H. and the parents from August 9, 2016, through the 

beginning of May, 2019. (T. at 93-94). Ms. Bateson testified that J.H. was initially placed 

with foster parents from August 10, 2016, to August 19, 2016, but was then placed with 

his paternal grandparents from August 19, 2016, to November 1, 2016. J.H. remained in 

his paternal grandparents' temporary custody from November 2, 2016, to June 16, 2017, 

after which J.H. was placed with his current foster parents from June 16, 2017, to the date 

of the permanent custody hearing, totaling two years, two months and twenty days. (T. at 

97-98). 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 9

{¶28} Ms. Bateson testified that P.H. was also initially placed with foster parents 

from August 10, 2016, to August 19, 2016, but was then placed with her paternal 

grandparents from August 19, 2016 to November 1, 2016, where she remained in their 

temporary custody from November 2, 2016, to July 20, 2017. P.H. was then placed with 

her current foster parents from July 20, 2017, to the date of the permanent custody 

hearing, being two years, one month and sixteen days. (T. at 96-97). 

{¶29} Ms. Bateson testified that she developed a case plan with the family on 

September 15, 2016. (T. at 98). The initial concerns identified in the case plan were the 

parents' drug use, the children's inability to self-protect, and parents' lack of safe and 

stable housing. (T. at 99). She stated that Appellant-Mother initially completed her drug 

and alcohol assessment on November 8, 2016, and that she was successfully discharged 

from counseling by Perry Behavioral Health despite not completing all of the 

recommendations. (T. at 99-100). She testified that from March, 2017, through May, 

2017, Mother missed several random drug screens and in May, 2017, she tested positive. 

(T. at 101). Ms. Bateson re-referred Appellant-Mother to Perry Behavioral Health for an 

assessment on June 8, 2017, due to the positive drug screen, but Appellant-Mother failed 

to schedule an assessment. (T. at 101-102). She testified that she referred Mother for 

another assessment on October 16, 2017, due to another positive drug screen. (T. at 

101). She stated that Appellant-Mother did make an appointment for October 27, 2017, 

as a result of the second re-referral. Id. Ms. Bateson testified that on December 15, 2017, 

Appellant-Mother overdosed on heroin and was again re-referred for a drug and alcohol 

assessment. (T. at 102, 112). She testified that the parents were requested to comply 

with Integrated Services for housing and mental health counseling, and that they 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 10

cooperated with Integrated Services from September, 2016, to January 4, 2017. (T. at 

103). She testified that after that time, the parents made no progress on the case plan 

component requiring them to comply with Integrated Services while she was the ongoing 

caseworker, and they never obtained independent housing. (T. at 104). She stated that 

the parents did not consistently attend mental health counseling and did not comply with 

the ISAM Drug Testing Program. (T. at 104-105). She further testified that AppellantMother had not visited with the minor children from February 13, 2018, through the date 

of the permanent custody hearing. (T. at 111). She testified that Mother was incarcerated 

from February 13, 2018, until November 2, 2018, and that Appellant-Mother made no 

effort to contact her, nor did she respond to caseworker's attempts to engage her from 

the date of her release from prison in November, 2018, until she was re-incarcerated on 

April 16, 2019. (T. at 113-116). 

{¶30} Lacy Bateson testified that Appellant-Mother was presently staying with her 

parents, and that PCCS had concerns about Appellant-Mother's parents' drug use and 

indicated that the parents had declined to submit to a drug test. (T. at 105). 

{¶31} The trial court also heard from Melissa Kennedy, a drug court probation 

officer for the Perry County Municipal Court, who testified that Appellant-Mother entered 

the drug court program May 16, 2019, and was in phase two of the program as of the 

date of the hearing on the motion for permanent custody. (T. 131-134). Ms. Kennedy 

explained that the drug court program typically lasts one year, and there are four phases 

to the program. (T. at 135). She stated that she had no knowledge of Appellant-Mother's 

compliance with PCCS prior to May 16, 2019. (T. at 137). 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 11

{¶32} Appellant-Mother B.B. testified that at the present time, she was residing 

with her parents. (T. at 140). She testified that she would be moving into her own 

apartment, but had not yet signed the lease. (T. at 140-141). She further testified that her 

drug addiction began with prescribed medications, including Vicodin, Clonopin, Tramadol, 

Gabapentin, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, but when her doctor quit writing her prescriptions 

due to her positive drug test for marijuana, she began self-medicating. (T. at 142). She 

admitted that she had been incarcerated on several occasions during the pendency of 

this matter, and that she was imprisoned for a felony conviction for possession of 

methamphetamine. (T. at 142-144). She testified that after she was released from prison 

she relapsed and was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. (T. at 145). Mother 

testified that she had made progress in the drug court program, but admitted that she was 

not ready to fully parent the children but would like to begin visitation with them. (T. at 

148). She stated "I want to hopefully someday be full - have a full relationship, like an 

actual mother-child relationship with my children. I want that very much so. But right now, 

like, I really think, like, all them full-time at first, no, I don't think I'm ready for that. Visits, 

yes, I do." (T. at 149). 

{¶33} Lastly, the trial court heard testimony from the Guardian ad Litem Sandra 

Brandon, who pointed out on cross-examination of Mother, that it was three (3) years into 

this case and Appellant-Mother was still not in a position to have the children with her as 

she had no apartment, no job, and she hadn't seen her kids since February, 2018, all of 

which mother admitted. (T. at 162). The Guardian ad Litem testified that she believed it 

was in the best interest of the minor children for them to be placed in the permanent 

custody of Perry County Children Services. (T. at 164). 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 12

{¶34} The drug screening records from American Court Services for AppellantMother and Father were stipulated to and entered into evidence as exhibits. 

{¶35} On November 4, 2019, the trial court issued a Final Order granting Perry 

County Children Services permanent custody of P.H. and J.H.

{¶36} It is from this Order Appellant-Mother appeals, raising the following 

assignment of error: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶37} I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE 

MINOR CHILDREN WOULD BE SERVED BY GRANTING PCCS'S MOTION FOR 

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE 

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

in compliance with App.R. 11.2(C). 

I. 

{¶39} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant-Mother contends the trial court 

erred in finding it was in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to PCCS. 

We disagree. 

{¶40} 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 elements of the case will not 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 13

be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. 

Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). 

{¶41} 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. 

{¶42} 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 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. 

{¶43} 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 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 14

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. 

{¶44} 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. 

{¶45} Here, R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies as the children have been in the 

temporary custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of the consecutive twentytwo month period. 

{¶46} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, 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. 

{¶47} As set forth in detail in our statement of the facts and case, supra, AppellantMother failed to successfully complete her case plan. Appellant-Mother herself testified 

that she is not ready to have the children with her full-time. Appellant-mother had not 

visited with the children since February 13, 2018. The trial court also heard evidence that 
Perry County, Case Nos. 19 CA 00022 and 19 CA 00023 15

the mental health diagnoses for the children are the result of abusive and neglectful acts 

by the parents. Further, testimony was presented that the children are bonded with their 

foster parents, and that reunification with either parent would be detrimental and harmful 

to the children. The Guardian ad Litem also recommended permanent custody both at 

trial and in her written report to the trial court. 

{¶48} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding that it was in the 

best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to PCCS is not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

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

{¶50} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Perry 

County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, P. J. 

Delaney, J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

 

JWW/k 0729