[Cite as In re S.B., 2019-Ohio-872.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 107579

IN RE: S.B., ET AL. 

 Minor Children

[Appeal By Sa.B., Mother] 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case Nos. AD16903526, AD16903527, and AD16903529 

BEFORE: Boyle, P.J., E.A. Gallagher, J., and Headen, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 14, 2019 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Amichai Eitan Zukowsky 

23811 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 160 

Cleveland, Ohio 44122 

FOR APPELLEES 

Attorneys for C.C.D.C.F.S.

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Cheryl Rice 

 Michelle A. Myers 

 Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 

3955 Euclid Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

 and 

Tasha Forchione 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

For Father of C.B. 

P.L.B. 

598 Taylor Place 

Painesville, Ohio 44077 

For Father of S.B. 

L.D.V. 

47 Pershing Avenue 

Uniontown, Pennsylvania 15401 

Attorney for S.B. 

Daniel J. Bartos 

20220 Center Ridge Road, Suite 160 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

Guardian ad Litem
Amy K. Habinski 

Habinski Law Offices, L.L.C. 

11459 Mayfield Avenue, Suite 342 

Cleveland, Ohio 44106 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.: 

{¶1} Appellant, Sa.B. (“Mother”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting 

Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency”) 

permanent custody of three of her children, S.B. (d.o.b. Nov. 19, 2008), C.B. (d.o.b. Dec. 2, 

2010), and J.B. (d.o.b. Oct. 25, 2014). Mother raises one assignment of error for our review: 

The trial court’s decision to award permanent custody to CCDCFS was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence as it was not supported by clear and convincing 

evidence. 

{¶2} Finding no merit to her assignment of error, we affirm. 

I. Procedural History and Factual Background

{¶3} On March 9, 2016, CCDCFS filed a complaint for dependency and temporary 

custody of S.B., C.B., and J.B. and legal custody of one of Mother’s other children, A.H., to his 

father.1

 The complaint alleged that on March 8, 2016, “Mother reported that she is unable and 

unwilling to provide care for the children and requested their removal.” The complaint further 

alleged that Mother was homeless and unemployed. As to S.B., the complaint stated that the 

child’s father fails to support or visit S.B. and his whereabouts were unknown. As to C.B., the 

complaint stated that the child’s father fails to support or visit C.B. As to J.B., the complaint 

stated that paternity has not been established and “John Doe” has failed to support, visit, or 
communicate with J.B. since his birth.2

 CCDCFS further stated in the complaint that it 

removed the children on March 8, 2016 pursuant to an ex parte order, which found that “the 

children’s residence in or return to the home of [Mother] would be contrary to the children’s best 

interest and welfare” and that CCDCFS “made reasonable efforts to prevent placement and/or to 

make it possible for the children to remain in or return to the home.” 

{¶4} Along with its complaint, CCDCFS moved for predispositional temporary custody 

of S.B., C.B., and J.B. 

{¶5} On March 10, 2016, the magistrate committed the children to CCDCFS’s 

emergency custody.3

 The trial court also appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for S.B. and 

C.B.4

{¶6} On March 14, 2016, CCDCFS filed an amended complaint, alleging that the 

children were neglected and requesting temporary custody of them. 

{¶7} In April 2016, CCDCFS filed a case plan for Mother and the children. The case 

plan stated that to reduce risk and address the safety issues of the children, Mother was supposed 

to “establish and maintain stable and safe housing” and “provide basic needs.” The case plan 

also stated that Mother was to “complete a mental health assessment at an appropriate treatment 

provider and * * * follow all recommendations as a result of the assessment[,]” including 

 1

The trial court awarded custody of A.H. to his father, and A.H. is not subject to the instant appeal. 

2

 The fathers of S.B., C.B., and J.B. did not participate in the lower court proceedings and are not parties to 

the instant appeal. 

3

 The docket of J.B.’s custody case shows that the magistrate committed J.B. to CCDCFS’s emergency 

custody the next day, March 11, 2016. 

4

 During the permanent custody hearing, Amy Habinski, the GAL for S.B. and C.B., testified that she was 

the GAL for the children; a review of the docket of J.B.’s custody case, however, does not show that Habinski was 

appointed as J.B.’s GAL. The record shows that the trial court also appointed Attorney Daniel Bartos as counsel 

for S.B. 
fulfilling any treatment and medication recommendations. During that same time, the trial 

court appointed a GAL for Mother. 

{¶8} In May 2016, the GAL for S.B. and C.B. filed a report stating that the children 

“are doing well in their foster placement” and that she believed that “it [was] in the children’s 

best interests to be placed in [t]emporary [c]ustody” of CCDCFS. 

{¶9} Also in May 2016, CCDCFS amended its complaint, and Mother stipulated to that 

amended complaint. She admitted that she was unable and unwilling to provide care for the 

children because of her unemployment and homelessness. 

{¶10} As a result, in June 2016, the trial court found that the children’s “residence in or 

return to the home of [Mother] will be contrary to [the children’s] best interest[s].” It stated, 

“[r]elevant services were provided to the family, but were not successful because Mother needs 

to complete a mental health assessment, establish housing and complete parenting education.” 

It found that the children could not be placed with relatives because there were not any relatives 

willing and able to provide substitute care. As a result, the juvenile court adjudicated the 

children dependent and committed the children to CCDCFS’s temporary custody. The juvenile 

court also approved CCDCFS’s case plan for reunification. 

{¶11} In April 2017, the magistrate granted CCDCFS’s motion for first extension of 

temporary custody, extending temporary custody until September 8, 2017, which was the 

projected date “for the safe return of the [children] to the mother’s home[.]” The magistrate’s 

order stated that the permanency plan for the children was reunification. The trial court 

approved the magistrate’s decision. 

{¶12} In August 2017, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to 

permanent custody. Attached to CCDCFS’s motion was an affidavit from CCDCFS worker, 
Renae Cameron, who stated that she was assigned to the children’s case on March 22, 2016. 

Cameron’s affidavit discussed the case plans for Mother, S.B.’s father, and C.B.’s father. The 

affidavit stated that “[a]lthough Mother has completed a mental health assessment, Mother has 

failed to comply with her medications, as prescribed.” The affidavit also said, 

Mother has no permanent, stable housing in which to provide care for the 

children. Mother’s prior unresolved criminal matters have impeded Mother’s 

ability to secure housing and engage in services related to housing[.] Mother is 

unable to meet the children’s basic needs [and] has no source of income in order 

to provide for the children’s needs. 

{¶13} Cameron’s affidavit also noted that the fathers of S.B. and C.B. “failed to make 

[themselves] available to the Agency and [have] not participated in case plan objectives” and 

have “failed to visit [their children] in more than ninety days.” In a separate affidavit, also 

attached to CCDCFS’s motion, Cameron stated that the Agency was unable to identify or locate 

J.B.’s father despite making reasonably diligent efforts to do so. 

{¶14} In January 2018, Amy Habinski, the GAL for S.B. and C.B., filed a report that 

described the children’s current foster placements. The report also stated that “[m]other has 

kept more visits than she has cancelled. However there is still an inexplicable failure to find 

housing, provide basic needs or maintain any reliable stability.” According to Habinski, 

[M]other was briefly incarcerated in March 2017 after she turned herself in on 

outstanding warrants. This, of course, caused a disruption in her visitation with 

the children. Since that time, the GAL has tried on multiple occasions to attend 

visits with [Mother] and the boys. Only one successful visit occurred, and it was 

appropriate. Otherwise, visits have either been cancelled last minute or the 

locations are changed at the last minute, leading the GAL to knock on the door of 

any empty apartment. 

Habinski concluded that she believed it was in the “children’s best interests to be placed in the 

Permanent Custody of [CCDCFS]” because “Mother has made no lasting, necessary changes or 
improvements and the GAL does not believe additional time for compliance is likely to engender 

it.” 

Hearing on Motion for Permanent Custody

{¶15} The trial court held a hearing on CCDCFS’s motion in June 2018, during which 

counsel for CCDCFS, Mother, counsel for Mother, counsel for S.B., and the children’s GAL 

participated.5 Cameron, the CCDCFS worker assigned to the family, testified that the current 

case plan objectives for Mother were “to provide basic housing, shelter, medical care for the 

children, [and] mental health for herself, [which] includes dealing with a mental health provider 

following all recommendations.” She stated that Mother was also supposed to undergo drug 

treatment, including submitting urine tests, undergoing a drug and alcohol assessment, and 

following any other recommendations. Cameron explained that Mother completed an intake 

with The Centers for Families and Children and that she was connected to “pharm management 

and CPSD services” and recommended to take medication beginning in October 2016. 

Cameron explained that Mother has failed to involve herself in “pharm management” since 

August or September 2017 or in “CPSD” and case management since December 2017. 

Cameron stated that because Mother expressed transportation and housing issues, she supplied 

Mother with bus tickets so she could complete her mental health objectives. Cameron stated 

that despite the assistance, Mother failed to complete the case plan objective related to mental 

health. 

{¶16} Cameron next testified that Mother was also supposed to complete a housing 

component as part of the case plan, requiring her to “get a house that is suitable and appropriate 

and safe for her and the children.” Cameron stated that, at the time of the hearing, Mother did 
not have her own stable housing. Cameron testified that despite providing Mother with a housing 

voucher through the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”), Mother failed to 

follow through with documentation and the voucher expired and expired a second time after 

mother was given an extension. She explained that Mother only contacted a landlord with 

respect to the voucher near the time of expiration and that the landlord was not able to make the 

house available before the expiration. 

{¶17} Cameron also explained that Mother was not employed and did not have an income 

or reliable transportation and, therefore, could not provide for the children’s basic needs. She 

stated that Mother failed to complete the case plan objectives related to substance abuse. 

{¶18} Discussing Mother’s visitation schedule with the children, Cameron explained that 

Mother has consistently missed one to two visits per month. During the visits, Cameron stated 

that there is usually “minimum” interaction between Mother and the children and that the 

children “are usually running around doing their own thing and their mom is * * * just sitting 

back.” 

{¶19} Cameron also explained that to improve interaction with the children, Mother was 

connected to a parenting coach program, but that Mother failed to complete it. 

{¶20} Cameron testified that Mother does communicate with S.B. and C.B. over the 

phone, but that she does not support the children in any way. She also stated that Mother has 

not attended a semiannual review (“SAR”) or staffing meeting since 2016 and has missed four 

case reviews since that time. 

 5

 At the time of the June 2018 hearing, S.B. was nine, C.B. was seven, and J.B. was three. 
{¶21} Cameron next discussed the children’s current foster placements and well-being. 

She stated that C.B. was doing well in his current placement and his special needs were being 

successfully addressed by services provided by the foster parents. Cameron testified that S.B. 

was also doing well in his current foster placement and was also having success in addressing his 

special needs through his foster parents. Cameron testified that both C.B.’s and S.B.’s behavior 

has progressed, with less disruptions at home and in school. As to J.B., Cameron explained that 

his foster family met “all of his basic needs” and that his special and developmental needs were 

being addressed by his foster parents. 

{¶22} Cameron explained that CCDCFS was seeking permanent custody of the children 

because “the children have been in custody for over two years and there has not been significant 

progress for the case plan and we do not have any relatives identified and approved for them to 

go to.” She stated that Mother was not able to care for the children because Mother “does not 

have her own stable housing [and] is not consistent with her own mental health services.” She 

explained that S.B. and C.B. need “their services and they have a lot of appointments that they 

cannot miss due to their behaviors[.]” She stated that permanent custody to CCDCFS would be 

in the children’s best interests because “they all have their basic needs met, their mental health, 

their special needs, and services provided consistently.” 

{¶23} On cross-examination, Cameron stated that the children have indicated that they 

miss their Mother and that the children are bonded to one another. She also stated that there 

was not a guarantee that if CCDCFS was granted permanent custody that the children would be 

placed together in the same foster home and whether the children would be adopted by their 

current foster families. She also agreed that the activity logs only showed that she provided 

Mother bus passes on two occasions for transportation. 
{¶24} Cameron also acknowledged that Mother was the victim of a felonious assault in 

2013 when she was shot in the head and pregnant with J.B. Cameron testified that Mother still 

has a bullet in her head, was diagnosed with depression as a result, and “was linked [to] the 

Centers for Families and Children Services [to] help[] coordinate the care between her primary 

doctors and the doctors involved in that and in regards to her mental health.” 

{¶25} On redirect, Cameron stated that she offered Mother bus passes numerous times 

but only provided her bus passes on two occasions. She also testified that S.B. expressed that 

he “does not wish to return to mom. He likes where he’s at.” She said that C.B. likes seeing 

his mom and that he likes “his activities and the things that he is involved with at the foster 

home.” 

{¶26} CCDCFS rested, and Mother did not present witnesses. 

{¶27} Amy Habinski, the children’s GAL, spoke next. She testified that she became 

involved in the case during the emergency custody hearing and that the case has gone on for two 

years, but that “things just aren’t remedied.” She stated that while “the boys love their mom,” 

“they’ve never expressed to me, and particularly, the eldest, that they want to live with her 

again.” She said that “[t]he boys are doing well and happy” and that “permanent custody is in 

their best interest.” 

{¶28} After the hearing, CCDCFS, Mother, and counsel for S.B. filed proposed findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. 

{¶29} On July 23, 2018, the trial court issued a journal entry with the following findings 

of fact relevant to this appeal: 

8. The children * * * initially came to attention of CCDCFS due to the 

mother’s inability to meet the children’s basic needs. 
9. At the time of the initial complaint, mother was homeless, unemployed, 

and unable to provide for the children’s basic needs. 

* * * 

14. Mother was diagnosed with depression. Mother completed a mental 

health assessment through the Centers around September 2016. The 

recommended treatment was case management and medication. Mother 

has not been compliant with medication. Mother is recommended to 

consistently go to psychiatry appointments, but she has not gone back for 

refills or appointments. Mother has not engaged in mental health 

services at the Centers or any other provider since December of 2017. 

15. Mother does not have stable and appropriate housing and has not had 

stable housing since the time of the children’s removal in March of 2016. 

Mother is transient. CCDCFS assisted mother with a housing voucher. 

The CMHA voucher was valid from October 30, 2017 to February 27, 

2018. The assigned social worker, Renae Cameron, gave mother a list of 

possible landlords and homes to check out. Ms. Cameron spoke with a 

landlord on behalf of [Mother]. Mother let the voucher expire more than 

one time and did not follow through or do anything to secure a home for 

her and the children. 

16. Mother is unemployed and does not have a source of income. Ms. 

Cameron drove mother to appointments to secure benefits. However, 

Mother does not receive government benefits at this time. 

17. Mother acknowledges using marijuana, cocaine and “molly.” Ms. 

Cameron advised Mother to go to Recovery Resources for a walk-in 

substance abuse assessment and to go to Advantage Healthcare for random 

drug screens. Ms. Cameron provided Mother bus passes to travel to the 

appointments. [Mother] failed to complete a substance abuse assessment 

and failed to complete any drug screens. 

18. Mother has not consistently visited with the children. The visits occurred 

weekly and had to be moved to monthly due to mother’s cancellations. 

Mother misses approximately one visit per month. Mother was offered a 

parenting class and a parenting coach, but both were ended because of 

mother’s lack of participation. During visits mother appeared, but there 

was a lack of quality interaction and engagement between Mother and the 

children due to Mother being preoccupied with her phone. 

19. Mother reported that transportation was a barrier to completing case plan 

services. Ms. Cameron provided Mother with several bus passes and 

gave Mother rides on occasion. Mother did not use bus passes to 

participate in case plan services. 
20. Mother has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the 

conditions causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home. 

* * * 

25. The Agency investigated relative caretakers for the children[.] * * * No 

family responded to letters or calls. Maternal grandmother and maternal 

aunts reported that they are unable to care for the child. 

* * * 

27. The children are doing well and report that they like their placements. 

School attendance is good and grades are good to fair. The children are 

medically up to date. 

28. S.B. reports that he does not wish to be reunited with his mother, but he 

does not want to be placed with J.B. S.B. and C.B. had a history of 

fighting with one another and their behaviors improved when separated. 

{¶30} The trial court noted the behavioral and development improvements in the 

children. The trial court also found that the fathers of C.B. and S.B. demonstrated a lack of 

commitment toward their children and have not regularly supported, communicated with, or 

provided for the children. 

{¶31} The trial court then made the following findings: 

The [children have] been in temporary custody of a public children services 

agency * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month 

period * * * and no longer [qualify] for temporary custody. 

That one or more of the factors in division (E) of section 2151.414 of the Revised 

Code [establishes that the children] cannot be placed with one of [their parents] 

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

The [children do] not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living 

arrangement [under R.C. 2151.353(A)(5) and] no relative or other interested 

person has filed or has been identified in a motion for legal custody of the child; 

Therefore it is in the best interest of the [children] to be placed in the permanent 

custody of [CCDCFS]; 
* * * 

[T]he court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of permanent 

custody is in the best interests of the [children] and the [children] cannot be placed 

with one of [their] parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with 

either parent. 

{¶32} The trial court further found that Mother “failed continuously and repeatedly to 

substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home” and 

“demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the [children] by failing to regularly support, visit, 

or communicate with the [children] when able to do so, or by other actions showing an 

unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the [children].” 

{¶33} The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and responsibilities and 

approved CCDCFS’s permanency plan and granted CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody. 

{¶34} It is from this judgment that Mother now appeals. 

II. Law and Analysis

{¶35} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues that the trial court’s decision 

awarding CCDCFS permanent custody of the children was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. 

A. Standard of Review

{¶36} Parents do not permanently lose their “fundamental liberty interest” in caring for 

and having custody of their children simply because they temporarily lose custody to the state. 

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1938, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). In fact, “the 

termination of parental rights should be an alternative of ‘last resort’” as it has been labeled as 

“the family law equivalent of the death penalty[.]” In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 
2007-Ohio-1105, 862 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 12, citing In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 391 N.E.2d 

1034 (1979); In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 2002-Ohio-5368, 776 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 14. 

{¶37} A parent’s interest in the custody of their child, however, is not absolute, and the 

state may permanently terminate parental rights when it would serve a child’s best interests. Id. 

“By terminating parental rights, the goal is to create a ‘more stable life’ for dependent children 

and to ‘facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.’” In re L.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 104881, 2017-Ohio-657, ¶ 21, quoting In re N.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101390, 

2015-Ohio-314. 

{¶38} When deciding whether to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody 

to a public services agency, R.C. 2151.414 requires a court to employ a two-part test. First, the 

court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child 

(a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or 

should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 

2151.414(e) are present; 

(b) is abandoned; 

(c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the 

child; or 

(d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private 

children services agencies for 12 months or more of a consecutive 

22-month period. 

(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 an 

abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any 

court in this state or another state. 

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e). Second, a court must find, again by clear and convincing evidence, 

that granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(D) is in the child’s best interest. 
{¶39} “Clear and convincing evidence” is a higher standard of proof than a mere 

“preponderance of the evidence,” but a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 

¶ 48, citing In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist.1994). It is satisfied 

when the evidence presented “produce[s] in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or 

conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Id., quoting Awkal. 

{¶40} An appellate court will not reverse a juvenile court’s decision awarding permanent 

custody to an agency if the judgment is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re 

J.M.-R., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98902, 2013-Ohio-1560, ¶ 28. A reviewing court is required 

to examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence to satisfy the 

clear and convincing standard. In re T.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496, ¶ 

24. 

{¶41} In her assignment of error, Mother specifically argues that evidence does not 

support the trial court’s findings that (1) the children could not be placed with her within a 

reasonable period of time, and (2) granting CCDCFS permanent custody of the children was in 

the children’s best interests. 

B. Placement of the Children

{¶42} We first look to whether clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s finding that the children could not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time 

or should not be placed with their parents. 

{¶43} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth 16 factors used to determine whether children cannot 

or should not be placed with their parents. Some of those factors include whether the parent: 

(1) * * * has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the 

conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home[;] 
(2) [has] [c]hronic mental illness[;] * * * 

(4) has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to 

regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do 

so[;] * * * 

(16) [a]ny other factor the court considers relevant. 

R.C. 2151.414(E). If a trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that any one of the 16 

factors exists, it must find that the children cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a 

reasonable period of time and award permanent custody to an authorized agency. In re D.J., 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88646, 2007-Ohio-1974, ¶ 64. 

{¶44} In its journal entry awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS, the juvenile court 

found that “Mother has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions 

causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home.” There is clear and convincing 

evidence to support the trial court’s finding. The record shows that CCDCFS removed the 

children from Mother’s custody because she was homeless, unemployed, and unable to provide 

for the children’s basic needs. During the permanent custody hearing, Cameron, the CCDCFS 

worker assigned to Mother’s case, explained that at the time of the hearing, which took place 

over two years after the children’s removal, Mother was still not employed and did not have an 

income and, therefore, could not provide for the children’s basic needs. She also testified that 

Mother failed to complete her case plan objectives regarding substance abuse, failed to obtain 

housing despite CCDCFS’s efforts to obtain a voucher for her, and Mother’s lack of 

transportation. Cameron also explained that S.B. and C.B. need “their services and they have a 

lot of appointments that they cannot miss due to their behaviors” and that Mother’s lack of 

transportation and unwillingness to address her own mental health concerns would put the 

children’s basic needs in jeopardy. Habinski, the children’s GAL, also testified that Mother 
would not be able to provide for the children’s basic needs because Mother failed to remedy the 

issues over the two-year period. 

{¶45} Mother argues that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial 

court’s finding regarding the children’s placement because (1) she “had made substantial 

progress” toward her case plan’s mental health objectives in April 2017 and complied with those 

objectives until December 2017, (2) she suffered a serious injury while she was pregnant with 

J.B. and CCDCFS did not demonstrate “an elevated level of care and guidance,” (3) CCDCFS 

did not provide Mother with a housing voucher until two months after it filed for permanent 

custody, and (4) she regularly visited with the children, thereby satisfying her visitation 

objectives under the case plan. 

{¶46} First, as to Mother’s serious injury and mental health objectives, Cameron 

explained that Mother completed an intake with The Centers for Families and Children and that 

she was connected to “pharm management and CPSD services” and was recommended to take 

medication beginning in October 2016. Cameron explained that Mother failed to involve 

herself in “pharm management” since August or September 2017 or in “CPSD” and case 

management since December 2017. Cameron also stated that she provided Mother with bus 

passes on two occasions so that Mother could complete her mental health objectives, but that 

Mother failed to use the bus passes for their intended purposes. While Mother’s injury was 

certainly serious and she attended some appointments for her mental health, she failed to avail 

herself of the mental health services that CCDCFS referred to address her injury and failed to 

complete the objectives. Further, the record does not show how CCDCFS could have 

“elevated” its level of guidance without Mother’s willingness to participate or complete 

programs. 
{¶47} Second, Mother argues that CCDCFS did not help her complete her housing 

objective until October 2017, two months after it filed for permanent custody. Cameron 

testified that she “reached out to some * * * providers” to assist Mother with her housing 

objectives. She explained that CCDCFS has “a program through the CMHA where [CCDCFS] 

partners with them and they give families, when they have them available, housing vouchers.” 

She stated that after making a referral, Mother received a voucher in October 2017. Cameron 

also testified that she reached out to a number of landlords on behalf of Mother. 

{¶48} While Mother did not receive a voucher until two months after CCDCFS filed its 

motion for permanent custody, Mother failed to present any evidence that she worked toward 

obtaining, let alone actually securing, suitable housing for her and the children since the removal 

of the children in March 2016. Therefore, it is clear that CCDCFS made a number of efforts to 

assist Mother in completing her housing objectives. It is also clear that Mother failed to 

actively and timely take advantage of CCDCFS’s efforts. Therefore, the record supports the 

trial court’s findings that Mother failed to remedy her housing issues. 

{¶49} Finally, the record does not support Mother’s argument that she regularly visited 

with the children and that she complied with her visiting objectives under the case plan. 

Cameron explained that Mother had consistently missed one to two visits per month. During 

the visits, Cameron stated that there was usually “minimum” interaction between Mother and the 

children and that the children “[were] usually running around doing their own thing and their 

mom is kind of just sitting back.” Cameron also explained that to improve interaction with the 

children, Mother was connected to a parenting coach program, but that Mother failed to complete 

it. Cameron stated that while Mother does communicate with S.B. and C.B. over the phone, she 

does not support the children in any way, has not attended a SAR or staffing meeting since 2016, 
and has missed four case reviews since that time. Therefore, the record supports the trial 

court’s findings that Mother failed to remedy the issues that caused CCDCFS to remove the 

children and failed to complete her case plan’s objectives. 

{¶50} In light of the above discussion, we cannot say that the trial court’s findings were 

not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we find that the first part of R.C. 

2151.414’s test was satisfied. 

C. The Children’s Best Interests

{¶51} To determine whether a grant of permanent custody is in a child’s best interest, the 

trial court must consider: 

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, 

siblings, relatives, foster caregivers, and out-of-home providers, 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 child has been in 

the temporary custody of one or more public service children agencies or 

private child placing agencies for [12] or more months of a consecutive 

[22]-month period * * *; 

(d) 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 to the agency; 

(e) Whether any of the factors in [R.C. 2151.414](E)(7) to (11)] * * * apply 

in relation to the parents and child. 

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). The trial court only needs to find one of the above factors in favor of 

permanent custody to terminate parental rights. In re J.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 101991 and 

101992, 2015-Ohio-2701, ¶ 51, citing In re Z.T., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88009, 2007-Ohio-827. 
{¶52} In the instant case, testimony presented at the June 2018 hearing established that, 

besides a few phone calls, the children had “minimum interaction” with Mother both outside of 

and during visits at the agency. Testimony also established that while the children loved their 

Mother, they wished to remain in their foster placements and that the children were in 

CCDCFS’s temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. 

Additionally, testimony established that the children needed a legally secure permanent 

placement that could not be achieved without granting CCDCFS permanent custody. 

{¶53} Finally, the trial court found that “[t]he [children have] been in temporary custody 

of a public children services agency * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two 

month period * * * and no longer [qualify] for temporary custody.” The record clearly and 

convincingly supports the trial court’s finding and shows that the children were removed in 

March 2016 and remained in CCDCFS’s custody until the permanent custody hearing in June 

2018, a 27-month period. Therefore, we find that the second part of R.C. 2151.414’s test was 

satisfied. 

{¶54} Accordingly, we overrule Mother’s assignment of error. 

{¶55} Judgment affirmed and permanent custody awarded to CCDCFS. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR