[Cite as In re E.H., 2022-Ohio-3123.]

COURT OF APPEALS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:

E.H.

JUDGES:

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 2022CA00016

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common PLeas, 

Juvenile Division, Case No. F2019-0134

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 7, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant Mother For Appellee

JERMAINE COLQUITT NO APPEARANCE

33 West Main Street, Suite 109

Newark, Ohio 43055

Guardian ad Litem For Grandmother R.H.

CEDRIC P. COLLINS ALLISON A. MAC LEOD-OWEN

P. O. Box 564 110 East Elm Street, Suite B

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Granville, Ohio 43023

For E.H.

J. MICHAEL NICKS

96 West William Street, Suite 100

Delaware, Ohio 43015
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 2

Wise, John, J.

{¶1} Appellant J.H. appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated Appellant’s parental rights and granted Licking

County Department of Job and Family Services’ (“Agency”) motion for permanent custody 

of E.H. The following facts give rise to this appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} E.H. was born on August 28, 2018. Appellant is the biological mother of 

E.H.; B.H is the biological father of E.H. R.H. is the maternal grandmother of E.H.

{¶3} E.H. was found to be a neglected and dependent child.

{¶4} On March 19, 2019, E.H. was removed from the care of Appellant and B.H.

{¶5} On February 19, 2020, the Agency filed for permanent custody of E.H.

{¶6} On September 28, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s Motion 

for Permanent Custody before the Magistrate.

{¶7} At the hearing, Jennifer Newton testified that she has been the foster mother 

of E.H since April 4, 2019. When E.H. first came to live with the Newtons, he was on 

oxygen, underweight, and fragile. E.H. had bronchial pulmonary dysplasia from scar 

tissue in his lungs from being on a ventilator when he was born twenty-eight weeks 

premature. E.H.’s half-brother, D.H., lives with the Newtons. D.H. came to the Newton 

house on June 19, 2020.

{¶8} E.H. is currently in weekly speech therapy and physical therapy twice a 

month. E.H. also has medical appointments for eczema and early cerebral palsy. 

Appellant was not approved or permitted to attend the appointments.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 3

{¶9} Next, Allison Keeley testified she was employed by Licking County Children 

Services as a social worker until December of 2019. Ms. Keeley has been involved in 

E.H.’s case since April of 2019. The Agency became involved in E.H.’s case due to 

substance abuse by the parents, lack of financial stability, poor living conditions and 

neglect. 

{¶10} On April 18, 2019, a case plan for E.H.’s parents was filed. The issues 

identified in the case plan were income, housing, substance abuse, couples counseling, 

mental health and employment. At the time of filing, Appellant reported domestic violence 

between her and E.H.’s father. 

{¶11} E.H. was born twenty-eight weeks premature. His parents were not 

following through on his medical appointments. Initially, the parents were living in Newark, 

Ohio, but were evicted from their residence. E.H.’s parent’s relationship was on and off, 

and they never attended couples counseling.

{¶12} After eviction, Appellant had no permanent address. Appellant reported to 

the Agency that she was beginning work at a McDonald’s; however, the McDonald’s said 

she was not working for them. Appellant claimed no other employment. Appellant also 

claimed she was engaging in alcohol and drug abuse treatment at NYAP. However, 

NYAP confirmed she went through the intake process, but never engaged in treatment. 

Appellant confirmed to the Agency that she was still using cocaine and 

methamphetamine.

{¶13} During an in-home visit, Ms. Keeley noted that Appellant would not allow 

them past the entryway of the home. Appellant said they were being evicted and 

everything was packed up.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 4

{¶14} After B.H. was evicted from his residence in Newark, Ohio, he did not report 

another permanent address. B.H. followed through on alcohol and drug treatment. B.H. 

admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. 

{¶15} The Agency looked to place E.H. with Appellant’s mother R.H. The Agency 

decided against placement with R.H. due to R.H.’s own history with the Agency and 

reports of mold in R.H.’s home. When R.H. and Ms. Keeley spoke about E.H. going to 

live with R.H., R.H. said she can buy a new house so mold won’t be an issue. 

{¶16} Next, Phaedra Abdalla testified that she is a visitation coordinator with the 

Agency. She supervises visits, intervenes as needed, and takes notes. Appellant had 

been removed from the visitation schedule because she had three no-show visits in a 

row. Her visitation was rescheduled for August 27, 2019. 

{¶17} During the visits, Appellant actively participated by playing with E.H., 

bringing him snacks, and changing diapers. She was generally pleasant and respectful.

{¶18} During R.H.’s portion of the visits, Ms. Abdalla stated R.H. was overbearing. 

She was bossing people around and hindering Appellant’s visit with E.H.

{¶19} Next, Appellant testified she is currently living in Newark, Ohio with a friend 

of her father. No formal lease or contract exists for housing. Appellant testified she 

completed her initial drug and alcohol assessment, but when she returned to engage in 

treatment, her counselor had left and they failed to assign her a new counselor.

{¶20} Appellant testified she was placed in temporary custody of Franklin County 

Children’s Services at the age of thirteen or fourteen. She was briefly reunited with R.H. 

at age sixteen, but was back in Franklin County Children’s Services custody until age 

eighteen. Appellant had run away from home and was hit with a belt by R.H. Appellant 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 5

testified to possible use in the last three months of methamphetamine. Appellant testified 

E.H.’s father has hit her on three occasions. 

{¶21} Appellant currently lives with her boyfriend at a family friend’s house. There 

is no formal contract in place. Appellant did not inform the Agency of her new residence, 

the identity of her boyfriend, or that she is living with her boyfriend. 

{¶22} Appellant also testified to her employment history. She stated she worked 

a couple shifts at a pizzeria, worked at Club 2k, and would be paid for singing, dancing, 

and rapping. She has not had any income in the last thirty days. Appellant has stayed 

with R.H. recently. R.H. has provided some support to Appellant.

{¶23} The hearing was continued to October 13, 2020.

{¶24} At this hearing, a motion was made to allow R.H. to attend visitations with 

E.H. The trial court granted this motion.

{¶25} Appellant failed to appear at the hearing, and her counsel moved for a 

continuance. The continuance was denied.

{¶26} Bridget Lorenz Lemberg testified she is the lab director and toxicologist at 

Forensic Fluids Laboratories in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

{¶27} Forensic Fluids Laboratories performed drug tests on Appellant. In May of 

2019, Appellant tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In August of 

2019, Appellant tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. In 

September of 2019, Appellant did not test positive for any controlled substance. In 

December of 2019, Appellant tested positive for marijuana. In January of 2020, Appellant 

testified positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and marijuana. In February of 

2020, Appellant tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In March of 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 6

2020, Appellant tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In June of 2020, 

Appellant tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. In July of 2020, Appellant 

tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In August of 2020, Appellant 

tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

{¶28} Forensic Laboratories also conducted drug testing of B.H. In June of 2019, 

he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine. In 

August of 2019, he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. 

In September of 2019, he did not test positive for any controlled substance. In November 

of 2020, he tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In December of 

2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In January of 2020, he tested positive for 

marijuana. In February of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In March of 2020 he 

tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. In June of 2020, he tested positive for 

marijuana. In August of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana.

{¶29} Next, Palma Ashcraft testified she is a social worker with the Agency. E.H. 

was born addicted to cocaine and marijuana. E.H. was removed from the care of 

Appellant and B.H. over concerns of hospitalization from nonorganic failure to thrive and 

losing a significant amount of weight. Neither Appellant nor B.H. were following through 

on recommendations during hospital admissions. The Agency was also concerned over 

home conditions, unemployment of Appellant, parenting, substance abuse, and mental 

health.

{¶30} Ms. Ashcraft reviewed the case plan with Appellant and B.H. Appellant had 

to obtain stable housing and employment, undergo substance abuse treatment, mental 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 7

health treatment, couples counseling, and resolve traffic and legal issues. From June of 

2019 until April of 2020, Appellant had no stable residence. 

{¶31} Ms. Ashcraft visited Appellant’s current residence in Newark on September 

29, 2020. Ms. Ashcraft described it as appropriate. However, the Agency has concerns 

over Appellant’s boyfriend, J.H. He has current felony charges against him for theft. 

Appellant does not have a contract with the landlord. The Agency is concerned with 

Appellant’s housing at this time.

{¶32} Appellant did not disclose employment until January of 2020, when she 

worked at Hendoc’s pub in Columbus and picked up odd jobs on TaskRabbit until 

February of 2020. From June of 2020 until August of 2020, she reported working at a 

pizzeria and Club 2k, but never produced verification. Next, she claimed she traveled out 

west with a friend delivering cantaloupe and watermelon to Colorado, but did not disclose 

if or how much she was paid. Appellant’s employment is still an issue for the Agency.

{¶33} Appellant claimed she attended substance abuse classes at BHP in Mount 

Vernon, Ohio, but when Ms. Ashcraft called to verify, they said that they had never heard 

of her. Appellant never sought treatment for substance abuse or mental health as required 

by her case plan. Appellant took thirteen drug tests over the course of the case plan, and 

tested positive for methamphetamines in a majority of them. Appellant’s substance abuse 

and mental health is still an issue for the Agency.

{¶34} Appellant did complete parenting classes. However, her attendance at 

visitations with E.H. were not consistent. If all three boys were in attendance, it was very 

chaotic, and hard for her to handle all three children. Now that her visits are only with 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 8

E.H., it is easier for her. Appellant’s behavior during the visits is not an issue for the 

Agency.

{¶35} During one visitation, Ms. Ashcraft gave B.H. a ride from drug testing to 

visitation one day. Upon arrival R.H. took pictures, and then Appellant arrived to videotape 

and yell at Ms. Ashcraft and B.H. Appellant was yelling obscenities until R.H. told her to 

get in R.H.’s car and they pulled away.

{¶36} B.H.’s case plan included obtaining stable housing, obtaining stable 

employment, completing drug and mental health treatment, taking parenting classes, 

couples counseling, and resolve any legal or traffic issues. 

{¶37} After B.H.’s eviction from his residence in Newark, he stayed with friends 

for several months. Then he moved to Massachusetts to live with his dad. He then moved 

back to Newark in August of 2020. He now lives with Appellant’s foster brother. The 

residence is a three-bedroom duplex. His two sons live with him. He sleeps on the couch,

and there is not a room for E.H. B.H. has an agreement with Appellant’s brother, no lease 

or contract. B.H.’s housing is still a concern for the Agency.

{¶38} B.H. claims employment with Amazon, but has not verified his employment. 

The issue of B.H.’s employment is still a concern of the Agency.

{¶39} B.H. attended substance abuse treatment in Ohio. This stopped due to 

COVID. At the beginning, B.H. was testing positive for methamphetamine, but by the end 

of the case he mainly tested positive for marijuana. B.H. has indicated he does not 

recognize marijuana as an illegal substance and has no plans to stop using it. Substance 

abuse and mental health are still a concern for the Agency.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 9

{¶40} The Agency has identified R.H. as a possible relative for placing E.H. The 

Agency ruled out R.H. because of her past agency involvement and conversations Ms. 

Ashcraft had with her. R.H. had told Ms. Ashcraft that E.H. spent substantial time with 

her. She cared for him frequently. This led Ms. Ashcraft to have concerns that she didn’t 

identify the situation and remove E.H. from the situation. She should have noticed his 

weight loss and that he was not receiving the care he needed. R.H. has a history of 

physical abuse which led to Appellant’s removal from her home.

{¶41} R.H.’s initial home was also deemed unsuitable as there were black mold 

issues. 

{¶42} R.H. was present at the hospital during E.H.’s hospitalization more than 

either parent. R.H. was a trusted source of care for E.H. when his siblings were sick. R.H. 

obtained a new residence, but it was never inspected.

{¶43} No other family members have been identified as suitable for placement. 

E.H. has been diagnosed with early cerebral palsy.

{¶44} E.H. is currently living with Jennifer and Jason Newton in a foster-to-adopt 

placement. They are interested in adopting if permanent custody is granted to the Agency. 

He is with his older sibling D.H. and has three foster siblings. All of his special needs are 

being met by the Newtons. 

{¶45} The Agency does not believe either parent has alleviated or will alleviate 

the concerns giving rise to the dependency finding in the near future. E.H. cannot be 

placed with either parent in the near future. It is in the Agency’s opinion that granting 

permanent custody is in the best interest of E.H.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 10

{¶46} Next, Cedric Collins testified that he is the Guardian ad Litem for E.H. He 

has observed E.H. in his foster home and has observed that he is doing very well. Initially, 

E.H. had many medical issues, was on oxygen, had significant weight loss, and was not 

developing. Now he is growing, gaining weight, off oxygen, and walking. 

{¶47} Mr. Collins still has concerns regarding B.H.’s and Appellant’s ability to 

parent E.H. Specifically, they are still using illegal substances, they are not financially 

stable, they do not have stable housing, and all these are important for a child with special 

needs.

{¶48} Mr. Collins looked into placement with R.H. He went to R.H.’s home, 

observed most everything a child of E.H.’s age would need. However, the stairs to the 

basement did not have a railing to prevent a child from falling, which is important for a 

child with special needs. She was not fully unpacked and boxes still needed put away. 

R.H. was receiving partial retirement, but also working to meet her own needs. Mr. Collins 

was concerned about meeting the needs of E.H. R.H. needs a better support system if 

she were to take custody of E.H.

{¶49} Mr. Collins is concerned that given R.H. bond with E.H., she should not have 

given him back to the parents when so many issues existed without calling the Agency. 

The Guardian ad Litem testified it would be in the child’s best interest to grant the Agency 

permanent custody of E.H.

{¶50} The trial court then recessed until November 23, 2020.

{¶51} At the November 23, 2020 hearing, the trial court heard a motion on granting 

legal custody to R.H. 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 11

{¶52} R.H. testified she is E.H.’s maternal grandmother. She owns her own home 

with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. E.H. will have his own bedroom. R.H. is on 

unemployment due to COVID. 

{¶53} R.H. has a conviction for disorderly conduct. She took her dog to a bingo 

hall. She parked the car in the shade and put the windows down. She testified the dog 

had water and food. She went into the bingo hall and came out after forty-five minutes to 

check on the dog. She got into an altercation with officers when they tried to get her to 

leave the bingo hall to take care of the dog.

{¶54} R.H. testified Appellant had behavioral issues in her youth, but she does not 

recall beating Appellant with a belt. She said that Appellant is still lying about R.H.’s 

abuse.

{¶55} The hospital discharged E.H. to R.H. after he was born, as two of his siblings 

were sick. After returning E.H. to his parents three days later, E.H. was in the hospital 

with a respiratory issue. Again, the hospital discharged E.H. to R.H. Appellant and the 

children stayed with R.H. for four days until Appellant wanted to go back to live with B.H. 

R.H. did not agree with this and did not want to take the children back. Appellant called 

the police and told them R.H. kidnapped her children. When the police arrived, they 

wanted to know why R.H. did not want to give the children back. She said because the 

parents were fighting.

{¶56} Three weeks after the incident, E.H. went back into the hospital. R.H. stayed 

with E.H. at the hospital.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 12

{¶57} With relation to the incident with Ms. Ashcraft at a visitation, R.H. said she 

saw B.H. in Ms. Ashcraft’s car, and it did not seem right to her. Then Appellant finished 

her visitation and got angry with Ms. Ashcraft and B.H. 

{¶58} R.H. has had three visits with E.H. She believes E.H. is enjoying his time 

with her. She does not believe removing E.H. from his foster home would traumatize him.

{¶59} R.H. believes it is in the best interest of E.H. to be placed with her. She is 

his grandmother, has been part of his life since he was born, she believes she can provide 

a home for him and support him. Her support network has not met E.H. due to his being 

hospitalized and then placed into foster care.

{¶60} Next, Palma Ashcraft retook the stand. Ms. Ashcraft testified she has not 

spoken with R.H. about E.H.’s medical care. R.H. has only information provided by 

Appellant or B.H.

{¶61} Ms. Palma observed R.H.’s visits with E.H. R.H. would play and sing to E.H. 

E.H. looked to be enjoying himself, but after the visit he wanted to get away from the 

visitation staff and back to his foster mom.

{¶62} Ms. Palma also testified that with R.H.’s history of physical abuse, it is not 

in the best interest of E.H. to be placed with her. Ms. Palma also notes R.H.’s work 

schedule would require E.H. to be shuffled around from R.H. to either her friend or her 

nephew. Ms. Palma does not believe this is a good situation for a child with special needs. 

{¶63} Mr. Collins then testified that he still believes it is not in the best interest of 

E.H. to be placed with R.H. Mr. Collins is concerned about R.H.’s financial position. He 

also believes E.H. is bonded to his foster family. Mr. Collins disagrees with R.H. that 

removing E.H. from his foster family would not be traumatizing. E.H. has bonded 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 13

significantly with his foster family, and any removal will have an impact on the child, 

especially removing him from his foster mother. He believes it is in the best interest of 

E.H. to be placed in the Agency’s permanent custody.

{¶64} On February 18, 2021, the Magistrate issued a decision denying R.H. legal 

custody of E.H., and granting permanent custody of E.H. to the Agency.

{¶65} On March 3, 2021, Appellant objected to the Magistrate’s Decision.

{¶66} On March 4, 2021, R.H. objected to the Magistrate’s Decision.

{¶67} On March 1, 2022, the trial court adopted the decision of the Magistrate 

above Appellant’s and R.H.’s objections.

{¶68} On March 28, 2022, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.

{¶69} On May 25, 2022, Appellant filed a merit brief with this Court.

{¶70} On June 17, 2022, this Court granted Appellee’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to file a Brief.

{¶71} Appellee did not file a merit brief arguing Appellee’s case.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶72} Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal and raises the following 

Assignment of Error:

{¶73} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BOTH IN DENYING [R.H]’s LEGAL 

CUSTODY MOTION AND IN GRANTING THE LICKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES PERMANENT CUSTODY OF E.H.”
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 14

I.

{¶74} In Appellant’s first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred 

in denying R.H.’s legal custody motion and granting permanent custody to the Agency. 

We disagree.

{¶75} A trial court may award legal custody to a non-parent after finding that legal 

custody is in the child’s best interests. R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); R.C. 2151.415(B); Stull v 

Richland Cty. Children Services, 5th Dist. Richland Nos. 11CA47 and 11CA48, 2012-

Ohio-738, 71 N.E.3d 660, ¶22. The court’s determination as to whether the facts make it 

in the child’s best interest to be placed in legal custody, an appellate court applies the 

abuse of discretion standard. Id.

{¶76} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s 

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or 

judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶77} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ 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 permanent 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 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). “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue 

must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine 

whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree 

of proof.” Id. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 15

essential elements of the case supports the trial court’s judgment, an appellate court must 

affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E. Morris 

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

{¶78} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to 

the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal vs. 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 evidence in the parties’ 

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 

Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997-Ohio-260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.

{¶79} This Court set forth a trial court’s analysis of a permanent custody motion 

in In the Matters of: A.R., B.R., W.R., 5th Dist. Stark Nos. 2018CA00091, 2018CA00097, 

2018CA00098, 2019-Ohio-389. When deciding a motion for permanent custody a trial 

court must follow guidelines provided in R.C. §2151.414. R.C. §2151.414(A)(1) mandates 

the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon 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.

{¶80} 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 no relatives of the child are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 16

in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies or private 

child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month 

period.

{¶81} 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.

{¶82} In the case sub judice, the trial court found E.H. has been in the custody of 

the Agency for longer than twelve (12) of the last twenty-two (22) consecutive months. 

Pursuant to R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a), the trial court also found E.H. could not be placed 

with either of the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with E.H.’s 

parents.

{¶83} In making this decision, the trial court must consider the factors of R.C. 

§2151.414(E), which states, in relevant part:

(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 of the 

Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable period of time or should not be with the parents, 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 purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 17

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:

(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and 

notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency 

to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child 

to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and 

repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be 

placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have 

substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental 

utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and 

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to

the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to 

resume and maintain parental duties.

(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;

(3) The parent committed any abuse as described in section 

2151.031 of the Revised Code against the child, caused the child to suffer 

any neglect as described in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code, or 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 18

allowed the child to suffer any neglect as described in section 2151.03 of 

the Revised Code between the date that the original complaint alleging 

abuse or neglect was filed and the date of the filing of the motion for 

permanent custody;

(4) The parent 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, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an 

adequate permanent home for the child;

***

(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

{¶84} In determining whether the child can be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable time, the court stated that it had considered all relevant evidence and all 

factors specifically enumerated in R.C. §2151.414(E). Based on the testimony presented, 

the trial court found that E.H. had been in temporary custody of the Agency for more than 

twelve months out of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

{¶85} The trial court further found that efforts made by the Agency to work with 

the parents of E.H. have been reasonable and appropriate and followed E.H.’s best 

interest. The Agency used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of E.H. from the 

home, to remedy the conditions that led to removal of E.H., and to make it possible for

E.H. to return home. Specifically, the trial court found these reasonable efforts based on 

the following actions taken by the Agency: identified areas of concern related to Appellant 

and B.H., the need to address substance abuse and mental health issues, stability of 

housing and income, and demonstrate appropriate parenting practices, facilitation of visits 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 19

with Appellant, B.H., and R.H., foster placement, and case planning for both B.H. and 

Appellant.

{¶86} “The discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an 

order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost 

respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will 

have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 

2000CA0024, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 

316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).

{¶87} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing, 

R.C. §2151.414(D)(1) requires the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, 

but not limited to the following:

(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 children services 

agencies 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 placement agencies for twelve or more months of a 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 20

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 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 divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section 

apply in relation to the parents and child.

{¶88} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re 

C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816.

{¶89} “A child’s best interest are served by the child being placed in a permanent 

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. In re P.S., 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA11, 2016-Ohio-3489, ¶57. A relative’s willingness to care for the child does not alter the 

court’s considerations in deciding permanent custody. Id. 

{¶90} The trial court’s decision indicates it considered the best interest of the child. 

The trial court concluded the child’s need for legally secure placement could not be 

achieved without awarding permanent custody to the Agency. Upon review of the entire 

record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court’s finding that granting the motion 

for permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

{¶91} Appellant exposed E.H. to Appellant’s substance abuse, lack of stable 

housing, domestic violence, and mental health issues. E.H. was born twenty-eight weeks 

premature, addicted to marijuana and cocaine. E.H. has been diagnosed with early 

cerebral palsy and had to be hospitalized due to weight loss and lack of development. 
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 21

Appellant did not complete substance abuse and mental health courses and consistently 

tested positive for controlled substances, mostly marijuana and methamphetamine. 

Appellant never obtained steady employment or secured appropriate, stable housing. 

B.H., while attending substance abuse classes, does not acknowledge the illegality of 

marijuana and has no intention of quitting. B.H. was not present at the hearings for 

permanent custody or legal custody. B.H. has acknowledge that he is not in a position to 

care for a child with special needs. 

{¶92} The Agency also explored placing E.H. with R.H. R.H., E.H.’s maternal 

grandmother, moved to request legal custody of E.H. The trial court found R.H. had failed 

to recognize and appreciate the significant ties E.H. has with his foster family. E.H. has a 

limited relationship with R.H., and while the trial court noted R.H. cares for the child, E.H. 

turns to his foster family for reassurance and comfort. E.H.’s special needs have affected 

his ability to bond with R.H.

{¶93} E.H. shows visible excitement when around his foster parents and siblings, 

and displays trust and ease towards them. His foster parents have managed his cerebral 

palsy and he is thriving under their care. They ensure he attends all therapy and medical 

appointments and are well versed in his special needs. The foster parents have a safe, 

stable home, and are committed to E.H. and desire to adopt him. The trial court found 

that E.H.’s best interests will be served by denying R.H.’s motion for legal custody and 

granting the Agency permanent custody.

{¶94} The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody be granted to the 

Agency because E.H. could not be safely reunited with the parents. He has concerns
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00016 22

about R.H. financially meeting the needs of herself and E.H., and that E.H. has bonded 

significantly with his foster family.

{¶95} We find that the trial court’s determination that permanent custody to the 

Agency was in the child’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence, 

and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding it was not in the child’s best interest 

to be placed in R.H.’s legal custody.

{¶96} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

{¶97} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Division of Licking County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, John, J.

Wise, Earle, P. J., and

Hoffman, J., concur.

JWW/br 0830