[Cite as In re B.H. , 2021-Ohio-4152.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: B.H. J.H. C.A. Nos. 29998 29999

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 19 07 0615 DN 19 07 0617

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: November 24, 2021

SUTTON, Judge. {¶1} Appellant Mother appeals the j udgment of the Summit County Cour t of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights a nd awarded permanent custody of her children to Summit County Chil dren Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). This Court

affirms.

I. {¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of B.H. (d.o.b. 4/ 11/09) and J.H. (d.o.b. 2/2/14). They have another child together who is in th e care of a third party and who is not involved in this case. During the course of the proceeding s below, Mother gave birth to an infant who is the subject of another child welfare case. Fathe r also has multiple other children, including C.H. who is the subject of a separate appeal and who was living in the same household

with B.H. and J.H. when the thr ee children were removed by CSB in this case.2

{¶3} Although the record is imprecise as to timing and circumstances , there is no dispute that B.H., J.H., and their half-brother C.H. had been f ormally placed in the legal custody of their paternal grandmother (“ Grandmother”) prior to CSB’s in volvement in this case. In June 2019, the agency received a referral regarding the well-being o f the children in Grandmother’s home, where Father and the mother of C.H. had also been living. When the agency caseworker visited the home to investigate, F ather and C.H.’s mother had m oved out because Grandmother had obtained a protection order against them. {¶4} During her investigation, the int ake caseworker discovered the following. Father and C.H’s mother had been using methamphetamine in Grandmother’ s home and engaging in acts of domestic violence against her. Father had multiple pen ding warrants for his arrest relating to drug charges in thr ee cases. Mother was in jail on drug charges. Grandmother’s home was cluttered, the children were dirty, and Grandmother ad mitted to feeling overwhelmed by caring for three children with special needs. B.H. had leuk emia, and although he was in remission, he still required multip le visits with health care p rofessionals to monitor his situation.

C.H.’s services with Summit DD to address his issues and develo pment due to Down Syndrome had been discontinued by that a gency based on Grandmother’s fai lure to ensure that child’s participation. Grandmother admitted that she too was using met hamphetamine just to be able to get things done around the house. Based on the conditions in t he legal custodian’s home, on July 23, 2019, CSB removed the children and filed complaints allegin g that each was an abused (endangered), neglecte d, and dependent child. {¶5} As Mother had been released from jail the day before, the agenc y attempted to serve her personally with summons, the complaint, and notice of the adjudicatory hearing at her3

last known address. When that w as unsuccessful because Mother was no longer at that address

and her current residence was unknown, the agency served her by publication. {¶6} CSB filed its original case p lan in early August 2019. The cas eworker had scheduled a meeting with Mother prior to that, but Mother cance led it. During their conversation, Mother explained t hat she was alternating her tim e between two residences in Akron, with plans to move in with an aunt in Norwalk, although she did not provide the caseworker with any address where they could meet. Therefore, the caseworker was unable to discuss concerns or specific cas e plan objectives with Mother. The case plan goal was reunification with the legal cus todian (Grandmother) or with th e children’s parents. Mother’s initial case plan objective was for her to contact the casework er if she wished to be considered for visitation or custody and to cooperate with the agency and participate in services necessary to address any iden tified concerns. {¶7} Mother and Father did not appear for adjudication. Grandmother stipulated to the allegations in the complaint, and the agency presented evidence to establish its claims in the parents’ absence and lack of s tipulation. The magistrate found that B.H. and J.H. were abused (endangered), neglected, and depe ndent children, and that CSB h ad used reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s continued removal from their home. {¶8} Mother and Father failed to appear at the dispositional hearing . Again, Grandmother waived her hearing rights, and the agency presented evidence in the parents’ absence. The magistrate placed the children in the temporary c ustody of CSB, adopted the agency’s case plan as an order , found that CSB had used reasona ble efforts to prevent the

children’s continued removal fro m their home, granted Grandmoth er two-hour weekly supervised visitation, and ordere d that Mother and Father shoul d request an order of visitation4

from the court should they so de sire. No party filed objection s to the magistrate’s decision, and the juvenile court adopted the decision. {¶9} Neither parent attended the first review hearing. Father had b een incarcerated on drug charges. Mother was in IBH Addiction Recovery and had not ified the caseworker that she

was not interested in reunifica tion. The magistrate found that CSB had used reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s continued removal from their home. A co uple months later, the agency filed an amended case plan adding a requirement for Grandmother to participate in the children’s counseling sessions and follow a ll recommendations. Mother’s s ole objective was not modified. She did not file objections t o the amended case plan. {¶10} Mother and Father did not appear at the next two review hearing s. After each, the magistrate noted that Mother had not contacted the caseworker o r sought any involvement with the children. The magistrate again found that CSB had continue d to use reasonable efforts to

facilitate reunifica tion. Mother did not move to set aside any of the magistrate’s orders. {¶11} On June 18, 2020, CSB filed a motion for permanent custody of B .H. and J.H. The agency alleged that the children could not or should not be returned to either parent based on their failures to remedy the conditions underlying the children ’s removal. CSB further alleged that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. Th ereafter, the magistrate issued a decision after a sunset hearing in July 2020, and found that th e agency had used reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan for the children, includi ng, but not limited to, providing ongoing case management and attemp ting to contact Mother. Moth er did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision. {¶12} The mother of C.H. made her first appearance in the case at the sunset hearing and requested that the agenc y add case plan objectives for her. CSB filed a sec ond amended case5

plan that added a substance abus e objective for C.H.’s mother. All other case plan objectives, including Mother’s requirement t o contact the agency if she wis hed to become involved in the case, remained the same. {¶13} Grandmother filed a motion for legal custody of C.H., B.H., and J.H., but withdrew that motion nine days later. No other party filed a d ispositional motion prior to the commencement of the permanent custody hearing. {¶14} The permanent custody hearing began on November 19, 2020. Moth er was not initially present. The agency pr esented the testimony of three medical and/or social work professionals from Akron Childre n’s Hospital regarding the care and condition of B.H. who had relapsed into leukemia. The CSB caseworker then began to testi fy, but the juvenile court stopped the proceedings when Mother suddenly joined the hearing . As she had never attended any previous hearings and was not represented by counsel, the j uvenile court inquired as to her intentions. Because Mother wished to participate in the procee dings and requested counsel, the juvenile court assert ed that it would appoint the same attorney who was representing her in another case involving her newbor n. The juvenile court then re cessed the proceedings until March 3, 2021, to give counsel for Mother time to review the re cording of that day’s hearing and prepare for further proceedings. {¶15} Mother filed several dispositiona l motions prior to the second day of the permanent custody hearing. She m oved for a six-month extension of temporary custody; alternatively, legal custody of all three children including C. H; or, alternatively, legal custody of the three children to her mother, t he maternal grandmother of B .H. and J.H. {¶16} CSB again amended the case plan, this time to add particularize d objectives for Mother upon her request. Mother was required to obtain a chemi cal dependency assessment,6

follow all recommendations, and s ubmit to random drug screens; obtain a mental health diagnostic assessment and follow all recommendations; and obtai n a source of income and

demonstrate that she could meet the basic needs of the children , including maintaining a safe home. Mother was permitted to have supervised visits with the children. The case plan noted that Mother agreed with the plan, having jointly developed her objectives with the caseworker. At all times prior to the award of permanent custody, the case plan goal remained reunification

of the children with Grandmother or the parents. The goal was not modified to seek adoption until after the juvenile court terminated the parents’ parental rights. {¶17} At the beginning of the second da y of the hearing, Grandmother informed the juvenile court that she wished to relinquish any custodial righ ts she had as to the children. After engaging in colloquy with Grandmot her to ensure that she unders tood the rights she was waiving, the juvenile court acc epted Grandmother’s relinquishme nt and excused her from further proceedings. The permanent custody hearing continued for two a dditional days. Mother presented a case in chief. {¶18} At the conclusion of the permane nt custody hearing, the juvenil e court issued a judgment terminating Mother’s a nd Father’s parental rights and placing B.H. and J.H. in the permanent custody of CSB. The juve nile court found that the ch ildren could not or should not be returned to either parent’s cu stody based on their failures to remedy the conditions that gave rise

to the children’s removal. The trial court found that an award of permanent custody was in the best interest of B.H. and J.H., while all other requested dispo sitions were not. The juvenile court

further found that CSB had used reasonable efforts to prevent t he children’s continued removal

from their home.7

{¶19} Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. She raises one assignm ent of error for

review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT TERMINATED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AND PLACED THE CHILDREN IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF CSB WHEN THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE REUNIFICATION EFFORTS. {¶20} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by awarding permane nt custody of the children to CSB because the agency failed to make reasonable re unification efforts. This Court disagrees. {¶21} R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) requires the j uvenile court to determine wh ether the agency

has used reasonable reunificati on efforts at any hearing at whi ch the court removes a child from

his home or continues the child’s removal from his home. It is well settled that “the statute imposes no requirement for such a determination at the time of the permanent custody hearing unless the agency has not established that reasonable efforts h ave been made prior to that hearing.” (Internal quotations omitted.) In re L.R. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29266 and 29271, 2019-Ohio-2305, ¶ 14, quoting In re A.C.-B. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28330 and 28349, 2017- Ohio-374, ¶ 22; see also In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 41-43 (concluding that a reasonable efforts determination is necessary at a perma nent custody hearing only if the agency has not demonstrated its us e of reasonable efforts prior to that time). {¶22} In this case, the juvenile cour t consistently found that CSB ha d used reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s removal from their home. Beg inning with the shelter care hearing and continuing with adjudication, the initial dispositi on, and multiple review hearings,8

the trial court made the requisite statutory reasonable efforts determinations. At no time did Mother or any other party c hallenge those findings. {¶23} As Mother failed to object or m ove to set aside any reasonable efforts determinations by the juvenile c ourt, she has forfeited any cha llenge to the agency’s use of reasonable efforts on appeal except for a claim of plain error. See In re L.R. at ¶ 18. To demonstrate plain error, Mother must show not only trial court error, but also resulting prejudice.

In re T.G. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29658, 2020-Ohio-4802, ¶ 22. As Mother has not provided any transcripts of the prior heari ngs after which the juvenile cour t consistently found CSB’s use of reasonable efforts, this Court mu st presume regularity as to th ose reasonable efforts

determinations. See In re L.R. at ¶ 18. Accordingly, Mother has failed to demonstrate error by the juvenile court necessary t o substantiate plain error. {¶24} Notwithstanding the above, Mother argues that CSB could not hav e used

reasonable reunification efforts based on the agency’s alleged non-compliance with federal law. She presents a form-over-substa nce argument which cannot prevai l. She cites fede ral provisions which she admits only implicate federal funding for state child welfare agencies. See, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. 622, 670, and 671. No federal provisions cited by Mothe r provide for the negation of any lawful order by a state court. {¶25} As this Court has frequently not ed, the juvenile court derives its sole authority in dependency, neglect, and abuse cases from the comprehensive sta tutory scheme set out in R.C. Chapter 2151. E.g., In re A.P. , 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0022-M, 2012-Ohio-3873, ¶ 16. R.C. 2151.412 addresses case plans and further directs the dire ctor of job and family services to adopt rules regarding the content, format, development, impleme ntation, and modification of case plans. Those rules are found in various provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code.9

{¶26} In this case, CSB filed an original and several amended case pl ans with objectives for Mother in pursuit of reunification with the children. Moth er did not object to any case plan. In fact, she worked with the agency to jointly develop her late r case plan objectives, and CSB noted her agreement on the case plan. Although she now argues that alleged deficiencies, such

as the omission of the child’s c lergy and fictive kin, in the c ase plan require reversal, she failed to preserve these issues for appeal. Moreover, she has neither argued nor demonstrated how she was prejudiced by any alleged defi ciency. This Court discerns no prejudicial effect requiring reversal of the juven ile court’s judgment. {¶27} Based on a review of the reco rd, there is nothing to support Mother’s claims of error by the juvenile court or prejudice arising out of any all eged error. Mother’s assignment of

error is overruled.

III. {¶28} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment o f the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juve nile Division, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State o f Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the10

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the pa rties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket , pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

B ETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: NEIL P. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuti ng Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CO RGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. PAUL GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. CHRISTOPHER CRULL, Attorne y at Law, for Appellee. GINA D’AURELIO, Attorney at Law, for B.H. HOLLY FARAH, Guardian ad Litem.