[Cite as In re L.C., 2023-Ohio-731.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: L.C. & J.S. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. Nos. 2022-CA-77; 2022-CA-78

Trial Court Case Nos. 20210313; 

20210314

(Appeal from Common Pleas CourtJuvenile Division)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on March 10, 2023

. . . . . . . . . . . 

IAN A. RICHARDSON, Attorney for Appellee, Clark County Department of Job and Family 

Services

 

GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Attorney for Appellant, Mother

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant A.C. (“Mother”) appeals from judgments of the Clark County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting the Clark County Department of Job and 

Family Services (hereinafter “CCDJFS”) permanent custody of her minor children, L.C. 
-2-

and J.S. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} CCDJFS first became involved with this family in April 2021 due to reports 

that the children were missing school. Upon meeting with Mother, caseworkers became 

concerned about her mental health. On May 28, 2021, CCDJFS filed a complaint 

alleging that the children were dependent because Mother had mental health issues 

which caused her to be unable to provide for the basic needs of the children. Specifically, 

the agency alleged that the children were not attending school and that Mother was not 

feeding them.

{¶ 3} In July 2021, the children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the 

temporary custody of CCDJFS. A case plan was implemented to reunify Mother with the

children. The case plan required Mother to obtain and maintain stable housing and 

employment; to undergo a mental health assessment as well as a drug and alcohol 

assessment and to follow all treatment recommendations; to submit to random drug 

screenings; and to maintain regular visitation with the children. 

{¶ 4} On April 20, 2022, CCDJFS filed a motion seeking permanent custody of the 

children. A hearing was conducted on August 29, 2022. Evidence adduced during the 

hearing demonstrated Mother had failed to obtain appropriate housing. There was 

evidence that she had obtained employment as of June 2022, but no evidence was 

presented to demonstrate that she had remained employed. Evidence was also 

presented that Mother had failed to comply with mental health or substance abuse 
-3-

treatment despite admitting to using methamphetamines, fentanyl, THC and Bupropion. 

Indeed, the record demonstrated that when Mother did submit to a drug screen, she 

tested positive. Most significantly, the evidence demonstrated that Mother failed to visit 

the children at any time after December 2021. 

{¶ 5} Following the hearing, the court found Mother had abandoned the children

and that an award of permanent custody to CCDJFS was in the best interest of the 

children. 

{¶ 6} Mother appeals. 

II. Permanent Custody

{¶ 7} Mother’s sole assignment of error states as follows:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION OF CLARK 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (CCDJFS) 

FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY

{¶ 8} Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding 

permanent custody of her children to CCDJFS. She argues the evidence demonstrated 

she had “sufficiently started to make progress on her Case Plan and that the Agency 

should have considered a second extension of temporary custody rather than pursuing 

permanent custody.” 

{¶ 9} “[P]arents who are suitable persons have a ‘paramount’ right to the custody 

of their minor children.” (Citations omitted.) In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 

N.E.2d 1169 (1990). This “fundamental interest of parents is not absolute, however.” In 
-4-

re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 2007-Ohio-1105, 862 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 11. The “extreme 

disposition” of permanently terminating parental rights “is nevertheless expressly 

sanctioned * * * when it is necessary for the ‘welfare’ of the child.” In re Cunningham, 59 

Ohio St.2d 100, 105, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979). 

{¶ 10} As pertinent here, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states that:

* * * [T]he court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the 

court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child 

to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion 

for permanent custody and that any of the following apply:

* * *

(b) The child is abandoned.

{¶ 11} “ ‘An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's determination concerning 

parental rights and child custody unless the determination is not supported by sufficient 

evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof.’ ” In re Rishforth, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 20915, 2005-Ohio-5007, ¶ 11, quoting In re Dylan C., 121 Ohio App.3d 

115, 121, 699 N.E.2d 107 (6th Dist.1997). Clear and convincing evidence is “that 

measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ 

but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in 

criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or 

conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469,

120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), syllabus. 
-5-

{¶ 12} R.C. 2151.011(C) provides that “a child shall be presumed abandoned 

when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more 

than ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after 

that period of ninety days.” In the case before us, Mother has not rebutted this

presumption by giving any reasonable explanation for her failure to visit or contact the 

children. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard 

in connection with the finding that Mother had abandoned the children. 

{¶ 13} Because the children had been abandoned, the trial court’s next and final 

determination was whether a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the 

children’s best interest. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the following factors to be 

considered in deciding a child's best interest:

(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 placing 

agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month 
-6-

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. 

{¶ 14} The record demonstrates that the children have been integrated into their 

foster home. There was no evidence indicating any bond between Mother and the 

children. The CASA worker assigned to the case recommended the agency be granted 

permanent custody. Further, the evidence demonstrated the children were in need of a 

legally secure placement and that such a placement could not be achieved without a grant 

of permanent custody to CCDJFS. Mother did not substantially comply with her case 

plan. Despite appropriate referrals by CCDJFS, she failed to obtain or maintain suitable 

housing, and there was no evidence that she had maintained employment. She further 

failed to engage in mental health and substance abuse treatment. Finally, when Mother 

did submit to random drug testing, she consistently tested positive. 

{¶ 15} Our review of the record indicates that the trial court's decision was 

supported by ample evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. 

Accordingly, Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
-7-

III. Conclusion

{¶ 16} Mother’s sole assignment of error being overruled, the judgments of the trial 

court are affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, P.J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.