[Cite as In re K.R., 2016-Ohio-486.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: 

K.R. MINOR CHILD : 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

 : Case No. 2015CA00162 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Family Court Division, 

Case No. 2014 JCV 00543 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 9, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

STARK COUNTY JFS ANTHONY J. WISE 

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH 201 Cleveland Ave. SW, Ste. 104 

300 Market Ave. North Canton, OH 44702 

Canton, OH 44702 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tiffany Powell (“Mother”) appeals from the August 12, 

2015 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, 

terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, K.R. (d.o.b. 6/3/2014). 

Appellee is the Stark County Department of Jobs and Family Services (the Agency). 

{¶2} This case is related to In the Matter of K.R., 5th Dist. Stark No. 

2015CA00166. Both cases arise from the same facts, come to us on the expedited 

calendar, and shall be considered in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C). 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶3} Mother and Father have one child together, K.R. Father is presently serving 

a prison term of 15 years to life upon a conviction of murder, a crime he is accused of 

committing with Mother. The victim of the murder is the father of Mother’s older children. 

Mother is also incarcerated but still awaiting trial. 

{¶4} Mother has eight children and has an extensive history with the Agency 

prior to K.R.’s birth; K.R. is her youngest child. Mother has been convicted of contributing 

to the delinquency of a minor because two teenage children did not attend school for five 

years; she did not seek appropriate medical or dental care for the children which led to 

significant health issues; she failed to apply for benefits that would have contributed to 

the children’s welfare because she was unable to provide an address, being frequently 

homeless; and police became involved when a home the family lived in was found to be 

in deplorable condition. On that occasion, police found the children hiding under a porch. 

At different times throughout the Agency’s involvement with Mother, workers have been 

unable to locate her. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 3 

{¶5} Two of Mother’s older children were placed in the Agency’s permanent 

custody in Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division case number 

2013JCV00949. Legal custody of three children was granted to a relative, and cases for 

two remaining children were still pending at the time of the permanent custody hearing in 

the instant case. 

{¶6} Father and Mother’s only child together is K.R. Father has no prior 

involvement with the Agency; his case plan was sent to the Summit County Jail where he 

was already incarcerated when the Agency opened its case with K.R. The Agency’s 

concerns with Father (in addition to his imprisonment for murder) include assessment of 

his parenting, competency, and cognitive abilities. 

{¶7} Domestic violence is also an issue for both Mother and Father. 

{¶8} At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Mother had not had contact with K.R. 

since her birth, or over 90 days before. Father was also incarcerated upon K.R.’s birth 

and has never met K.R. Mother and Father have no-contact orders with K.R. 

{¶9} During her involvement with the Agency in connection with her other 

children, Mother has successfully completed portions of case plans in the past, including 

obtaining a mental health assessment from Northeastern Ohio Behavioral Health; 

attending domestic violence counseling at Renew; and completing a drug and alcohol 

assessment with no findings. Shortly before her arrest for murder, Mother made 

arrangements to attend parenting classes in Summit County, but was arrested before she 

could complete any substantial portion of the classes. 

{¶10} Father has not made any progress on his case plan. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 4 

{¶11} The Agency caseworker testified K.R. cannot be placed with Mother or 

Father in a reasonable period of time. Father is already serving his prison term, and even 

if Mother is not convicted in the criminal case and is released from jail, she could not 

complete case plan services in a reasonable period of time to establish she is able to care 

for K.R. Mother is in need of comprehensive mental health treatment, a psychiatric 

consultation, counseling through Renew, and parenting classes. A psychologist testified 

Mother is in need of intensive mental health treatment of at least a year and a half to 

address her preoccupation with her own needs over those of her children and her 

paranoid personality disorder. 

{¶12} Neither parent took any steps to reduce risks posed to K.R. 

{¶13} K.R. is a happy and healthy 14-month-old with no developmental or medical 

issues. She is presently placed with a foster family; five of her half-siblings are in 

placement with a relative and two are in foster care. The half-siblings do have contact 

with each other and visit together regularly for birthdays and holidays. 

{¶14} K.R. has been with the same foster family since she was discharged from 

the hospital after birth. She is doted upon by her foster parents and by two other children 

in the home. She has toys of her own and is closely bonded with the foster family. She 

has community and church support and attends daycare several times a week. K.R.’s 

foster family wants to adopt her and is committed to maintaining K.R.’s relationships with 

her half-siblings and other relatives. 

{¶15} The Agency investigated relatives for placement with no positive results. 

The caseworker testified she recently learned of additional persons who might be 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 5 

interested in placement which would require additional time for investigation and home 

studies. 

Permanent Custody Proceedings 

{¶16} Immediately after K.R.’s birth, the Agency filed a complaint alleging 

dependency and an emergency shelter care hearing was held on June 5, 2014. The trial 

court awarded emergency temporary custody of K.R. to the Agency and re-affirmed 

orders for the parents to complete parenting evaluations and to follow all 

recommendations. 

{¶17} K.R. was found to be dependent on August 14, 2014 and placed in the 

temporary custody of the Agency. The trial court approved and adopted a case plan and 

found the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for continued removal of 

the child from the home. 

{¶18} The case was reviewed on November 21, 2014 and the trial court approved 

and adopted the case plan review packet, found compelling reasons existed to preclude 

filing for permanent custody, found the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the 

need for continued removal of the child from the home, and maintained the status quo. 

{¶19} The Agency filed a motion seeking permanent custody of K.R. on April 30, 

2015, alleging K.R. could not be placed with Mother or Father within a reasonable time; 

the child was abandoned; and permanent custody is in her best interest. The trial court 

reviewed the case on May 1, 2015, approved and adopted the case plan review packet, 

found the Agency made reasonable efforts in finalizing the permanency plan in effect, 

and found no compelling reasons existed to preclude a request for permanent custody. 

{¶20} The matter proceeded to evidentiary hearing on August 4, 2015. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 6 

{¶21} On August 12, 2015 the trial court issued its findings of fact granting 

permanent custody of K.R. to the Agency and terminating the parental rights of Mother 

and Father. 

{¶22} Mother now appeals from the decision of the trial court. 

{¶23} Mother raises two assignments of error: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶24} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING [MOTHER’S] 

MOTION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY CUSTODY FOR SIX (6) MONTHS.” 

{¶25} “II. THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF 

THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY 

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

ANALYSIS 

I.

{¶26} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court should have 

granted her motion to extend temporary custody for six months. We disagree. 

{¶27} A trial court's decision to grant or deny an extension of temporary custody 

is a discretionary one. See, R.C. 2151.415(D)(1) and (2). 

{¶28} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D)(1), a trial court can extend temporary custody 

for six months only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that such an extension 

is in the best interests of the child, (2) that there has been significant progress on the case 

plan, and (3) that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child will be reunified with 

a parent or otherwise permanently placed within the period of extension. See, In re 

McNab, 5th Dist. Nos. 2007 AP 11 0074, 2007 AP 11 0075, 2008–Ohio–1638. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 7 

{¶29} Mother argues the trial court’s denial of her request for extension effectively 

denies her “every procedural and substantial protection the law allows,” but the trial court 

is not required to do so when the evidence fails to establish any of the elements required 

by R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). Mother argues she made significant progress on her case plans 

in connection with her older children and her criminal case remains unresolved. We note, 

however, even if Mother was released from jail immediately, she requires at least a year 

and a half of intensive mental health treatment before she can establish the ability to care 

for K.R. We find the evidence, as set forth more fully above, supports the conclusion an 

extension of temporary custody was not in K.R.'s best interests, but instead is best served 

by the award of legal custody to TCJFS. 

{¶30} Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶31} In her second assignment of error, Mother argues the Agency did not 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest 

of K.R. We disagree. 

{¶32} “[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 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 8 

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 

the 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). 

{¶33} 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 v. 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, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶34} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when 

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court 

schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody 

of a child by a public children services agency. 

{¶35} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to 

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court 

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant 

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not 

abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents 

within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (b) the child is 

abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able 

to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 9 

more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or 

more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 

1999. 

{¶36} 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, a 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. 

{¶37} In the instant case, Mother challenges only the trial court’s findings as to 

best-interest.1 We have frequently noted, “[t]he 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.2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re 

Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist.1994). The trial court 

determined it was in the best interest of K.R. to be placed in the Agency's permanent 

custody and we agree. 

{¶38} K.R. has been with the same foster family since birth; the foster home is 

appropriate and the parents and children in the home dote on K.R. They want to adopt 

 

1

 As the trial court noted in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, two of Mother’s 

older children were placed in the permanent custody of the Agency, thus relieving the 

Agency of the obligation to make reasonable efforts to return K.R. and requiring the trial 

court to find K.R. cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time. 

Mother’s conviction upon one count of contributing to the delinquency or unruliness of a 

minor also requires the trial court to find K.R. cannot be placed with Mother within a 

reasonable period of time. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 10 

and are very bonded with K.R. Although she is not placed with her half-siblings, the foster 

family is committed to maintaining and continuing her relationships with her family. 

{¶39} Proposed relative and kinship placements have not worked out. Father 

argues the Agency should have further investigated Sonia Frazier for kinship placement, 

but the record reveals only that Ms. Frazier filed a motion for legal custody and a motion 

to intervene and both were overruled. 

{¶40} There is no bond between K.R. and either Mother or Father and there have 

been no visits. The trial court found the harm of breaking this nonexistent bond is far 

outweighed by the benefit of permanency and stability in K.R.’s life and we agree. Clear 

and convincing evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that it is in K.R.'s best 

interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency. 

{¶41} Upon our review of the record in light of the pertinent statutory factors, we 

find the record contains clear and convincing evidence which supports the trial court's 

determination. The granting of permanent custody of K.R. to the Agency was made in 

consideration of the child's best interests and was not an abuse of discretion. 

{¶42} Mother’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

CONCLUSION 

{¶43} Mother’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the 

Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Hoffman, P.J. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00162 11 

Baldwin, J., concur.