[Cite as In re C.M., 2022-Ohio-4707.]

COURT OF APPEALS

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: C.M. JUDGES:

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

 Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 

 2022 CA 00030 

 O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case 

No. 2021 AB 35

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 27, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Appellee - State of Ohio For Appellant – J.M. (Father)

R. KYLE WITT DAVID TAWNEY

Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney 117 West Main Street – Suite #208

Lancaster, Ohio 43130

GENYLYNN COSGROVE 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For Appellant – M.M. (Mother)

239 West Main Street – Suite #101

Lancaster, Ohio 43130 WILLIAM HOLT

2140 Lancaster-Newark Road, N.E.

Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 2

Guardian ad Litem For C.M. 

THOMAS GORDON ROSSIA MERANDA

3135 Sun Valley Drive 33 West Main Street 

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Newark, Ohio 43055
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 3

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA29, appellant JM (“Father”) appeals the July 8, 

2022 Judgment Entry/Orders on Objection to Magistrate’s Decision entered by the 

Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which overruled his 

objections to the magistrate’s May 18, 2022 decision, upheld said decision, terminated 

Father’s parental rights with respect to his minor child (“the Child”), and granted 

permanent custody of the Child to appellee Fairfield County Child Protective Services 

(“FCPS”). In Fairfield App. No. 22CA30, appellant MM (“Mother”) appeals the same with 

respect to the termination of her parental rights as to the Child.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of the Child. Paternity was 

presumed as Mother and Father were married at the time of the Child’s birth. On March 

16, 2021, FCPS filed a complaint, alleging the Child was dependent and requesting the 

trial court order protective supervision of the Child to FCPS or, in the alternative, award

temporary custody of the Child to FCPS. 

{¶3} FCPS filed the complaint after receiving a report Mother and other adults 

were using opiates in the family home. The Child had access to drugs and drug 

paraphernalia. The Child was reported to have used an electronic tablet immediately 

after Mother snorted a substance off of it. Additional concerns included Mother’s sleep 

patterns interfering with her ability to parent and supervise the Child; the Child being 

developmentally delayed; the Child missing an excessive number of days of school; and 

the Child eating food out of a dumpster. In addition, Mother had a history of involvement 

with FCPS relative to the Child and another child, who is now an adult. Father, who had
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 4

an extensive criminal history, was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the complaint on 

drug related charges and was scheduled to be released on September 11, 2022.

{¶4} The trial court conducted a shelter care hearing on March 17, 2021, and 

placed the Child in the temporary shelter court-ordered protective supervision of FCPS. 

Following an adjudicatory hearing on May 28, 2021, the trial court found the Child to be 

dependent and placed the Child in the temporary custody of FCPS. The trial court 

conducted review hearings on September 15, and December 14, 2021, and maintained 

the status quo. FCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on February 17, 2022.

{¶5} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on May 10, 2022. Father 

appeared virtually although his attorney was present in the courtroom. Prior to 

commencement of the hearing, counsel for Parents requested a continuance on behalf 

of their clients to allow Parents additional time to work on their case plan services. The

trial court denied the request, noting, if the facts as testified to at the hearing supported 

Parents’ positions, the trial court would find such and deny FCPS’s motion for permanent 

custody.

{¶6} The following evidence was presented at the hearing:

{¶7} Lacey Carrel, a treatment service coordinator with the Recovery Center, 

testified she completed an assessment of Mother on June 17, 2021. Although Carrel 

scheduled a follow-up appointment, Mother did not present for the meeting. Based upon 

the assessment, Carrel recommended Mother engage in an education group and 

complete a re-assessment upon completion of the group program. Mother began the 

education group on July 13, 2021, and completed it on August 17, 2021. Mother failed to 

attend the scheduled re-assessment appointment on September 1, 2021. Carrel’s 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 5

attempts to re-engage Mother were unsuccessful. Carrel eventually closed Mother’s 

case. 

{¶8} Rachel Marshall, an intake supervisor with FCPS, testified FCPS received 

an initial report regarding the Child on January 21, 2021. The initial concerns were 

neglect and physical abuse of the Child perpetrated by Mother. FCPS conducted an 

investigation and, as a result, sought and received a shelter care order. At the time of the 

investigation, Mother admitted to daily methamphetamine use. Mother completed an onsite screen at the agency, which was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and 

methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”). FCPS implemented a safety plan with 

Mother’s mother, but she was only able to care for the Child for a limited period of time. 

The initial concerns did not involve Father. Marshall explained Father was incarcerated 

during the course of FCPS’s investigation. 

{¶9} Austin Miller, a felony probation officer, supervised Father while he was on 

community control. Miller explained Father had two separate cases, both of which 

involved drug-related offenses. Father received judicial release in June, 2021. Miller 

began supervising him in July, 2021, at which time Father failed to report. A warrant was 

issued and Father was arrested on August 17, 2021. Father served a seven-day jail 

sentence. He was released on August 24, 2021. Father reported to Miller for two weeks, 

then failed to report on September 17, 2021. 

{¶10} Father was arrested on February 10, 2022. Miller subsequently filed a 

motion to revoke Father’s community control based upon the following violations: failure 

to report on September 17, 2021; failure to maintain total sobriety (Father admitted using 

methamphetamines on February 24, 2022); and failure to comply with counseling orders 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 6

(Father failed to follow the recommendations from Lancaster Recovery Services and was 

unsuccessfully terminated from counseling). Following a hearing, Father was continued 

on community control with orders to enter and successfully complete the Northwest 

Community Corrections Program. Father was engaged in the program at the time of the 

hearing. 

{¶11} Ashton Clark, the ongoing caseworker assigned to the family, detailed 

Mother and Father’s case plan requirements. Mother’s case plan required her to meet 

with her FCPS caseworker in person at least once a month; complete an AOD (alcohol 

and other drugs) assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health 

assessment and follow all recommendations; and participate in the random call and 

screen program through Averhealth. Parent education services were subsequently 

added to Mother’s case plan. 

{¶12} Between May, 2021, and September, 2021, Mother successfully met with 

Clark at least once a month. In October, 2021, Clark had contact with Mother through 

unannounced face-to-face attempts at her home or through telephone calls. Between 

November, 2021, and January, 2022, Clark met with Mother either at her home or at the 

agency. Clark was unable to make contact with Mother in February, and April, 2022. 

{¶13} Mother completed her AOD assessment at the Recovery Center. Mother 

engaged in group counseling as part of a group education class. Upon completion of the 

group, Mother was to be re-assessed. Mother did not present for the follow-up 

assessment and was subsequently discharged as of result. Clark stated Mother reengaged in counseling in March, 2022, through Integrated Services. Mother is involved 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 7

in both group and individual counseling, and is compliant with the expectations of her 

treatment program. 

{¶14} Clark indicated Mother “was for the most part consistent with her random 

drug screens,” but added “there were periods of time where she was not consistent or did 

not participate in any random call and screens.” Transcript of May 10, 2022 Permanent 

Custody Hearing at 62. Mother had negative screens from March 24, through June 3, 

2021, from June 16, through August 2, 2021, on August 20, 2021, and from September 

1, through September 17, 2021. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines on June 

7, August 11, August 16, and September 28, 2021, and positive for alcohol on June 13, 

2021. Mother did not present for randomly selected screens from October 4, through 

November 30, 2021. As a result, Mother was discharged from the program. Mother reengaged in the call and screen program, beginning on March 10, 2022. Mother was 

consistent with her screens throughout the month of March, 2022, except for one no-show 

on March 25, 2022. Mother’s screens were negative during this period. 

{¶15} Clark explained, due to the Child’s needs, FCPS attempted to engage 

Mother in parenting education through the Fairfield County Board of Developmental 

Delays (“FCBDD”). FCBDD did not respond to FCPS’s inquiries. 

{¶16} With respect to Father’s case plan, Clark testified Father was required to 

meet with his FCPS caseworker in person at least once a month; complete an AOD 

assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and 

follow all recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; parenting 

education; and complete a batterer intervention assessment. 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 8

{¶17} While Father was incarcerated between April and June, 2021, Clark met 

with Father via video calls. Clark was unable to locate Father from August through 

November, 2021. Clark met with Father in December, 2021, during Father’s visit with the 

Child. Father declined a private face-to-face meeting with Clark at that time. Clark was 

unable to locate Father in January, 2022. Between February and April, 2022, Clark met 

with Father while he was held at the Fairfield County Jail. Clark met with Father at 

Northwest Community Corrections in May, 2022. 

{¶18} Father declined the mental health assessment, telling Clark he did not have 

any mental health concerns. Father completed his substance AOD at Lancaster 

Recovery Services. Father’s last contact with Lancaster Recovery services was 

September 8, 2021. He was discharged for noncompliance in October, 2021. 

{¶19} Because Clark was unable to locate Father, Father did not engage in the 

random call and screen program while he was not incarcerated. Father was participating 

in random screens at the correctional institution. Father initially stated he did not need 

parenting education, but subsequently agreed to complete any program FCPS 

recommended. Father was unable to complete parenting education due to his 

incarceration. 

{¶20} FCPS had concerns regarding Father perpetrating violent and controlling 

behavior towards Mother, and requested he complete a batterer intervention assessment. 

Due to Clark’s inability to locate Father, FCPS was unable to refer him to a provider to 

complete the assessment. 

{¶21} Clark noted FCPS still had concerns regarding Parents. With respect to 

Father, FCPS continued to have concerns with Father’s use of illegal and non-prescribed 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 9

substances, his parenting practices, and his potential for violent and controlling behavior 

towards Mother. With respect to Mother, FCPS continued to have concerns about 

Mother’s ability to maintain long-term sobriety and behavioral changes. FCPS had not 

been able to assess Mother’s current housing situation. Clark opined neither Mother nor 

Father had remedied the conditions which caused the Child to be removed from their 

care. 

{¶22} Clark described the Child’s mental and physical needs. The Child was 

diagnosed with autism. The Child is considered high-functioning as she is verbal and 

able to communicate. The Child is currently placed in a licensed foster home. The Child 

has been with the foster family since March 22, 2021. Clark noted the Child has “adjusted 

incredibly well.” At 69. When the Child was initially placed, there were significant 

behavioral concerns. The Child threw tantrums, struggled to deescalate, and lied. The 

Child was not toilet trained although the Child was 8 years old. 

{¶23} Clark stated the Child had made significant strides since being placed in the 

foster home. Clark emphasized the Child deserved permanency. Clark added it is 

important for the Child to know where she is going to lay her head and where she is going 

to return to each day, explaining it is important for the Child to have this knowledge given 

her diagnoses. The Child wishes to be adopted by the foster parents. The Child loves 

her actual parents and engages well with them.

{¶24} Tom Gordon, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”), testified he submitted a written 

report recommending permanent custody of the Child be granted to FCPS. The GAL 

stated Parents failed to remedy the conditions which caused the Child to be removed
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 10

from their home. The testimony presented at the hearing did not change his opinion in 

favor of granting permanent custody of the Child to FCPS. 

{¶25} Via Decision filed May 18, 2022, the magistrate recommended Parents’ 

parental rights be terminated and permanent custody of the Child be granted to FCPS. 

The magistrate found the Child could not and should not be placed with either Mother or 

Father within a reasonable time. On May 31, 2022, and June 1, 2022, Father and Mother 

filed their respective objections to the magistrate’s decision. FCPS filed separate 

memorandum contra on June 3, and 6, 2022. Father filed a supplemental memorandum 

on July 5, 2022. Mother filed a memorandum in support on July 6, 2022. 

{¶26} Via Judgment Entry filed July 8, 2022, the trial court overruled Parents’ 

objections and upheld the decision of the magistrate. The trial court terminated Parents’ 

parental rights and ordered the Child be placed in the permanent custody of FCPS.

{¶27} It is from this judgment entry Parents separately appeal.

{¶28} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA29, Father raises the following assignments of 

error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HAVING A HEARING ON THE 

LEGAL CUSTODY MOTION TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE STATUTORY 

DEADLINE FOR THIS MATTER TO BE TRIED BY THE COURT.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING A 

CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL AS REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT 

TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR APPELLANT TO COMPLY WITH 

THE CASE PLAN.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 11

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MINOR 

CHILD COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE APPELLANT WITHIN A 

REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME.

{¶29} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA30, Mother raises the following assignments of 

error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN 

FINDING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN AN 

ORDER AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF [THE CHILD] TO 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE 

APPLICATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE SEC. 2151.414 IN VIOLATION 

OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 

UNITED STATES, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE OHIO 

CONSTITUTION.

{¶30} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered 

in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

FATHER

I, II

{¶31} Because Father’s first and second assignments of error challenge the trial 

court’s failure to provide him with additional time to work on his case plan, we shall 

address said assignments of error together. In his first assignment of error, Father asserts 

the trial court erred in conducting the hearing on FCPS’s motion for permanent custody 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 12

ten months before the statutory deadline. In his second assignment of error, Father 

contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue.

{¶32} Although Father does not cite a specific statute in his first assignment of 

error, we presume Father is referring to the twenty-two month period set forth in R.C. 

2151.414(B). This time period is a factor the trial court may consider in determining 

whether to grant permanent custody, not a prescribed time in which a parent is permitted 

to work on his or her case plan.

{¶33} Once an agency files a motion for permanent custody, the trial court by R.C. 

2151.414(A)(2), which provides, in pertinent part: 

The court shall hold a trial court shall hold the hearing scheduled 

pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section not later than one hundred twenty 

days after the agency files the motion for permanent custody, except that, 

for good cause shown, the court may continue the hearing for a reasonable 

period of time beyond the one-hundred-twenty-day deadline.

R.C. 2151.414(A)(2).

{¶34} FCPS filed its motion for permanent custody on February 17, 2022. The

trial court conducted the hearing on the motion on May 10, 2022. As discussed, infra, 

good cause was not shown for continuing the hearing beyond the 120-day period.

{¶35} Juv.R. 23 provides, “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative 

to secure fair treatment for the parties.” “The power of the trial court in a juvenile 

proceeding to grant or deny a continuance under Juv.R. 23 is quite broad and is reviewed 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 13

under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Jordan B., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–06–1161, 

2007–Ohio–2537, ¶ 16. An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court's attitude was 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 

219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶36} Prior to the commencement of the hearing, counsel for both Mother and 

Father requested a continuance of the hearing in order for their individual clients to have 

more time to work on their case plans. The trial court advised the parties, “[I]f I hear 

testimony that I feel if they need more time, I will grant that, but I’m not going to grant the 

continuance ahead of time.” Tr. at 9.

{¶37} The testimony established, throughout the pendency of the matter, Father 

was either incarcerated or otherwise avoided interaction with FCPS. Father was 

incarcerated between April and June, 2021. FCPS was unable to locate Father from 

August through November, 2021, and again in January, 2022. Between February and 

April, 2022, Father was held at the Fairfield County Jail, and was subsequently transferred 

to Northwest Community Corrections.

{¶38} Father’s actions while the case was pending belie his position he needed 

additional time to work on his case plan. Father took few, if any, steps towards completing 

his case plan when he was out of jail. There was no record evidence to suggest he would 

comply should he be given additional time.

{¶39} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in conducting the permanent 

custody hearing before any alleged statutory deadline. We further find the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s request for a continuance.

{¶40} Father’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 14

FATHER

III

MOTHER

I, II

{¶41} We elect to address Father’s third assignment of error and Mother’s first 

and second assignments of error together. In his third assignment of error, Father argues 

the trial court erred in finding the Child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable 

time or should not be placed with Father. In her first assignment of error, Mother 

maintains the trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to support its 

decision to award permanent custody of the Child to FCPS. In her second assignment of 

error, Mother submits the trial court violated her due process rights in its application of 

R.C. 2151.414.

{¶42} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent 

and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. 

Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA5758. Accordingly, judgments supported by 

some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not 

be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. 

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

{¶43} 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 or private child 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 15

placing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long 

term foster care.

{¶44} 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 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.

{¶45} 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.

{¶46} We find there was sufficient and substantial competent evidence to support 

the trial court's grant of permanent custody to FCPS. 

{¶47} Father’s case plan required him to meet with his FCPS caseworker in 

person at least once a month; complete an AOD assessment and follow all 

recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and follow all 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 16

recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; parenting 

education; and complete a batterer intervention assessment. Father was incarceration 

in Fairfield County Jail between April and June, 2021, and February and April, 2022. Clark 

met with Father during these periods and in May, 2022, when Father was incarcerated at 

the Northwest Correctional Institution. Clark was unable to locate Father from August 

through November, 2021, and then again in January, 2022. Clark met with Father in 

December, 2021, during Father’s visit with the Child. 

{¶48} Father declined the mental health assessment, denying he had any mental 

health concerns. Father completed his AOD assessment at Lancaster Recovery 

Services, but was discharged for noncompliance in October, 2021. Because FCPS was 

unable to locate Father, Father did not engage in the random call and screen program 

while he was not incarcerated. Father initially stated he did not need parenting education, 

but subsequently agreed to participate in a program. However, Father was unable to 

complete parenting education due to his incarceration. Father was asked to complete a 

batterer intervention assessment after FCPS learned Father had perpetrated violent and 

controlling behavior towards Mother. Because FCPS could not locate Father, he was not 

referred for services. 

{¶49} Mother’s case plan required her to meet with her FCPS caseworker in 

person at least once a month; complete an AOD assessment and follow all 

recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and follow all 

recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; and participate in 

parent education services. 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 17

{¶50} Mother met with Clark each month from May, 2021, through January, 2022. 

These meetings were either in person or through telephone calls. Mother did not meet 

with Clark in February, and April, 2022. Mother completed her AOD assessment at the 

Recovery Center and engaged in group counseling. Mother completed the group 

counseling, but failed to present for her reassessment and was subsequently discharged. 

Mother re-engaged in counseling in March, 2022, and was involved in both group and 

individual counseling and was compliant with her treatment plan.

{¶51} Mother had negative drug screens from March 24, through June 3, 2021, 

from June 16, through August 2, 2021, on August 20, 2021, and from September 1, 

through September 17, 2021. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines on June 7, 

August 11, August 16, and September 28, 2021, and positive for alcohol on June 13, 

2021. Mother did not present for randomly selected screens from October 4, through 

November 30, 2021, and was discharged as a result. Mother re-engaged in the call and 

screen program, beginning on March 10, 2022. Mother was consistent with her screens 

throughout the month of March, 2022, except for one no-show on March 25, 2022. 

Mother’s screens were negative during this period. FCPS attempted to engage Mother in 

parenting education through FCBDD, but FCBDD did not respond to FCPS’s inquiries. 

{¶52} The record establishes the following with respect to best interest. The Child 

is mildly autistic and considered high-functioning. The Child is verbal and able to 

communicate. The Child has been in the same foster home since March 22, 2021, and 

has adjusted well. When the Child was initially placed, there were significant behavioral 

concerns. The Child threw tantrums, struggled to deescalate, and lied. The Child was not 

toilet trained. The Child had made significant strides in foster placement. Clark testified 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 18

the Child deserved permanency, adding it was important, given her diagnoses, for the 

Child to know where she was going to lay her head and where she was going to return to 

each day. The Child wishes to be adopted by the foster parents. The Child loves Parents 

and engages well with them.

{¶53} Mother makes a blanket assertion the trial court violated her due process 

rights in its application of R.C. 2151.414. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record 

in this matter, including a reading of the complete transcript, and find no violation of 

Mother’s due process rights. The trial court complied with the procedures set forth in R.C. 

2151.414.

{¶54} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court’s decision to grant 

permanent custody of the Child to FCPS is not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. We also find the trial court's findings the Child could not and should not be 

placed with Parents within a reasonable period of time and it was in the Child's best 

interest to grant permanent custody to FCPS are not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 19

{¶55} Father’s third assignment of error, and Mother’s first and second 

assignments of error are overruled.

{¶56} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.

Wise, Earle, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur