[Cite as In re M.B., 2015-Ohio-3434.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 M.B., D.B., K.B., 

 X.B., and A.B. 

 Minor Children 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 

 and 2015 CA 00092 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case Nos. 2013 JCV 00452 and 

2013 JCV 01014 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 24, 2015 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH CHRISTOPHER S. COLERIDGE 

STARK COUNTY JFS 101 Central Plaza South 

300 Market Avenue North 500 Chase Tower 

Canton, Ohio 44702 Canton, Ohio 44702 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant B. B. (“Mother”) appeals the April 22, 2015, Judgment Entry 

entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which 

terminated her parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to her five 

minor children, and granted permanent custody of the children to Appellee Stark County 

Department of Job and Family Services (“SCJFS”). 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} Appellant is the Mother of the minor children M.B. (DOB 5/26/2004), D.B. 

(DOB 2/28/2006), K.B.(DOB 12/18/2007), X.B. (DOB 9/17/2009), and A.B. (DOB 

9/28/2013). (T. at 5). The four oldest children are involved in case 2013JCV00452 and 

A.B. is involved in case 2013JCV01014. (T. at 3). The fathers of these children are not 

parties to this appeal. 

{¶3} On May 3, 2013, Appellee Stark County Job and Family Services 

("SCJFS"), filed a complaint seeking temporary custody alleging that M.B., D.B., K.B. 

and X.B. were dependent and/or neglected. (T. at 7). 

{¶4} The complaint was filed after Appellant-Mother was arrested on May 1, 

2013, when officers observed one of her children playing with an unmarked bottle of 

Tramadol during a traffic stop. (T. at 7). The children told officers that Appellant gave 

the medication to X.B. to help him sleep. (T. at 7). Appellant was arrested on numerous 

charges including drug tampering and lying to law enforcement personnel. (T. at 7). 

Officers then placed the children in the emergency custody of SCJFS pursuant to 

Juvenile Rule 6. (T. at 7). SCJFS was already open on the case at the time of the 

incident due to concerns of on-going negative behaviors from the children due to past 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 3

sexual abuse, dirty home conditions, and Appellant being in a relationship with a fifteenyear-old boy. (T. at 7). 

{¶5} On July 10, 2013, the trial court found M.B., D.B., K.B. and X.B. to be 

dependent and placed them in the temporary custody of SCJFS. (T. at 8). These four 

children have remained in SCJFS temporary custody since that date. (T. at 8). 

{¶6} On September 28, 2013, A.B. was born during the pendency of the open 

case. (T. at 8). 

{¶7} On October 1, 2013, SCJFS filed a complaint seeking protective 

supervision alleging that A.B. was a dependent child. (T. at 8). 

{¶8} On October 23, 2013, the trial court found A.B. to be a dependent child 

and placed her in protective supervision. (T. at 9). SCJFS later filed a motion to obtain 

temporary custody of A.B. because of reports Appellant was still in a relationship with 

the fifteen-year old boy and that he could possibly be the father of A.B. (T. at 9). 

{¶9} On November 7, 2014, an emergency shelter care hearing was held, and 

A.B. was placed in SCJFS temporary custody. (T. at 10). A.B. has been in SCJFS 

custody since that date. (T. at 10). 

{¶10} SCJFS prepared a case plan for the family which originally included 

establishing paternity, parenting assessments at Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health, and 

Drug and Alcohol Assessments at Quest Recovery Services. (T. at 13). Although 

paternity was established for every child except A.B., none of the fathers completed any 

other portion of their case plan services, did not show up to any other hearings, and are 

not part of this appeal. (T. at 12-14). Appellant completed her drug assessment with no 

concerns. (T. at 13). Appellant completed her parenting assessment on August 14, 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 4

2013. (T. at 14). The evaluator recommended Appellant participate in Goodwill 

Parenting classes, the intensive parent and child program through Northeast Ohio 

Behavioral Health, Goodwill home-based counseling, mental health counseling for 

herself and her children, and to secure and maintain independent housing and 

employment. (T. at 14). Those recommendations were added to the case plan. (T. at 

14). 

{¶11} The trial court conducted dispositional reviews every six months. 

Temporary custody of M.B., D.B., K.B. and X.B. was extended on May 14, 2014 and on 

October 30, 2014. Temporary custody of A.B. was extended on August 29, 2014. 

{¶12} On February 20, 2015, SCJFS filed motions seeking the permanent 

custody of all five children. 

{¶13} On April 2, 2015, and April 16, 2015, the trial court heard evidence on the 

motions. SCJFS presented evidence from Jamie Horey, the caseworker assigned to the 

case, Dr. Aimee Thomas, who conducted Appellant's parenting assessment, Amy 

Schuster, Appellant's mental health counselor, Jennifer Fire, Appellant's Goodwill 

Parenting case manager, Louis Lacourt, child M.B.'s therapist, and Marcella Ortega 

Gomes, therapist for D.B., K.B. and X.B.. Appellant testified on her own behalf. 

{¶14} The trial court took the motions under advisement. 

{¶15} On April 22, 2015, the trial court issued a written judgment entry with 

findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that grounds existed to grant 

permanent custody of all five children to SCJFS. The trial court also found that 

permanent custody was in the best interest of all five children. Mother's parental rights 

were terminated. 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 5

{¶16} It is from this judgment entry Appellant-Mother appeals, assigning the 

following error for review: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶17} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY 

TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES 

(SCDJFS), AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO 

GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY AND SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

{¶18} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered 

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

I. 

{¶19} In her sole Assignment of Error, Appellant-Mother contends the trial court 

erred in finding an award of permanent custody was in the best interest of her five minor 

children. We disagree. 

{¶20} 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, Stark App. No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). 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., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 6

{¶21} 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 placing agency that has 

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care. 

{¶22} 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. 

{¶23} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody 

hearing, R.C. §2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the 

child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home 

providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) 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; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) the 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 7

child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of 

placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody. 

{¶24} 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. 

{¶25} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the 

child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should 

not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. §2151.414(E), the trial court must consider 

all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to 

enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more 

of the factors enumerated in R.C. §2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to 

each of the child's parents. 

{¶26} As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there 

was competent, credible evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems which caused 

the removal of the minor children from the home. The trial court found by clear and 

convincing evidence that all five minor children had been in the temporary custody of 

SCJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22 month period; that Mother had 

abandoned the children by failing to visit them for a period in excess of 90 days; and 

that Mother had failed to remedy the conditions which caused the children to be placed 

in the care and custody of SCJFS. 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 8

{¶27} The trial court found that the father of M.B., K.B., X.B. is currently serving 

a fifty (50) year prison sentence for rape and gross sexual imposition involving children. 

The father of D.B. has had no contact with her for a period greater than ninety (90) 

days. 

{¶28} The trial court found that while Appellant-Mother completed her Quest 

Assessment, the Goodwill parenting program and the Intensive Parent Child Program, 

she was not able to maintain continuous, independent housing, failed to attend mental 

health counseling at Free Space or Coleman Behavioral Health and only sporadically 

attended individual counseling through NEOBH, with no counseling since November, 

2014. 

{¶29} The trial court found Appellant-Mother “continues to make very poor 

lifestyle choices including sexual relations with a minor and criminal felony behavior.” 

Appellant-Mother was convicted of a theft offense in January, 2014, and burglary in the 

fall of 2014, and is currently on probation for a felony conviction. Further, she has 

engaged in a sexual relationship with a fifteen (15) year old boy. 

{¶30} The trial court further found that Appellant-Mother has also been “unable 

to adequately meet the needs of her children who exhibit severe behavioral problems. 

She lacks the stability and decision making needed to stabilize these children and 

insure that they can perpetually be maintained in her care.” 

{¶31} With respect to the best interest finding, the evidence revealed the 

children are doing well in foster care and are bonded with the foster parents and one 

another. The children currently exhibit problems focusing while at school as well as 

some behavioral issues. M.B. has a diagnosis of depression and anxiety and is being 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 9

treated for same. D.B. and K.B. are in counseling for trauma-related issues. M.B. is in a 

foster-to adopt home, while the other four children are all placed together in a different 

home. The separation is due to concerns that M.B. may act out sexually against his 

sibling as he has in the past. M.B. is currently behaving appropriately toward the other 

children placed in foster care with him and refers to them as his brothers. 

{¶32} Additionally, the guardian ad litem filed a report wherein she opined the 

best interest of the minor children would be served by granting permanent custody to 

SCJFS. 

{¶33} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's findings that an award 

of permanent custody was in the children's best interest was not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence, and was based upon sufficient evidence. 

{¶34} Appellant-Mother’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶35} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Juvenile Division of the 

Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Farmer, J., concur. 

JWW/d 0813 
Stark County, Case Nos. 2015 CA 00091 and 2015 CA 00092 10