[Cite as In re K.P. , 2021-Ohio-552.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:

K. P. JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

Case No. 20 CA 000021

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 18 JC 408

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 1, 2021

APPEARANCES: For Appellant Mother For Appellee GCCS

JEANETTE M. MOLL MELISSA M. WILSON JEANETTE M. MOLL LLC 274 Highland Avenue P. O. Box 461 Cambridge, Ohio 43725 Zanesville, Ohio 43702

For Father For CASA

JENNIFER ZAAYER MAGGIE BOYD LaPLANTE 10845 Madison Township Road 56 139 W. 8 th Street Mount Perry, Ohio 43760 Cambridge, Ohio 43725Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 2

Wise, John, J. {¶ 1} Appellant-Mother B.W. appeals from the judgment entered in Guer nsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, which te rminated all parental rights, privileges and responsibilities of the parents with reg ard to the minor child K.P. and ordered that permanent custody of the minor child be granted to Guernsey County

Children Services. {¶ 2} This appeal is expedited, and is being considered pursuant to A pp.R. 11.2(C). The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follo ws: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶ 3} This appeal pertains to the permanent custody disposition of th e minor child K.P. (DOB 5/21/2018). K.P. is the child of Brittney W. fka Brit tney E. and John P. {¶ 4} On October 4, 2018, Guernsey County Children Services (GCCS) fi led a complaint alleging that K.P. was a dependent child. An Ex Parte Order of Custody was issued, and the child was placed in the emergency custody of GC CS. Prior to October 4, 2018, the child had been placed in an out-of-home safety plan w ith three different kinship placements from May 24, 2018, to October 4, 2018. The child has never been in the physical custody of the mother or father since birth. {¶ 5} On December 28, 2018, the child was adjudicated Dependent pursu ant to R.C. §2151.04(c) and placed in the temporary custody of GCCS. {¶ 6} On January 4, 2019, the trial court held a Dispositional Hearin g, following which temporary custody of the child was continued with GCCS. {¶ 7} On April 1, 2019 and June 18, 2019, the trial court held Review Hearings. {¶ 8} On September 11, 2019, the trial court held an Annual Review He aring.Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 3

{¶ 9} On December 13, 2019, March 6, 2020, and June 2, 2020, the tria l court held Review Hearings. {¶ 10} On July 15, 2020, GCCS filed a Motion to Modify Dispositional O rders to one of Permanent Custody to GCCS. {¶ 11} On October 27, 2020, a hearing was held on GCCS’ Motion for P ermanent Custody. At the hearing, the trial court received evidence and heard testimony from Family Support Specialist Darius Jones, Caseworker Annika Burga , Caseworker Staci Yakupcak, Appellant-Mother BW, Appellant-Mother’s husband Micha el W., and CASA Julia Dowling. {¶ 12} Family Support Specialist Darius Jones (FSS Jones) testified th at Appellant-Mother’s first visit with her child was July 29, 2019 . (T. at 12). FSS Jones stated that when "we first set up visits, visitation went very well. T hroughout I would say a month or so, they started to get a little sporadic as well. I would s ay over all, visits have been inconsistent to the point where I had to contact Appellant-Moth er and let her know that she needed to either arrive at the agency early, or contact me prior to the day of the visit, or at least a decent time of the day of the visit to let me kno w she would attend so that I can inform foster parents, and they could transport K.P. in the visits." (T. at 13). {¶ 13} FSS Jones reviewed the visits that Appellant-Mother attended be ginning with the July 29, 2019, visit. Thereafter, between October 29, 2019, and October 20, 2020, Appellant-Mother cancelled or failed to show for approximately 25 visits. (T. at 14-16). In total, between July 29, 2019, and October 20, 2020, she only at tended a total of 14 visits, which amounted to approximately 14 hours of time spent with K.P . (T. at 16).Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 4

{¶ 14} Ongoing Caseworker Annika Burga testified that Appellant-Mother was not substantially compliant with her case plan. She stated that App ellant-Mother was asked to complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow all recomm endations. She was also required to demonstrate an ability to maintain sobriety fo r an extended period of time (T. at 35). Appellant-Mother worked a sober living program at A lvis House in Columbus when she was released from prison in addition to completing the IOP program. ( Id. ) Appellant-Mother was asked to complete an assessment at Guernse y Health Choices on March 5, 2020, due to a positive drug screen, which she did on September 2, 2020. (Tr. Pg. 36) In addition, Caseworker Burga testified that the Court, on March 4, 2020, also recommended that the Mother get into drug and alcohol services again, which she failed to do until September 2, 2020. (T. at 36). {¶ 15} Mother was requested to complete random drug screens through th e Agency or her provider, and any refusal would be considered a p ositive. (T. at 36) Caseworker Burga testified to those screens. (T. at 37). Appell ant-Mother had negative screens through Alvis House between 5/28/19 and 8/27/19. ( Id. ) Caseworker Burga also testified as to drug screens given by GCCS. Appellant-Mother te sted positive on 6/19/18 for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, BZE, EMA, which is a B metabolites of cocaine; on 3/5/20 for THC; on 8/26/20 for amphetamine, methamp hetamine, THC and buprenorphine; on 9/30/20 for buprenorphine; and on 10/2/20 for buprenorphine. (T. at 39). Caseworker Burga testified that the Mother does have a val id prescription for buprenorphine. ( Id. ) Caseworker Burga testified that Appellant-Mother refused a dr ug screen on May 15, 2020 and admitted to THC use.Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 5

{¶ 16} Appellant-Mother was asked to attend and complete a parenting assessment at a provider of choice and follow all recommendatio ns and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills while interacting with K.P. (T. at 40). Caseworker Burga testified that on June 14, 2019, Appellant-Mother did start a p arenting group at Alvis House and graduated from that program on August 17, 2019. ( Id. ) {¶ 17} Appellant-Mother was also asked to complete a mental health ass essment at a provider of choice and follow all recommendations and demo nstrate proper coping mechanisms for stress ( Id. ) Caseworker Burga testified that this was completed on July 24, 2019, at Alvis House. Appellant-Mother was diagnosed with b ipolar disorder and anxiety and was prescribed medication. (T. at 41). When Mother finished Alvis House, she refused to continue those medications. ( Id. ) {¶ 18} On September 2, 2020, Appellant-Mother completed a mental healt h assessment at Guernsey Health Choices. ( Id. ) Appellant-Mother was recommended for weekly services of outpatient mental health, substance use diso rder, anxiety symptoms, recovery support, relapse prevents and substance disorder educa tion. ( Id. ) She was asked to do this assessment due to a new report received by the Agency on August 26, 2020, and her positive drug screen for methamphetamine, ampheta mine, THC and buprenorphine. (T. at 42). {¶ 19} Ongoing Caseworker Staci Yakupcak testified that she had been t he caseworker for the family for less than a month at the time of the Permanent Custody hearing. (T. at 63). She also testified as to drug screens of A ppellant-Mother. She stated that on October 15, 2020, Appellant-Mother tested positive for oxycodone, for which she had a prescription. Caseworker Yakupcak also testified as to th e drug screens from SperoGuernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 6

Health where Appellant-Mother is prescribed Buprenorphine. ( Id. ) On July 2, 2020, she tested positive for Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, Gabapentin , and THC. On August 6, 2020, she was positive for Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, Naloxone, Gabapentin, and THC. On September 3, 2020, she was positive for Buprenorphi ne, Norbuprenorphine, Naloxone, Gabapentin and THC. (Id) On October 1, 2020, she was positive for Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, Naloxone, Gabapentin, THC, Des methylcitalopram, and October 8, 2020 positive for Buprenorphine. (Tr. P. 64 and 65). Caseworker Yakupcak testified that on October 9, 2020, Appellant-Mother te sted positive for Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, Naloxone and THC metabolites f or Guernsey Health Choices. ( Id. ) Caseworker Yakupcak testified that Appellant-Mother did not h ave a medical marijuana card. She further testified that Mother recei ved a prescription for gabapentin on September 28, 2020. ( Id. ) She indicated that she tested positive for gabapentin without a prescription on July 2, 2020, August 6, 20 20, and September 28, 2020. ( Id. ) {¶ 20} Ms. Yakupcak also testified that Appellant-Mother was not in c ompliance with Guernsey Health Choices for October, 2020. (T. at 66). {¶ 21} With regard to possible kinship placements, Caseworker Burga te stified that there were three kinship individuals identified that provided s afety plans originally for the child. (T. at 51). In 2018, GCCS looked into Michael W., who is now Appellant-Mother’s current husband. ( Id. ) The kinship process was initiated but at the time he was livi ng with people that had known criminal history, so it was explained tha t he would not be able to take K.P. into that home. However, he was advised that if he we re to get a new home, heGuernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 7

was to contact the agency. ( Id. ) He then reported that he was going to work as a truck driver and go back over the road. ( Id. ) {¶ 22} Ricky Early was also considered fo r kinship placement, but he w as unable to care for K.P. because he and his partner both had full time jobs. (T. at 52). Amy Shepherd, the biological Father’s ex-wife, called the Agency to be considered as kinship. ( Id. ) However, Ms. Shepherd has extensive child welfare history and was denied due to not having any further communication with the agency. ( Id. ) {¶ 23} On August 26, 2020, Appellant-Mother again asked if Michael W. could be considered for kinship. After consulting with Supervisor Angela Grywalsky, the Agency felt that it was in K.P.' s best interest not to go through the kinship home study with Michael W., as he was living with Appellant-Mother and had no type of b ond with K.P. ( Id. ) {¶ 24} Appellant-Mother had another child, which the Agency learned ab out in August, 2020, when it received a new report with concerns for t hat child. A drug screen was given to Appellant-Mother on August 26, 2020, which was pos itive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, THC and buprenorphine. (T. at 42) . For a period of time an out of home safety plan was put in place for that child , which was then changed to a task list as of September 16, 2020. (T. at 43). Michael W. is responsible for the care of that child, and when he has to go to work, either the out-of -home safety plan person (Janelle Olson) or Appellant-Mother's mother, Mary, is to babys it the child. (T. at 44). Appellant-Mother is not to be alone with her new baby. (T. at 6 6). Caseworker Yakupcak testified that if the Agency were to find out that Appellant-Mo ther was alone with her newborn, the Agency would investigate doing a safety plan, cust ody, or whatever was necessary to keep the child safe. (T. at 66).Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 8

{¶ 25} Caseworker Burga testified that K.P. is well bonded with his Fo ster Parents, Jessica and David Davis. (T. at 53). She stated that as of the date of the permanent custody hearing, K.P. has been in Agency custody for 754 days. (T. at 48). The concerns of the Agency are that the Mother has had a positive drug scree n for illegal drugs in the last 90 days, that she has not been consistent with visitation the entire time GCCS has been involved, and that she herself stated that there is no bon d between her and K.P. (T. at 48-49). {¶ 26} Caseworker Burga further testified that even if given additiona l time, K.P. could not be reunified with either of his parents. (T. at 50). She indicated that "K.P. has been out of the Mother's care for 887 days. He has either been on a safety plan or in agency custody. I don't believe that there will be enough time to build a bond considering he's been out of the home that many days, and there has not bee n consistent visitation to grow that bond, and I believe it's too late at this point." ( Id. ) {¶ 27} The CASA/GAL Julia Dowling testified that she believed that per manent custody was in the best interest of the child. (T. at 97). When asked whether she had concerns with the Mother's lack of engagement with the child sh e responded, "I think in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, it's a little too late." ( Id. ) {¶ 28} By Judgment Entry filed November 9, 2020, the trial court grant ed permanent custody of the minor child K.P. to GCCS. {¶ 29} Appellant-Mother now appeals, raising the following assignments of error:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶ 30} "I. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST

INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING OFGuernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 9

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶ 31} “II. THERE WAS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THE

TRIAL COURT TO FIND THAT THE MINOR CHILD SHOULD NOT BE PLACED W ITH

APPELLANT AND THAT IT WAS IN THE MINOR CHILD'S BEST INTEREST TO BE

PLACED IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF GUERNSEY COUNTY CHILDREN'S

SERVICES.” I., II. {¶ 32} Appellant has not separately addressed her two assignments of e rror. We shall therefore address them together as Appellant did in her a rgument. {¶ 33} In her two assignments of error, Appellant argues the trial cou rt erred in finding that it was in the minor child’s best interest to be pl aced in the permanent custody of GCCS. We disagree. {¶ 34} 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 el ements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidenc e. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). {¶ 35} R.C. §2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must fol low when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. §2151.414(A)(1) m andates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a moti on for permanent custodyGuernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 10

of a child by a public children services agency or private chil d placing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long- term foster care. {¶ 36} Following the hearing, R.C. §2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenil e court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private a gency 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 eith er 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 tem porary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placeme nt agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,

1999. {¶ 37} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent cu stody hearing, R.C. §2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all re levant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and inte rrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and ou t-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wi shes 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 child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody.Guernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 11

{¶ 38} 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 circumstan ces 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. {¶ 39} Here, R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies as the child has been in the temporary custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of th e consecutive twentytwo month period. The trial court found that the minor child ha d been out of the mother’s care for 887 days. {¶ 40} The trial court also found that the child had been abandoned. R .C. §2151.141(B)(1)(b). {¶ 41} The trial court then turned its focus to whether the child cann ot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a). {¶ 42} The trial court found that Appellant-Mother has had six childre n, and only the four month old child is currently in her custody. All her o ther children are in the legal custody of other persons. The court noted that there has been a history of eighteen reports to GCCS over the years regarding Appellant-Mother's car e of her children. The court also found that neither Appellant-Mother nor her current husband have any bond with K.P. The only family this child, who was 29 months old at that time, has known in the last 2 1⁄2 years is his foster parents. {¶ 43} Under R.C. §2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all rele vant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required t o enter such a finding if itGuernsey County, Case No. 20 CA 000021 12

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. {¶ 44} Upon review, as set forth in detail above, we find the evidence at the Permanent Custody hearing shows that Appellant-Mother was not i n compliance with her case plan, that she continued to test positive for illegal subs tances, that she did not actively participate in visitation with her child, and that she lacked a bond with her minor

child. {¶ 45} Based upon the foregoing, we find there was clear and convincin g evidence to support the trial court's finding that it was in the best in terest of the children to grant permanent custody to PCCS, and that said decision is not agains t the manifest weight of

the evidence. {¶ 46} Appellant-Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. {¶ 47} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, G uernsey County, Ohio, is affirmed. By: Wise, John, J. Gwin, P. J., and Wise, Earle, J., concur.

JWW/kw 0225