[Cite as In re D.C. , 2021-Ohio-2735.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: D.C. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

Case No. 2021CA00047

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2021JCV00073

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: Au g ust 9, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Mother Defendant-Appellan t

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH BERNARD L. HUNT Stark Count y Department of Jobs and 2395 McGint y Road, N.W. Famil y Services North Canton, Ohio 44720 402 2 nd Street, S.E. Canton, Ohio 44702Stark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Appellant Tasha Reeves (“Mother”) appeals the March 29, 2021 Ju dgment Entry and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by th e Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, which terminated her paren tal rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to her minor child (“the Chil d”), and granted permanent custody of the Child to appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS {¶2} On March 3, 2020, SCDJFS filed a Complaint, alleging the Child was dependent and/or neglected. The Complaint requested permanent c ustody be awarded to SCDJFS. SCDJFS filed the Complaint due to concerns relative to Mother's extensive history with SCDJFS which included multiple court involvements resulting in Mother's losing legal and permanent custody of her four other children a nd Mother's recent involvement with children services in the state of Michigan reg arding her ability to safely parent the Child. The Complaint also noted the concerns which g ave rise to the actions involving Mother's four other children centered on Mother expos ing the children to sexual offenders, failing to protect the children from sexual abuse, d eplorable home conditions, Mother's mental health issues, and her faulty decision making. In addition, despite ten years of involvement with SCDJFS, Mother had not improved her p arenting skills and was still struggling with the same chr onic issues. Mother was unabl e to meet the Child's needs and unable to maintain a sanitary and safe home environment. {¶3} Prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, SCDJFS worked wit h Mother and the Child on a non-court basis, which included Goodwill home ba sed services. The Goodwill parenting coach reported concerns with Mother's abilit y to maintain aStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 3

consistently clean home, failure to keep negative people out of the home, the keeping of multiple animals in the home and not cleaning up animal feces w hich littered the floors throughout the home, and leaving dangerous items such as lighte rs within the Child's

reach. {¶4} Following a shelter care hearing, the trial court placed the Ch ild in the emergency temporary custody of SCDJFS. The trial court schedule d the matter for trial on May 18, 2020. Upon Mother's request, the trial court continu ed the trial until May 28,

2020. {¶5} The matter proceeded to trial as scheduled on May 28, 2020. Vi a Judgment Entry filed May 28, 2020, the trial court found the Child to be dependent, terminated Mother's parental rights, priv ileges, and responsibilities with respect to the Child, and granted permanent custody of the Child to SCDJFS. The trial cou rt issued a nunc pro tunc entry on June 3, 2020, to correct typographical errors in the May 28, 2020 Judgment Entry. Mother appealed the decision to this Court. {¶6} We affirmed the trial court’s decision finding the Child was a dependent child, but reversed the trial court’s granting of permanent cus tody. In re: D.C. , 5 th Dist. Stark No. 2020CA00093, 2020-Ohio-5112. We found, because there was no evidence in the record establishing Mother consented to the dispositional h earing being held immediately after the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court fai led to comply with Juv.R. 34(A). Id . at ¶24. We further found the “trial court's failure to bifur cate proceedings, as required both by R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) and Juv.R. 34(A), constitut e[d] reversible error.” Id

. {¶7} On January 22, 2021, following this Court’s remand, SCDJFS file d a motion to dismiss without prejudice as the matter could not be complet ed within the statutory timeStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 4

constraints. The trial court granted the motion on the same day . Also, on the same day, SCDJFS refiled the complaint, again alleging the Child was a de pendent and/or neglected child, and requesting permanent custody be granted to the Agenc y. The trial court conducted an emergency shelter care hearing and placed the Chil d in the emergency temporary custody of SCDJFS. {¶8} On March 29, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on SCJFS ’s complaint. {¶9} Shawn Miller, the ongoing casewor ker assigned to the family, te stified Mother had an extensive history with SCDJFS as well as children services in the state of Michigan. Child protective services in Michigan began investig ating Mother in 2017, due to concerns Mother was exposing the Child to domestic violence and sexual offenders, and Mother's home did not have hot water. The state of Michigan did not file a formal complaint relative to the Child as Mother moved to Ohio. Miller noted SCDJFS was granted permanent custody of Mother's two oldest children in 20 10, and two other children on February 27, 2020 (Case Nos. 2017JCV01236 and 2017JCV01237). {¶10} Miller indicated Mother routinel y allowed sex offenders around her children. SCDJFS had concerns regarding Mother’s drug abuse. Mother’s mo st recent case plan required her to engage in substance abuse treatment, complete p arenting classes, and undergo mental health treatment. Despite the services, SCJFS c ontinued to have concerns about Mother's ability to safely care for the Child. Mother’s home was in deplorable condition and the odor of marijuana emanated from th e residence. Mother permitted an individual who had lost custody of her own childre n to babysit the Child. Mother did not successfully complete parenting classes. Mother was unable to properlyStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 5

supervise the Child during visits. When the Child was removed from Mother’s custody, he was four years old and not yet toilet trained. {¶11} Kimberly Gabel, an SCDJFS caseworker, accompanied Miller on thr ee successful home visits. The home was in deplorable condition, filled with animal feces. Gabel recalled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the Child 's bedroom and an unidentified man was laying on a mattress in the room. Gabel e xpressed her concerns about the Child’s developmental delays and behavioral issues. Gabel indicated she is also assigned to the newest SCDJFS case involving Mother’s newb orn. The concerns in

both cases are the same. {¶12} Jennifer Fire, the Goodwill parent ing program supervisor, testi fied Mother was enrolled in the parenting skills training program and the h ome-based program. Fire indicated Mother did not successfully complete the parenting sk ills training program. Fire noted she observed “little to no improvement at all” in Mother’ s parenting practices. Fire stated Mother failed to properly supervise the Child during vis its. On one occasion, the Child was alone, running around the parking lot. Mother was re -enrolled in the homebased program from July, 2020, to March, 2021. Fire observed s imilar concerns. {¶13} Dr. Aimee Thomas testified she conducted Mother’s parenting eva luation in 2010, and again in 2018. The 2018 evaluation was admitted into evidence. Dr. Thomas stated Mother had prior involvement with SCJFS due to concerns with her exposing her children to inappropriate individuals. Mother related a histor y of violent relationships. Mother also had a history of unstable housing. Dr. Thomas foun d Mother met the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent. Mother also describe d symptoms of depression, including low energy, lack of motivation, and depre ssed appetite. MotherStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 6

would have difficulty functioni ng for weeks at a time during th e depressive episodes. Dr. Thomas noted Mother did not want to be prescribed an anti-depre ssant because of a prior negative reaction she had experienced with one. Mother did rep ort a willingness to participate in individual counseling. {¶14} Dr. Thomas recommended Mother engage in individual counseling a nd psychiatric services, successfu lly complete Goodwill parenting classes, and demonstrate an ability to financially provide for her family. Dr. Thomas i ndicated she would have concerns about Mother’s ability to safely parent if Mother was unable to successfully complete these recommendations. {¶15} The trial court found the Child to be dependent and all parties agreed to proceed with the trial on the dispositional request of permanen t custody to SCDJFS. {¶16} Shawn Miller again testified Mo ther had lost legal and permanen t custody of multiple children due to concerns regarding the home conditi ons and Mother allowing inappropriate individual around the children. Mother’s previou s case plans required her to complete parenting classes, engage in individual therapy, an d undergo anger management treatment. Miller also recommended Mother maintain sanitary home

conditions. Miller testified Mo ther failed to c omplete her cas e plan. Mother tested positive for cocaine in 2019. Mother was unable to make any meaningful changes to her parenting practices. {¶17} Kimberly Gabel again testified. Her testimony was similar to t he testimony she provided at the May 28, 2020 hearing. Gabel concluded, alt hough Mother is trying and she loves the Child, Mother is unable to make any meaningfu l changes.Stark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 7

{¶18} Kelly Stuhldreher testified she has been Mother’s mental health counselor since November, 2020. Mother is diagnosed with Major Depressiv e Disorder, Recurrent (moderate), and anxious distress (moderate). Mother also had a personal history of psychological trauma. Mother meets with a nurse practitioner, who is prescribing her medication. Stuhldreher believed Mother was making progress, bu t acknowledged she and Mother have not discussed par enting skills or practices. {¶19} Mother testified on her own behalf. Mother acknowledged she had recently missed a number of drug screens. Mother admitted she had lost both legal and permanent custody of four other children. {¶20} Kimberly Gabel testified during the best interest portion of th e hearing. The Child sees a counselor and is prescribed medication. The Child is on an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) and was able to transition from a spec ialized school setting into a regular classroom setting. When the Child was first placed in SCDJFS custody, he was not toilet trained, but as of the date of the permanent custody hearing, the Child was using the toilet. Gabel noted the Child still struggles with smearin g feces on the wall. Gabel explained the Child is processing the trauma he has experienced . According to Gabel, the Child is “making huge strides and improvement.” {¶21} Currently, the Child is placed in a foster home with two of his siblings. He is bonded with the foster family and his siblings. The foster pare nts have adopted the Child’s siblings. Gabel noted there are no appropriate relatives to car e for the Child. {¶22} Mary Lou Sekula, the guardian ad litem for the Child, offered a statement to

the court. Sekula stated she did not believe Mother was able to safely care for the Child.Stark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 8

The guardian noted the Child was doing well in his current plac ement and she believed permanent custody was in the Child's best interest. {¶23} The trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with on March 29, 2021. Via Judgment Entries filed March 29, 2021, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights, priv ileges, and responsibilities and granted permanent custody

of the Child to SCDJFS. {¶24} It is from this judgment entry M other appeals, assigning as err or:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS JUDGMENT ENTRY FINDING

THAT THE MINOR CHILD SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE

APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL.

{¶25} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be co nsidered in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

I {¶26} 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 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. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279.Stark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 9

{¶27} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must foll ow when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) ma ndates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a moti on for permanent custody 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. {¶28} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile 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. {¶29} 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. {¶30} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to w hether the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable p eriod of time or should notStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 10

be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial c ourt must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial c ourt is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing eviden ce, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist wi th respect to each of the child's parents. {¶31} R.C. 2151.414(E) provides, in pertinent part:

(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either paren t within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the pare nts, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's h ome and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuous ly and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to beStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 11

placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the par ents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatr ic, psychological, and other s ocial and

rehabilitative services and materi al resources that were made a vailable to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to all ow them to resume and maintain parental duties.

* * * (11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminat ed with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or s ection 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code, or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United States that is substantia lly equivalent to those sections, and the parent has failed to provide clear a nd convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child.

* * * (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

{¶32} We find the trial court's finding the Child could not and shoul d not be placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time is supported by the evidence. SCDJFS has been involved with the family for over ten years. Despite years of case plan services, Mother has been unable to adequately and safely care for the Ch ild. Mother did not successfully complete parenting classes, showing “little to no improvement at all.” MotherStark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 12

could not properly supervise the Child during visits. The depl orable condition of Mother’s home remained a concern. Mother repeatedly allowed sexual offe nders to be in the company of her children. {¶33} Moreover, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), the trial court was required to find the Child could not and should not be placed with Mother w ithin a reasonable time because Mother (1) has had her parental rights involuntarily te rminated with respect to the Child's siblings, and (2) Mother failed to provide clear a nd convincing evidence to prove, notwithstanding the prior termination, she could provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the Child. {¶34} Mother did not appeal the trial court’s finding permanent custo dy was in the

Child’s best interest. We have reviewed the record and find th e trial court properly considered and weighed the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D). We fin d the trial court's conclusion a grant of permanent custody to SCDJFS is in the bes t interest of the Child is supported by competent and credible evidence. {¶35} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.Stark Count y , Case No. 2021CA00047 13

{¶36} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Delaney, J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur