[Cite as In re L.D., 2011-Ohio-5799.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

L.D., A.D. AND T.C. 

DEPENDENT CHILDREN 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

Case No. 11CA000017 

 and 11CA000018 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 

 Case No. 10JC00368 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 3, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellee For Appellant-Mother 

Guernsey County Children Services 

AMBER D. WOOTTON MICHAEL GROH 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 919 Wheeling Avenue 

139 W. 8th Street Cambridge, Ohio 43725 

Cambridge, Ohio 43725 

 For Appellant-Father 

 RONALD C. COUCH 

 121 W. 8th Street 

 Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶ 1} In Guernsey App. No. 11CA000017, Appellant Lisette Danforth (“Mother”) 

appeals the May 25, 2011 Journal Entry entered by the Guernsey County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights, privileges, and 

responsibilities with respect to her minor children and granted permanent custody of the 

children to Appellee Guernsey County Children Services (“GCCS”). In Guernsey App. 

No. 2011CA000018, Appellant Scott Danforth (“Father”) appeals the same journal entry 

with respect to the termination of his parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶ 2} Mother is the biological mother of L.D. (DOB 12/14/06), A.D. (DOB 

1/6/07), and T.C. (DOB 9/30/09). Father is the biological father of L.D. and A.D.1

 On 

June 11, 2010, GCCS filed a motion for emergency custody and a complaint alleging 

the three minor children were neglected and dependent. These filings resulted after 

L.D. was found wandering alone outside in the rain. At the adjudicatory hearing on 

August 13, 2010, Mother and Father admitted the allegations of dependency and the 

trial court adjudicated the children dependent. GCCS dismissed the allegations of 

neglect. Following a dispositional hearing, the three children were placed in the 

temporary custody of GCCS. 

{¶ 3} GCCS filed Motion for Permanent Custody on February 9, 2011. The trial 

court conducted a hearing on the motion on May 16, 2011. 

{¶ 4} The following evidence was adduced at the hearing. Dr. Gary Wolfgang, a 

licensed psychologist, conducted a psychological evaluation of Mother in July, 2010. 

 

1

 The biological father of T.C. is not a party to this appeal. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 3

Dr. Wolfgang noted Mother provided a great deal of contradictory information during the 

evaluation. Mother denied using cocaine, but also reported she had a positive cocaine 

screen, and made numerous other suggestions she was a drug and alcohol user. 

Mother blamed the children’s removal on her confused state of mind after she took the 

prescriptions Celexa and Klonopin. Dr. Wolfgang noted he had never heard of 

confusion as a side effect of either of these medications. Mother reported other 

contradictory information concerning her prior mental health treatment and her Mother’s 

involvement in her life. Dr. Wolfgang expressed concerns regarding this contradictory 

information, emphasizing Mother tended to blame her problems on other people. Dr. 

Wolfgang recommended ongoing mental health treatment and found Mother’s version of 

the events surrounding the removal of her children “virtually incredible”. 

{¶ 5} Kim Feldner, a family support specialist at GCCS, scheduled and 

supervised or monitored nearly all of the visits between the children and Mother and 

Father. Feldner testified Mother had eighty-one visits scheduled with the children over 

the duration of the case, however, Mother had either cancelled or no showed for 

nineteen of those visits. All of Mother’s visits were supervised. Feldner testified, on 

occasion, Mother’s visits with the children would go well, but most of the time, Mother’s 

behavior was erratic, robotic, and she was not engaged with the children. During 

Mother’s last visit with the children on April 13, 2011, Mother’s mother (“Grandmother”) 

was present. Feldner observed Grandmother tell the children she was returning to 

Florida, however, Feldner did not observe Mother do the same. Mother told Feldner 

while she and A.D. were in the restroom, she (“Mother”) told A.D. she was returning to 

Florida, and the child was “a wreck”. Feldner described Mother as discreet and evasive 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 4

whenever she was asked about where or with whom she was staying. In February, 

2011, Mother cancelled five of her seven scheduled visits with the children. Mother 

made no attempt to make arrangements for phone contact during her last visit on April 

13, 2011. One week prior to the permanent custody hearing, Mother requested the 

court allow her to have phone contact with the children. Mother advised Feldner she 

would not be attending the permanent custody hearing. 

{¶ 6} Feldner testified Father had a total of twelve visits with the children, and 

cancelled only one. Father’s last visit with the children was on September 9, 2010, at 

which time he told the children he was moving to Florida. Although Father told Feldner 

he would call once he was settled in Florida, Feldner had no further contact with him. 

{¶ 7} Elissa Mallett, the ongoing caseworker, testified she became involved with 

the family in May, 2010. Mallett developed a case plan for Mother, however, Mother 

had been largely noncompliant. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, Mother 

had completed a mental health assessment, but had not followed the recommendations. 

Mother lost her housing in August, 2010, and had not established new housing at the 

time of the hearing. Due to noncompliance, Mother lost her Department of Job and 

Family Services benefits. Mother had no financial means of support. Mother did sign 

all releases of information, and provided the name of one possible relative for 

placement. Mother had not completed her parenting education classes. 

{¶ 8} Grandmother and her husband requested custody of the children, but 

subsequently withdrew the request due to health issues. Neither Mother nor 

Grandmother provided names of any other relatives for placement. Mallet attempted to 

meet with Mother and scheduled meetings at the locations where Mother indicated she 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 5

was staying, however, Mother never appeared for these appointments. Mother refused 

to provide Mallett with the addresses of friends with whom she was staying. Mother did 

meet Mallett at GCCS offices. After losing her Department of Job and Family Services 

benefits for not completing classes, Mother did not establish an alternative source of 

income. Mother did not complete the Incredible Years class which was required, 

although she received information in writing of said class. 

{¶ 9} Mallet also established a case plan for Father. The case plan required 

Father to complete a mental health assessment, which Father did not do. Instead, 

Father provided Mallett with the address of the business where he allegedly completed 

an assessment. The address was incorrect. Father did not complete parenting classes, 

Father provided Mallett with certificates from a parenting class in which he participated 

in Florida. 

{¶ 10} The case worker stated she had fairly consistent contact with Mother 

throughout the pendency of the matter, however, her last contact with Father, prior to 

the permanent custody hearing, was three or four weeks after his last visit with the 

children. Father’s mother had telephoned Mallett at which time Mallett had requested to 

speak with Father. Mallett had not been able to make contact with Father since that 

time. Mallet attempted to contact by phone and mail, as well as asking Father’s mother 

to have him call her. Father never contacted Mallett regarding arranging phone contact 

with the children. Prior to the permanent custody hearing, Father contacted Mallett to 

advise him he was in town, but he did not request a visit with the children. 

{¶ 11} Father’s mother requested a home study. At the time of the hearing, the 

study had not been completed. Mallet expressed her understanding the home study 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 6

would be denied due to the fact Father had a criminal history and he was residing with 

his mother. Mallett also had been contacted by Father’s step-sister, who requested a 

home study. That home study had not been completed at the time of the hearing. 

{¶ 12} Mallet testified the children were doing well in their placement, and a grant 

of permanent custody to GCCS was in their best interest. Mallet believed permanent 

custody was the best outcome because of the low likelihood the children could be 

reunified with Parents in a reasonable time. Mallet emphasized Parents’ lack of follow 

through during the pendency of the case. Father lacked initiative to contact the children 

even though he was advised he could have contact through cards, letters, or gifts. 

Mallet was also concerned with Father’s refusal of services. Mallet was concerned with 

Mother as she had been vague and evasive throughout the case. Mother provided 

contradictory information almost every time she spoke with Mallett. 

{¶ 13} Father testified he wanted GCCS to use the mental health evaluation he 

completed in Florida. Father admitted he took no action to provide the information to 

GCCS even after his attorney advised him GCCS had been unable to obtain the 

information. Father stated he did not find the time to obtain the documents. Father 

blamed his lack of contact with the children on the fact he was never provided with or 

offered a phone number at which to contact them. Father last spoke with the guardian 

ad litem in August, 2010. Father acknowledged he never requested phone contact with 

the children, explaining he thought it was better to have no contact as opposed to 

having any type of communication relayed through a social worker. 

{¶ 14} The guardian ad litem testified he believed permanent custody was in the 

best interest of the children. The guardian had informed both parents he wanted to 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 7

speak with them, but he had no contact with either parent except at court hearings. The 

guardian stated he considered Father’s actions and lack of contact as de facto 

abandonment of the children. The CASA volunteer also recommended permanent 

custody be granted to GCCS. The CASA volunteer had not had any contact with Father 

following his move to Florida. 

{¶ 15} Via Judgment Entry filed May 25, 2011, the trial court terminated Mother 

and Father’s parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to the children, 

the trial court found a grant of permanent custody to GCCS was in the best interest of 

the children. 

{¶ 16} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals raising the following 

assignments of error: 

{¶ 17} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CHILDREN 

COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE MOTHER IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF 

TIME UNDER O.R.C. § 2151.414(B)(2). 

{¶ 18} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINING THAT PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN UNDER O.R.C. § 

2151.414(D).” 

{¶ 19} Father appeals the same raising as error: 

{¶ 20} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CHILDREN 

COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE FATHER IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF 

TIME PURUSANT TO O.R.C. SEC. 2151.414 (B)(2). 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 8

{¶ 21} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN UNDER O.R.C. SEC. 

2151.414 (D). 

{¶ 22} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT: ‘THERE HAS BEEN 

NO RELATIVE OR OTHER INTERSESTED PERSON HAS FILED FOR LEGAL 

CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.’ ” 

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

in compliance with App. R. 11.1(C). 

Mother Appeal I, II (11CA000017) 

Father Appeal I, II (11CA000018) 

{¶ 24} Parents’ first and second assignments of error are identical; therefore, we 

shall address them together. In their first assignments of error, Mother and Father each 

contend the trial court erred in finding the children could not be placed with her/him 

within a reasonable time. In their second assignments of error, Mother and Father each 

maintain the trial court erred in finding an award of permanent custody was in the best 

interest of the children. 

{¶ 25} 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.
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 9

{¶ 26} 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. 

{¶ 27} 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. 

{¶ 28} 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 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 10

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

placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody. 

{¶ 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 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. 

{¶ 30} 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. 

{¶ 31} As set forth in our statements of the facts and case, supra, Mother had 

been almost completely noncompliant with her case plan. At the time of the hearing, 

she had no means of financial support and no housing for the children. Although one of 

Mother’s case plan requirements was to find stable housing, Mother had actually lost 

her home as well as her only means of financial support for the children. Mother was 

robotic in her interaction with the children. All of Mother’s visits were supervised. 

{¶ 32} Father was also almost completely noncompliant in his case plan. Father 

failed to provide GCCS with the results of his mental health evaluation. Father had a 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 11

total of twelve visits with the children, and only cancelled one, however he had not had 

any contact with the children for eight months prior to the hearing. 

{¶ 33} Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, we find the 

trial court’s finding the children could not or should not be placed with parents within a 

reasonable time is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 34} With regards to the best interest, the record reveals the children were 

together in foster care. The foster mother testified the children had adjusted well to her 

home and the behaviors of the two older children had improved over time. The foster 

mother also testified about the action she had taken to resolve the children’s behavioral 

problems, as well as the treatment she had sought for L.D.’s mental health. The foster 

parents are willing to provide care for the children as long as necessary. Both the 

guardian ad litem and the CASA volunteer recommended permanent custody be 

awarded to GCCS. The guardian ad litem indicated the children had expressed their 

wishes permanent custody be granted. 

{¶ 35} Based upon the foregoing, as well as the entire record in this matter, we 

find the trial court’s finding it with the children’s best interest to grant permanent custody 

to GCCS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Parents’ first and 

second assignments of error are overruled. 

Father Appeal III (11CA000018) 

{¶ 36} In his third assignment of error, Father asserts the trial court erred in 

finding no relative or other interested person had filed for legal custody of the children. 

Father submits, “The Court might have been technically correct, but in point of fact both 

the Paternal Grandmother and Paternal Aunt had notified GCCSB that they wanted to 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 12

be considered for custody of these children and that there had been a home study 

completed by the appropriate Florida agency, although it was not, at the time of the 

permanent custody hearing, in the hands of GCCSB.” Brief of Appellant Scott Danforth. 

{¶ 37} In In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532, 2006-Ohio-5513, 

the Ohio Supreme Court clearly found a trial court's statutory duty in determining 

whether it is in the best interest of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency does 

not include finding, by clear and convincing evidence, no suitable relative is available for 

placement. The statute requires the trial court to weigh all relevant factors. R.C. 

2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination 

has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not 

make the availability of a placement which would not require a termination of parental 

rights an all-controlling factor nor does it require the court to weigh that factor more 

heavily than other factors. Schaeffer at ¶ 64. 

{¶ 38} The evidence presented revealed the home study of the paternal 

grandmother most likely would not have been approved due to Father’s criminal history 

and the fact Father was residing with paternal grandmother. Although Father’s 

stepsister had recently requested a home study, she had not filed a motion for legal 

custody as of the date of the hearing. At the time of the hearing, no home study on a 

relative had been submitted and/or approved. 

{¶ 39} Based upon the foregoing, Father’s third assignment of error is overruled. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 13

{¶ 40} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division, is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Edwards, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 
Guernsey County, Case No. 11CA000017 and 11CA000018 14

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

L.D., A.D. AND T.C. : 

 : 

DEPENDENT CHILDREN : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : Case Nos. 11CA000017 

 

 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the 

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Costs to 

Appellants. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

L.D., A.D. AND T.C. : 

 : 

DEPENDENT CHILDREN : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : Case Nos. 11CA000018 

 

 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the 

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Costs to 

Appellants. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS