[Cite as In re J.H., 2019-Ohio-5184.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF J.H. 

 

 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 19CA000025 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Guernsey County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 

Case No. 17 JC 00304 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 11, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Mother For Appellee 

MARK PERLAKY MELISSA WILSON 

232 W. 3rd Street, Ste. 323 274 Highland Avenue 

Dover, OH 44622 Cambridge, OH 43725 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 2 

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant-Mother appeals from the August 1, 2019 judgment entry of the 

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental 

rights and granting permanent custody of J.H. to Guernsey County Children’s Services 

(“GCCS”). 

Facts & Procedural History 

{¶2} On August 1, 2017, GCCS filed a complaint and a motion for emergency 

temporary custody, alleging J.H., who was born on April 21, 2011, is a neglected child 

pursuant to R.C. 2151.03(b) and/or (c), and a dependent child pursuant to R.C. 

2151.04(b) and/or (c). The complaint alleges as follows: GCCS was notified that a drug 

raid had been conducted at the home of Grandmother, J.H.’s legal custodian; 

Grandmother was arrested at the scene; officers found crack cocaine and drug 

paraphernalia in the home that was laying in plain sight and within the reach of the child; 

officers reported the home was in deplorable condition; Grandmother provided GCCS a 

name for potential kinship placement, but that person was out of town and unavailable to 

care for J.H.; the whereabouts of J.H.’s Father are unknown; J.H.’s Mother is incarcerated 

at the Northeast Pre-Release Center; Grandmother remains incarcerated at the Guernsey 

County Jail; and J.H. is in need of a safe, stable, and secure living environment. The trial 

court issued an ex parte order of custody of J.H. to GCCS. 

{¶3} The trial court held a probable cause hearing on August 1, 2017. In an 

August 8, 2017 judgment entry, the trial court found probable cause to believe J.H. is a 

dependent or neglected child. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 3 

{¶4} Mother filed a motion to be added to the case plan on August 21, 2017. The 

trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on October 6, 2017. In a judgment entry, the trial 

court found J.H. to be a dependent child pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). Upon request of 

GCCS, the trial court dismissed the allegations of neglect. The trial court found 

reasonable efforts were made by GCCS to keep the child in his own home by looking for 

kinship placement for the child. 

{¶5} On October 31, 2017, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. In a 

November 2, 2018 judgment entry, the trial court added Mother to the case plan, 

continued the temporary custody of J.H. with GCCS, and found reasonable efforts were 

made by GCCS to keep the child in his own home. 

{¶6} The trial court held review hearings on January 29, 2018 and April 23, 2018 

and issued judgment entries on January 31, 2018 and April 25, 2018 continuing the 

temporary custody of J.H. with GCCS and finding reasonable efforts were made by GCCS 

to keep the child in his own home by looking for a kinship placement for the child, 

providing a safety plan, providing support services, providing mental health services, 

providing mental health counseling for the child, providing case management, providing 

financial support for the custodian, and providing visitation with the custodian. In the 

January 31, 2018 judgment entry, the trial court also approved the amended case plan 

dated January 26, 2018. 

{¶7} The trial court held a review hearing on July 19, 2018 and issued a judgment 

entry on July 25, 2018. The trial court granted GCCS’ motion for extension of temporary 

custody. Further, the trial court found GCCS made diligent and reasonable efforts to 

finalize the permanency plan by working a reunification plan for Mother and Grandmother 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 4 

and also that GCCS made reasonable efforts to keep the child in his own home by looking 

for a kinship placement for the child, referrals for services, providing case management, 

and providing visitation with Grandmother. 

{¶8} GCCS filed a motion for permanent custody on October 2, 2018. GCCS the 

filed a motion to dismiss the permanent custody motion, stating they were exploring 

recently discovered kinship options. On December 21, 2018, upon the motion of GCCS, 

the trial court dismissed the motion for permanent custody. GCCS filed a second motion 

for permanent custody on April 2, 2019. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 

July 30, 2019. 

{¶9} At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court noted Father failed to appear. 

Counsel for Father did not know his whereabouts and last had contact with him in 

November and thus requested the trial court continue the hearing. The trial court denied 

the motion to continue. 

{¶10} Kendra Winland (“Winland”) is a case manager and chemical dependency 

counselor at Cedar Ridge who began working with Grandmother in April of 2018 when 

Grandmother came for an assessment. Grandmother was diagnosed with anxiety 

disorder and cocaine abuse. Grandmother did not complete her treatment and was 

discharged unsuccessfully in October of 2018 because she did not show up for her 

appointments or respond to the letters sent by the agency. Grandmother took three drug 

screens while with the agency, in April, May, and June of 2018. She failed all three 

screens for testing positive for cocaine. Grandmother denied using cocaine and told 

Winland she must have come in contact with it while cleaning and it was in her home 

because of her son. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 5 

{¶11} Nancy McIntire (“McIntire”), a counselor with Guernsey County Alcohol and 

Drug Services, met Grandmother when she came for an assessment on November 6, 

2018. Grandmother was diagnosed with mild cocaine stimulant use disorder and the 

recommendation from the assessment was individual counseling weekly. Grandmother 

did not successfully complete counseling with the agency and her case is open, but in 

inactive status because of her failure to attend appointments. Grandmother kept eleven 

counseling appointments, with the last being on April 8, 2019. Grandmother took five 

drug screens when with the agency, two in November of 2018, two in January of 2019, 

and one in March of 2019. She tested positive for cocaine in all of the drug screens. 

Grandmother denied using cocaine. McIntire found this concerning because, even 

though the levels of cocaine in her tests were coming down, McIntire could not start to 

work with and treat a drug addiction if someone does not admit they have a problem. 

{¶12} Deanne McNerney (“McNerney”), a pretrial bond officer at the Cambridge 

Municipal Court, monitored Grandmother when she was placed on bond through the 

court. The bond conditions included no alcohol, no non-prescribed drugs, and random 

drug screens. Grandmother took two drug screens for McNerney, both in April of 2019, 

and tested positive for cocaine in both screens. Grandmother failed to appear for drug 

screens in May of 2019. McNerney testified Grandmother denied using cocaine despite 

the positive drug screens. 

{¶13} Kelsey Wolfe (“Wolfe”) is the kindship program coordinator at GCCS who 

looked into several kinship placements for J.H. Two individuals, L.M. and R.S., never 

responded to letters or phone calls in June of 2019. In June of 2019, T.T. expressed 

interest in adopting J.H. as her family owned a daycare J.H. attended. Wolfe informed 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 6 

T.T. that J.H. was not available for adoption, but he was available for a kinship placement 

and the agency would look into it; however, Wolfe never heard from T.T. after that. Wolfe 

testified she very clearly indicated to T.T. that if she was interested in a kinship placement, 

she should let Wolfe know. At the request of Mother, in March of 2019, the agency looked 

into M.H. However, the agency did not have a working phone number or valid address 

for M.H. In January of 2019, the agency explored M.D., but they could not find a valid 

address or working phone number for her. They agency explored A.W. in November of 

2018. A.W. lived in Pennsylvania and began the Interstate Compact process, but A.W. 

ultimately withdrew from consideration in March of 2019. 

{¶14} The agency explored M.R. in October of 2018. M.R. had an extensive 

criminal and child welfare history. Though she reported she had made changes in her 

life, M.R. had a positive drug screen and thus was removed from consideration in January 

of 2019. B.S. was considered in August of 2018, but she would not return phone calls or 

letters from the agency, so she was removed from consideration in October of 2018. K.M. 

was considered in September of 2018, but was denied due to her criminal history and 

child welfare history. Also in September of 2018, the agency mailed letters to J.H. and 

V.H. and did not receive a response to either of the letters. In June of 2018, M.P.’s name 

was provided, but she was denied due to her child welfare history. In March of 2018, J.J. 

asked to be considered, but ultimately felt she could not handle the child’s behavior. 

{¶15} In April of 2018, the agency considered F.H. and J.H., but there were 

concerns about their health, so Wolfe asked them to complete medical evaluations. They 

did not complete any evaluations and were then not considered when Grandmother 

moved in with them in June of 2018 due to Grandmother’s drug use. The agency 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 7 

considered D.T. in August of 2017, but she was denied due to her child welfare history. 

Wolfe testified that D.T. was substantiated as a perpetrator of neglect in 2007. 

{¶16} In March of 2019, the agency considered J.S., but he withdrew from the 

process in April of 2019 due to his wife being in jail for murder and too much family drama 

going on for him to take the child. J.S. also believed Mother and Father stole his 

daughter’s car. Wolfe testified J.S. contacted the agency the week prior to the permanent 

custody hearing, but she did not contact him because he has a very extensive violent 

criminal history that would make it very difficult to place a child in his home. J.S.’s last 

felony conviction was in 2008. Additionally, J.S. was last involved with the child welfare 

system in 2015. 

{¶17} Wolfe testified that, as of the date of the hearing, there were no approved 

kinship home studies for J.H. 

{¶18} Amanda Kennedy (“Kennedy”) is a caseworker at GCCS. J.H. first came 

into custody of the agency on August 1, 2017 when there was a drug raid at 

Grandmother’s home. Since August 1, 2017, J.H. has been in the continuous custody of 

GCCS. Grandmother was J.H.’s legal custodian and cared for him for most of his life. 

{¶19} Kennedy testified Father basically had no involvement in this case. 

Kennedy saw him once when he was incarcerated. Since Father was released from 

prison in February, Kennedy has been trying to find him via public record searches, but 

has been unsuccessful. Father pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine in 2018. Kennedy has 

not heard from Father since his release from prison. Father was not on the case plan 

and did not request to be on the case plan. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 8 

{¶20} The case plan objectives for Mother included: complete a drug and alcohol 

assessment and follow all recommendations; comply with random drug screens at the 

request of the agency or service providers; complete a mental health assessment and 

follow all recommendations; complete parenting classes; obtain and maintain stable 

housing; obtain and maintain enough economic resources to be able to meet the basic 

needs of her family; and refrain from illegal activity. 

{¶21} To Kennedy’s knowledge, Mother has not completed a drug and alcohol 

assessment, a mental health assessment, or parenting classes. Kennedy was only able 

to get one drug screen for Mother in which she testified positive for amphetamines 

because she could not locate Mother other than when she was in jail. Mother has seen 

J.H. a total of three times in the last two years. Mother is currently in the Guernsey County 

Jail, so Kennedy has been unable to determine her housing situation. Kennedy has no 

knowledge of Mother ever being employed since 2017. Mother has not refrained from 

illegal activity, as she has received several charges including criminal trespassing, a 

probation violation, assault, unauthorized use of a vehicle, theft, aggravated trafficking in 

drugs, and aggravated possession of drugs. Mother is currently awaiting sentencing on 

the aggravated trafficking in drugs and aggravated possession of drug charges. 

{¶22} Grandmother was also on the case plan in this case. Her case plan 

objectives included: complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow all 

recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and follow all 

recommendations; random drug screening; participate in J.H.’s mental health services at 

the request of the counselor; maintain physical living condition in a clean, safe, and 

sanitary manner free from physical hazards; maintain stable housing and enough 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 9 

economic resources to meet the daily basic needs of J.H.; and provide the agency with 

names and contact information for any potential relative placements. 

{¶23} Grandmother did complete a drug and alcohol and mental health 

assessment, however, she failed to follow all recommendations because she was noncompliant with both service providers and had failed drug screens. In addition to those 

testified to by the other service providers, Grandmother took drug screens for GCCS. 

Grandmother tested positive for cocaine on: August 17, 2017, August 25, 2017, October 

23, 2017, January 10, 2018, January 22, 2018, April 4, 2018, April 17, 2018, April 23, 

2018, May 31, 2018, June 25, 2018, August 1, 2018, September 4, 2018, September 18, 

2018, September 24, 2018, October 22, 2018, November 13, 2018, November 27, 2018, 

and January 22, 2019. Grandmother also refused to take several drug screens for GCCS 

on July 27, 2018, January 8, 2019, January 28, 2019, February 19, 2019, April 9, 2019, 

April 23, 2019, and May 28, 2019, despite the fact Kennedy told her each time that a 

refusal to screen would be considered a positive for all substances. To Kennedy’s 

knowledge, Grandmother has never tested negative for cocaine since 2017. Kennedy 

had several conversations with Grandmother and Grandmother denied using cocaine. 

When Kennedy visited Grandmother’s home, it was cluttered and dirty and the window 

was busted out during the drug raids. Grandmother now lives with her parents. 

Grandmother was evicted from her home in May of 2018. Grandmother has not been 

employed since 2017. 

{¶24} With regards to A.W. and the interstate compact agreement with 

Pennsylvania, Kennedy reached out to A.W. to collect information to complete the ICPC 

in November of 2018. Kennedy testified the Pennsylvania Kinship Care regulation 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 10 

required A.W. become a foster parent and they were asking for payment from GCCS. 

GCCS was unwilling to pay for a foster placement since J.H. already had a foster 

placement in Ohio and GCCS was looking for a kinship placement. Kennedy did not have 

any conversations with A.W. after that. Kennedy did not know how long it would have 

taken A.W. to become a foster parent. A.W. last saw J.H. in 2016. J.S. called Kennedy 

about placement one week prior to the hearing. J.S. told Kennedy he wanted to be 

considered again because Mother called him the night before crying. 

{¶25} Kennedy believes GCCS made reasonable and diligent efforts to locate a 

kinship placement for J.H. J.H. was previously in foster care for a short time as a baby. 

Grandmother visits J.H. regularly. J.H. is bonded to Grandmother and there are no issues 

with their visits. 

{¶26} Kennedy does not believe J.H. could be placed with Father within a 

reasonable amount of time because he has not had any involvement. Kennedy does not 

believe J.H. could be placed with Mother within a reasonable amount of time because 

she had very little involvement with J.H. and she is currently facing felony charges. 

Kennedy does not believe J.H. can be placed with Grandmother within a reasonable 

amount of time because she has between 45-50 drug screens in the past two years that 

have all been positive for cocaine. Neither Mother nor Grandmother has successfully 

completed their case plan objectives. Kennedy believes GCCS has made reasonable 

and diligent efforts to finalize a permanency plan for J.H., including referrals for services, 

case management, visitation, and searches for kinship placement. 

{¶27} Kennedy is aware of three drug raids at Grandmother’s home, but is not 

aware that Grandmother has been charged with anything. J.H. is upset that he can’t live 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 11 

with Grandmother. J.H. has been in the same foster home since 2017. J.H. has adjusted 

well to the foster home and though the foster parent has struggled with J.H.’s behaviors, 

they are being addressed in counseling. 

{¶28} Randolph White (“White”) has known Grandmother for fifteen years. J.H. 

attended church with Grandmother at White’s church. White observed a bond between 

J.H. and Grandmother. 

{¶29} Grandmother testified she lives with her parents. Grandmother stated she 

is trying to do the right thing, including taking care of her parents and making sure J.H. 

has what he needs. Grandmother has a strong bond with J.H. and visits him every week. 

Grandmother has not been charged as a result of the drug raids. Grandmother does not 

have any financial resources right now because her stepfather is ill. Grandmother never 

had any problems with J.H. while he was in her care. 

{¶30} Grandmother stated she stopped going to drug and alcohol counseling 

because she was hurt and was being defiant. However, she believes she would be 

cooperative at this point and believes it is in J.H.’s best interest to continue to have contact 

with her based upon the bond she has had with him. 

{¶31} On cross-examination, Grandmother testified at the beginning of the case, 

she did use cocaine. As to the positive test in April of 2019, Grandmother stated she was 

in the hospital with pneumonia and, upon being released from the hospital, completed a 

drug test, so she does not know how she tested positive for cocaine. Grandmother 

testified she has made plans to go back to counseling and plans on working. 

{¶32} Ruthellen Weaver (“Weaver”) has been J.H.’s guardian ad litem since she 

was appointed on August 3, 2017. She filed a report with the court on July 23, 2019. In 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 12 

her report, Weaver states she believes it is in J.H.’s best interest that J.H. be placed in 

the permanent custody of GCCS. 

{¶33} Weaver did not hear any testimony at the hearing that would cause her to 

change the recommendation contained in her report. Weaver believes it is in the best 

interest of J.H. to be placed with GCCS for purposes of adoption. As to the exploration 

of kinship placements, Weaver feels the agency sufficiently explored kinship options for 

J.H. Weaver has never before been involved in a case with such a long list of kinship 

placements that were contacted and the permanent custody first filed in this case was 

withdrawn so relatives could be pursued before the current permanent custody motion 

was filed. 

{¶34} B.J. Yates (“Yates”), the court appointed special advocate, filed a report on 

July 23, 2019. She did not hear anything during the hearing that would change her 

recommendation that granting permanent custody to GCCS is in the best interest of J.H. 

In her report, Yates recommends permanent custody be granted to GCCS because: 

adequate time has been given to all parties involved to successfully complete their case 

plan; Grandmother has been non-compliant with her case plan, as she habitually uses 

drugs; Mother is frequently incarcerated and fails to work on her case plan; and Father 

has not been actively involved and after incarceration made no effort to reunify. 

{¶35} The trial court issued a judgment entry on August 1, 2019 granting the 

motion for permanent custody. The trial court first stated that Father was not present and 

counsel for Father was not aware of his whereabouts and had not had any recent contact 

with him, despite repeated attempts to contact him. The trial court denied counsel for 

Father’s motion to continue the hearing, nothing that Father is not a participant on the 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 13 

case plan and has not visited with the child during the entire proceeding. The trial court 

found J.H. has been in the temporary custody of a public service agency continuously 

since August 1, 2017, thus for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month 

period. 

{¶36} As to Grandmother, the trial court found she has consistently tested positive 

for cocaine throughout the case, even though she continually denies using cocaine. 

While she claims she must have ingested the drug while cleaning her home and also 

blamed Father for the positive drug tests despite the fact he was in prison, Grandmother 

has taken over twenty-six different drug screens and all have been positive for cocaine. 

She refused to take drug screens eight times with the understanding that a refusal would 

be considered a positive. The trial court further found Grandmother has not completed 

any part of her case plan. 

{¶37} As to Mother, the trial court found she has not complied with her case plan 

because she: obtained a drug and alcohol assessment but never returned for counseling; 

failed to stay in contact with the agency; has not completed a mental health assessment 

or any parenting classes; has no stable housing; has visited J.H. only twice at the agency 

in the last two years; continues to involve herself in illegal activities; and is currently 

incarcerated in the Guernsey County Jail. 

{¶38} The trial court found Father has been incarcerated for much of the last two 

years, did not ask to be placed on the case plan, and has not seen the child at any time 

in the last two years. The trial court found Mother and Father abandoned the child. 

{¶39} The trial court then considered the best interest factors as required by R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1). The trial court found the child’s interrelationship with Father to be non-
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 14 

existent because Father has not seen the child in the last two years and has failed to be 

part of the case plan. Also, the trial court found the child’s interrelationship with Mother 

to be nonexistent because she has only seen the child two times in the last two years, 

has not worked on her case plan, and has continued to be involved in illegal activities. 

Grandmother has had a good relationship with J.H., is bonded to him, and she has been 

the consistent caregiver since J.H. was a baby. However, the trial court found: she has 

made no progress in her case plan; she cannot even admit she is abusing cocaine despite 

all the positive drug screens; she failed to attend her counseling or stop her drug use; and 

has shown an inability to provide a safe, stable, secure environment for J.H. 

{¶40} The trial court noted J.H. has been in the same foster home since August 

1, 2017 and, while the child has expressed that he wants to live with Grandmother, she 

has not taken the necessary steps to even consider returning the child to her. While there 

was much testimony regarding kinship options, the agency has explored over fourteen 

kindship options in two years and none of the options have been appropriate or approved 

by the agency. 

{¶41} The trial court found a legally secure placement for J.H. cannot be achieved 

without a grant of permanent custody to GCCS because of: the inability of Mother, Father, 

or Grandmother to parent the child; the drug use of Grandmother and Mother; lack of 

follow through with counseling by Mother and Grandmother; lack of stable, safe, and 

secure housing by Mother and Grandmother; abandonment of J.H. by Father; general 

lack of cooperation by Mother and Grandmother with GCCS and other service providers; 

and no appropriate kinship options are available. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 15 

{¶42} The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best 

interest of J.H. to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father, terminate the 

custodial rights of Grandmother, and grant the motion for permanent custody to GCCS. 

Further, the trial court determined GCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal, 

to eliminate the continued removal, or make it possible for J.H. to return home safely to 

the home of Mother, Father, or Grandmother and this cannot be achieved due to the 

parties’ inability to cooperate with service providers or make a parental commitment to 

the child. 

{¶43} Mother appeals the August 1, 2019 judgment entry of the Guernsey County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and assigns the following as error: 

{¶44} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING 

PERMANENT CUSTODY TO GCCS AS GCCS FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT GCCS HAD MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO 

REUNIFY THE CHILD WITH MOTHER, AND THAT AN AWARD OF PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTEREST.” 

I. 

Permanent Custody

{¶45} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re 

Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 

U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must 

be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). 

{¶46} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the 

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 16 

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). “Where the degree of proof 

required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine 

the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy 

the requisite degree of proof.” Id. at 477. If some competent, credible evidence going to 

all the essential elements of the case supports the trial court’s judgment, an appellate 

court must affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. 

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

{¶47} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to 

the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 

77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is 

“crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties’ 

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 

Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶48} 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. 

{¶49} 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 

or custodian within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents or 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 17 

custodian; (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. 

{¶50} 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, a 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. 

Reasonable Efforts 

{¶51} In the first portion of her assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court 

abused its discretion in finding GCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. with Mother. 

More specifically, Mother argues reasonable efforts to reunify the family in this case were 

not made by GCCS because several kinship options were either not looked into 

thoroughly or were simply abandoned for financial issues. 

{¶52} No one section of the Revised Code addresses the concept of reasonable 

efforts. Overall, Ohio’s child welfare laws are designed to care for and protect children, 

“whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child from the child’s parents 

only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety.” R.C. 

2151.01(A). To that end, various sections of the Revised Code refer to the agency’s duty 

to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family unit, including: the 

requirement that the agency prepare and maintain a case plan with the goal to eliminate 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 18 

the need for the out-of-home placement so that the child can safely return home (R.C. 

2151.412) and the burden on the agency to prove it made reasonable efforts to prevent 

the child’s removal (R.C. 2151.419). 

{¶53} The agency’s duty to use reasonable efforts applies only to efforts to avoid 

removal of a child from their home or to reunify the child with the family following removal. 

In re Warren, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007CA00054, 2007-Ohio-5703. As this court has 

previously stated, “the Department is under no statutory duty to make reasonable efforts 

to place a child with relatives although relative placement is to be investigated.” Id.; In re 

A.J., B.J., & M.R., 5th Dist. Licking No. 14-CA-35, 2014-Ohio-3755 

{¶54} While the agency did not have to show reasonable efforts at the permanent 

custody hearing, to the extent that the trial court relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) at the 

permanent custody hearing, the court must examine the reasonable case planning and 

diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents when considering whether the child 

cannot and should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. In re C.F., 113 

Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 852 N.E.2d 816. The issue is not whether there was 

anything more the agency could have done, but whether the agency’s case planning and 

efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. In re J.D., 3rd 

Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-10-34, 2011-Ohio-1458. The child’s health and safety is paramount 

in determining whether reasonable efforts were made. In re R.P., 5th Dist. Tuscarawas 

No. 2011-Ohio-5378. 

{¶55} The agency offered evidence that it made reasonable efforts to place the 

child with relatives. Wolfe testified about her extensive work attempting to locate a kinship 

placement for J.H. Beginning in August of 2017 and up until the hearing in July of 2019, 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 19 

Wolfe attempted to contact fourteen different family members to try to secure a kinship 

placement for J.H. Many of the family members never responded to Wolfe’s inquiry and 

several others were ultimately found not to be appropriate due to their criminal history 

and/or extensive child welfare history. Kennedy stated she believes GCCS made 

reasonable and diligent efforts to locate a kinship placement for J.H. Weaver feels the 

agency sufficiently explored kinship options for J.H. and specifically testified that she had 

never before been involved in a case where such a long list of kinship placements were 

explored. Further, she stated GCCS withdrew their first motion for permanent custody so 

further kinship placements could be pursued before the current permeant custody motion 

was filed. As of the date of the permanent custody hearing, despite GCCS’ attempts 

since August of 2017, there were no approved kinship home studies for J.H. 

{¶56} Mother contends that family members J.S. and A.W. should have been 

explored further by the agency. However, as to J.S., Wolfe testified the agency 

considered him, but he withdrew from the process in April of 2019 due to his wife being 

in jail on a murder charge and his assessment that there was too much family drama 

going on for him to take J.H. When J.S. called the agency a week before the hearing, he 

told Kennedy he was calling because Mother called him the night before crying. However, 

J.S. was not an appropriate placement for J.H., as Wolfe testified J.S. has an extensive 

violent criminal history that would make it very difficult to place a child in his home, with 

his last felony conviction in 2008, and also has an extensive child welfare history, the last 

incident being in 2015. 

{¶57} As to A.W., GCCS did investigate placing J.H. with her. However, because 

she lives in Pennsylvania, the requirements for a foster placement and a kinship 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 20 

placement are such that GCCS would have to pay the State of Pennsylvania for A.W. to 

become a foster parent and continue to make payments throughout a foster placement. 

Kennedy testified GCCS was unwilling to do this for a foster placement, as J.H. already 

has a foster placement and GCCS was looking for a kinship placement. Kennedy did not 

know how long it would take A.W. to become a foster parent in Pennsylvania and she 

also noted that A.W. had not seen the child since 2016. A.W. ultimately withdrew from 

consideration in March of 2019. 

{¶58} There is clear and convincing evidence in the record that GCCS made 

reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. and Mother, and that GCCS did explore the possibility 

of placing the child with family members. 

Best Interest

{¶59} In the second portion of her assignment of error, Mother argues the trial 

court erred in finding an award of permanent custody to GCCS was in the best interest of 

J.H. Specifically, Mother contends it would be in the best interest of J.H. to have kinship 

options fully explored. 

{¶60} We have frequently noted, “[t]he discretion which the juvenile court enjoys 

in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child 

should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact 

the court’s determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy 

Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re 

Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994). 

{¶61} 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, 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 21 

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; (4) the child’s need for a 

legally secure placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a 

grant of permanent custody; and (e) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) 

of this section apply in relation to the parents and child. No one element is given greater 

weight or heightened significance. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 

N.E.2d 816. 

{¶62} A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent 

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. The willingness of a relative to care 

for the child does not alter what a court considers in determining permanent custody. In 

re Patterson, 134 Ohio App.3d 119, 730 N.E.2d 439 (9th Dist. 1999); In re Adoption of 

Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). Accordingly, a court is not 

required to consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to 

an agency. In re M.H., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2015-0061, 2016-Ohio-1509. 

{¶63} The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D) as well as 

other relevant factors. There is not one element that is given greater weight than the 

others pursuant to the statute. In re Schafer, 11 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 

N.E.2d 532. In re Schafer made it clear that a trial court’s statutory duty, when 

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 that no suitable relative 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 22 

was available for placement. Id. 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 that would not 

require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even 

require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.” Id. at 111. 

{¶64} The focus of the “best interest” determination is upon the child, not the 

parent, as R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically prohibits the court from considering the effect a 

grant of permanent custody would have upon the parents. In re: Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 

309, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994). 

{¶65} We find the trial court did not err in finding that granting permanent custody 

to GCCS was in the best interest of J.H. The trial court specifically considered the factors 

as outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Additionally, as noted above, GCCS made extensive 

efforts to obtain a kinship placement for J.H., but, either the relatives failed to respond to 

GCCS, withdrew from consideration, or were not considered by the agency due to their 

criminal and/or child welfare history. 

{¶66} Kennedy testified it is in the best interest of J.H. for GCCS to have 

permanent custody of J.H. Mother has only seen J.H. twice in the last three years. While 

J.H. is bonded to Grandmother and is upset he cannot live with her, Kennedy stated J.H. 

has adjusted well to the foster home and any behavioral issues are being addressed in 

counseling. Kennedy does not believe Mother or Grandmother can be a secure 

placement within a reasonable amount of time because: Mother has had very little 

involvement with J.H. and is currently facing felony charges; and Grandmother has had 

between 45-50 drug screens in the past two years that have all been positive for cocaine. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 23 

{¶67} Weaver testified and stated in her report that granting permanent custody 

of J.H. to GCCS is in the best interest of J.H. Yates recommends permanent custody be 

granted to GCCS because: adequate time has been given to all parties to successfully 

complete their case plan; Grandmother has been non-compliant with the case plan, as 

she habitually uses drugs; Mother is frequently incarcerated and fails to work on her case 

plan; and Father has not been actively involved. 

{¶68} We find the trial court properly considered and weighed the factors in R.C. 

2151.414(D) and the trial court’s conclusion that the granting of permanent custody to 

GCCS is in the best interest of J.H. is supported by competent and credible evidence. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 19CA000025 24 

{¶69} Based on the foregoing, Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent custody of J.H. to GCCS. 

{¶70} The August 1, 2019 judgment entry of the Guernsey County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Hoffman, J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur