[Cite as In re E.H. , 2022
- Ohio
- 3124.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:
E.H. JUDGES: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr. , P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman , J. Hon. John W. Wise , J. Case No. 2022CA0001 7 O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common PLeas, Juvenile Division, Case No. F2019

- 0134 JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 7, 2022

APPEARANCES:
For Mother J.H. For Appell ee JERMAINE COLQUITT NO APPEARANCE 33 West Main Street, Suite 109 Newark, Ohio 43055 Guardian ad Litem For Appellant Grandmother R.H. CEDRIC P. COLLINS ALLISON MACLEOD

- OWEN P. O. Box 564 110 East Elm Street, Suite B Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Granville, Ohio 43023
For E.H. J. MICHAEL NICKS 96 West William Street, Suite 100 Delaware, Ohio 43015Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 2

Wise, John, J. {¶1} Appellant R.H . appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated Appellant’s parental rights and granted Licking County Department of Job and Family Services ’ (“Agency”) motion for permanent custody of E

. H . The follow ing facts give rise to this appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} E.H. was born on August 28, 2018. J.H. is the biological mother of E.H.; B.H is the biological father of E.H. Appellant is the maternal grandmother of E.H. {¶3} E.H. was found to be a neglected an d dependent child. {¶4} On March 19, 2019, E.H. was removed from the care of J.H. and B.H. {¶5} On February 19, 2020, the Agency filed for permanent custody of E.H. {¶6} On September 28, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s Motion for Permanent Custody bef ore the Magistrate. {¶7} At the hearing, Jennifer Newton testified that she has been the foster mother of E.H since April 4, 2019. When E.H. first came to live with the Newtons, he was on oxygen, underweight, and fragile. E.H. had bronchial pulmonary dysplasia from scar tissue in his lungs from being on a ventilator when he was born twenty

- eight weeks premature. E.H.’s half

- brother, D.H., lives with the Newtons . D.H. came to the Newton house on June 19, 2020. {¶8} E.H. is currently in weekly speech therapy and physic al therapy twice a month. E.H. also has medical appointments for eczema and early cerebral palsy. J.H. was not approved or permitted to attend the appointments.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 3

{¶9} Next, Allison Keeley testified she was employed by Licking County Children Services as a social worker until December of 2019. Ms. Keeley has been involved in E.H.’s case since April of 2019. The Agency became involved in E.H.’s case due to substance abuse by the parents, lack of financial stability, poor living conditions and neglect. {¶10} On April 18, 2019, a case plan for E.H.’s parents was filed. The issues identified in the case plan were income, housing, substance abuse, couples counseling, mental health and employment. At the time of filing, J.H. reported domestic violence between her and E.H.’s f ather. {¶11} E.H. was born twenty

- eight weeks premature. His parents were not following through on his medical appointments. Initially, the parents were living in Newark, Ohio, but w ere evicted from their residence. E.H.’s parent’s relationship was on and off, and they never attended couples counseling. {¶12} After eviction, J.H. had no permanent address. J.H. reported to the Agency that she was beginning work at a McDonald’s; however, the McDonald’s said she was not working for them. J.H. claimed no other employment. J.H. also claimed she was engaging in alcohol and drug abuse treatment at NYAP. However, NYAP confirmed she went through the intake process, but never engaged in treatment. J.H. confirmed to the Agency that she was still using cocaine and methamphetamine. {¶13} During an in

- home visit, Ms. Keeley noted that J.H. would not allow them past the entryway of the home. J.H. said they were being evicted and everything was packed up.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 4

{¶14} After B.H. was evicted from his residence in Newark, Ohio, he did not report another pe rmanent address. B.H. followed through on alcohol and drug treatment. B.H. admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. {¶15} The Agency looked to place E.H. with J.H.’s mother Appellant. The Agency decided against placement with Appellant due to Appellant’s own history with the Agency and reports of mold in Appellant’s home. When Appellant and Ms. Keeley spoke about E.H. going t o live with Appellant, Appellant said she can buy a new house so mold won’t
be an issue. {¶16} Next, Phaedra Abdalla testified that she is a visitation coordinator with the Agency. She supervises visits, intervenes as needed, and takes notes. J.H. had been

remo ved from the visitation schedule because she had three no

- show visits in a row. Her visitation was rescheduled for August 27, 2019. {¶17} During the visits, J.H. actively participated by playing with E.H., bringing him snacks, and changing diapers. She was gene rally pleasant and respectful. {¶18} During Appellant’s portion of the visits, Ms. Abdalla stated Appellant was overbearing. She was bossing people around and hindering J.H.’s visit with E.H. {¶19} Next, J.H. testified she is currently living in Newark, Ohio with a fr iend of her father. No formal lease or contract exists for housing. J.H. testified she completed her initial drug and alcohol assessment, but when she returned to engage in treatment, her counselor had left and they failed to assign her a new counselor. {¶20} J. H. testified she was placed in temporary custody of Franklin County Children’s Services at the age of thirteen or fourteen. She was briefly reunited with Appellant at age sixteen, but was back in Franklin County Children’s Services custodyLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 5

until age eighte en. J.H. had run away from home and was hit with a belt by Appellant. J.H. testified to possible use in the last three months of methamphetamine. J.H. testified E.H.’s father has hit her on three occasions

. {¶21} J.H. currently lives with her boyfriend at a fam ily friend’s house. There is no formal contract in place. J.H. did not inform the Agency of her new residence, the identity of her boyfriend, or that she is living with her boyfriend. {¶22} J.H. also testified to her employment history . She stated she worked a couple shifts at a pizzeria, worked at Club 2k, and would be paid for singing, dancing, and rapping. She has not had any income in the last thirty days . J.H. has stayed with Appellant recently. Appellant has provided some support to J.H. {¶23} The hearing was continued to October 13, 2020. {¶24} At this hearing, a motion was made to allow Appellant to attend visitations with E.H. The trial court granted this motion. {¶25} J.H. failed to appear at the hearing, and her counsel moved for a continuance. The continuance was den ied. {¶26} Bridget Lorenz Lemberg testified she is the lab director and toxicologist at Forensic Fluids Laboratories in Kalamazoo, Michigan. {¶27} Forensic Fluids Laboratories performed drug tests on J.H. In May of 2019, J.H. tested positive for amphetamine and metham phetamine. In August of 2019, J.H. tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. In September of 2019, J.H. did not test positive for any controlled substance. In December of 2019, J.H. tested positive for marijuana. In January of 2020, J.H. testified positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and marijuana. In February of 2020, J.H. tested positive forLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 6

amphetamine and methamphetamine. In March of 2020, J.H. tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In June of 2020, J.H. tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. In July of 2020, J.H. tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In August of 2020, J.H. tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. {¶28} Forensic Laboratories also conducted drug testing of B.H. In J une of 2019, he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine. In August of 2019, he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. In September of 2019, he did not test positive for any controlled substance. In November of 2020, he tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. In December of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In January of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In February of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In March of 2020 he tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. In June of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. In August of 2020, he tested positive for marijuana. {¶29} Next, Palma Ashcraft testified she is a social worker with the Agency. E.H. was born addicted to cocaine a nd marijuana. E.H. was removed from the care of J.H. and B.H. over concerns of hospitalization from nonorganic failure to thrive and losing a significant amount of weight. Neither J.H. nor B.H. were following through on recommendations during hospital admi ssions. The Agency was also concerned over home conditions, unemployment of J.H., parenting, substance abuse, and mental health. {¶30} Ms. Ashcraft reviewed the case plan with J.H. and B.H. J.H. had to obtain stable housing and employment, undergo substance abus e treatment, mental healthLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 7

treatment, couples counseling, and resolve traffic and legal issues. From June of 2019 until April of 2020, J.H. had no stable residence. {¶31} Ms. Ashcraft visited J.H.’s current residence in Newark on September 29, 2020. Ms. Ashcraf t described it as appropriate . However, the Agency has concerns over J.H.’s boyfriend, Je.H. He has current felony charges against him for theft. J.H. does not have a contract with the landlord. The Agency is concerned with J.H.’s housing at this time

. {¶32} J.H . did not disclose employment until January of 2020, when she worked at Hendoc’s pub in Columbus and picked up odd jobs on TaskRabbit until February of 2020. From June of 2020 until August of 2020, she reported working at a pizzeria and Club 2k, but never produced verification. Next, she claimed she traveled out west with a friend delivering cantaloupe and watermelon to Colorado, but did not disclose if or how much she was paid. J.H.’s employment is still an issue for the Agency. {¶33} Appellant claimed she atten ded substance abuse classes at BHP in Mount Vernon, Ohio, but when Ms. Ashcraft called to verify, they said that they had never heard of her. J.H. never sought treatment for substance abuse or mental health as required by her case plan. J.H. took thirteen drug tests over the course of the case plan , and tested positive for methamphetamines in a majority of them . J.H.’s substance abuse and mental health is still an issue for the Agency. {¶34} J.H. did complete parenting classes. However, her attendance at visitati ons with E.H. were not consistent. If all three boys were in attendance, it was very chaotic, and hard for her to handle all three children. Now that her visits are only with E.H., it is easier for her. J.H.’s behavior during the visits is not an issue for the Agency.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 8

{¶35} During one visitation, Ms. Ashcraft gave B.H. a ride from drug testing to visitation one day. Upon arrival Appellant took pictures, and then J.H. arrived to videotape and yell at Ms. Ashcraft and B.H. J.H. was yelling obscenities until Appella nt told her to get in Appellant’s car and they pulled away. {¶36} B.H.’s case plan included obtaining stable housing, obtaining stable employment, completing drug and mental health treatment, taking parenting classes, couples counseling, and resolve any legal or traffic issues. {¶37} After B.H.’s eviction from his residence in Newark, he stayed with friends for several months. Then he moved to Massachusetts to live with his dad. He then moved back to Newark in August of 2020. He now lives with J.H.’s foster brother. T he residence is a three

- bedroom duplex. His two sons live with him. He sleeps on the couch, and there is not a room for E.H. B.H. has an agreement with J.H.’s brother, no lease or contract. B.H.’s housing is still a concern for the Agency. {¶38} B.H. claims empl oyment with Amazon, but has not verified his employment. The issue of B.H.’s employment is still a concern of the Agency. {¶39} B.H. attended substance abuse treatment in Ohio. This stopped due to COVID. At the beginning, B.H. was testing positive for methamphet amine, but by the end of the case he mainly tested positive for marijuana. B.H. has indicated he does not recognize marijuana as an illegal substance and has no plans to stop using it. Substance abuse and mental health are still a concern for the Agency. {¶40} T he Agency has identified Appellant as a possible relative for placing E.H. The Agency ruled out Appellant because of her past agency involvement and conversations Ms. Ashcraft had with her. Appellant had told Ms. Ashcraft that E.H. spentLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 9

substantial time w ith her. She cared for him frequently. This led Ms. Ashcraft to have

concerns that she didn’t identify the situation and remove E.H. from the situation. She should have noticed his weight loss and that he was not receiving the care he needed. Appellant has a history of physical abuse which led to Appellant’s removal from her home. {¶41} Appellant’s initial home was also deemed unsuitable as there were black mold issues. {¶42} Appellant was present at the hospital during E.H.’s hospitalization more than either parent. Appellant was a trusted source of care for E.H. when his siblings were sick. Appellant obtained a new residence, but it was never inspected. {¶43} No other family members have been identified as suitable for placement. E.H. has been diagnosed with early cerebral palsy. {¶44} E.H. is currently living with Jennifer and Jason Newton in a foster

- to

- adopt placement. They are interested in adopting if permanent custody is granted to the Agency. He is with his older sibling D.H. and has three foster siblings . All of his speci al needs are being met by the Newtons. {¶45} The Agency does not believe either parent has alleviated or will alleviate the concerns giving rise to the dependency finding in the near future. E.H. cannot be placed with either parent in the near future

. It is in the Agency’s opinion that granting permanent custody is in the best interest of E.H. {¶46} Next, Cedric Collins testified that he is the Guardian ad Litem for E.H. He has observed E.H. in his foster home and has observed that he is doing very well. Initially,
E. H. had many medical issues, was on oxygen, had significant weight loss, and was not developing. Now he is growing, gaining weight, off oxygen, and walking.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 10

{¶47} Mr. Collins still has concerns regarding B.H.’s and J.H.’s ability to parent E.H. Specifically, the y are still using illegal substances, they are not financially stable, they do not have stable housing, and all these are important for a child with special needs. {¶48} Mr. Collins looked into placement with Appellant. He went to Appellant’s home, observed most everything a child of E.H.’s age would need. However, the stairs to the basement did not have a railing to prevent a child from falling, which is important for a child with special needs. She was not fully unpacked and boxes still needed put away. Appella nt was receiving partial retirement, but also working to meet her own needs. Mr. Collins was concerned about meeting the needs of E.H. Appellant needs a better support system if she were to take custody of E.H. {¶49} Mr. Collins is concerned that given Appellant bond with E.H., she should not have given him back to the parents when so many issues existed without calling the Agency. The Guardian ad Litem testified it would be in the child’s best interest to grant the Agency permanent custody of E.H. {¶50} The trial court then recessed until November 23, 2020. {¶51} At the November 23, 2020 hearing, the trial court heard a motion on granting legal custody to Appellant. {¶52} Appellant testified she is E.H.’s maternal grandmother. She owns her own home with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. E.H. will have his own bedroom. Appellant is on unemployment due to COVID. {¶53} Appellant has a conviction for disorderly conduct. She took her dog to a bingo hall. She parked the car in the shade and put the windows down. She testified the dog had water and food. She went into the bingo hall and came out after forty

- five minutesLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 11

to check on the dog. She got into an altercation with officers when they tried to get her to leave the bingo hall to take care of the dog. {¶54} Appellant testified J.H. had behav ioral issues in her youth, but she does not recall beating J.H. with a belt. She said that J.H. is still lying about Appellant’s abuse. {¶55} The hospital discharged E.H. to Appellant after he was born, as two of his siblings were sick. After returning E.H. to h is parents three days later, E.H. was in the hospital with a respiratory issue. Again, the hospital discharged E.H. to Appellant. J.H. and the children stayed with Appellant for four days until J.H. wanted to go back to live with B.H. Appellant did not agr ee with this and did not want to take the children back. J.H. called the police and told them Appellant kidnapped her children. When the police arrived, they wanted to know why Appellant did not want to give the children back. She said because the parents were fighting. {¶56} Three weeks after the incident, E.H. went back into the hospital. Appellant stayed with E.H. at the hospital. {¶57} With relation to the incident with Ms. Ashcraft at a visitation, Appellant said she saw B.H. in Ms. Ashcraft’s car, and it did not seem right to her. Then J.H. finished her visitation and got angry with Ms. Ashcraft and B.H. {¶58} Appellant has had three visits with E.H. She believes E.H. is enjoying his time with her. She does not believe removing E.H. from his foster home would traumatiz e him. {¶59} Appellant believes it is in the best interest of E.H. to be placed with her. She is his grandmother, has been part of his life since he was born, she believes she canLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 12

provide a home for him and support him. Her support network has not met E.H. due t o his being hospitalized and then placed into foster care. {¶60} Next, Palma Ashcraft retook the stand. Ms. Ashcraft testified she has not spoken with Appellant about E.H.’s medical care. Appellant has only information provided by J.H. or B.H. {¶61} Ms. Palma observed Appellant’s visits with E.H. Appellant would play and sing to E.H. E.H. looked to be enjoying himself, but after the visit he wanted to get away from the visitation staff and back to his foster mom. {¶62} Ms. Palma also testified that with Appellant’s history o f physical abuse, it is not in the best interest of E.H. to be placed with her. Ms. Palma also notes Appellant’s work schedule would require E.H. to be shuffled around from Appellant to either her friend or her nephew. Ms. Palma does not believe this is a good situation for a child with special needs. {¶63} Mr. Collins then testified that he still believes it is not in the best interest of E.H. to be placed with Appellant. Mr. Collins is concerned about Appellant’s financial position. He also believes E.H. is bo nded to his foster family. Mr. Collins disagrees with Appellant that removing E.H. from his foster family would not be traumatizing. E.H. has bonded significantly with his foster family, and any removal will have an impact on the child, especially removing him from his foster mother. He believes it is in the best interest of E.H. to be placed in the Agency’s permanent custody. {¶64} On February 18, 2021, the Magistrate issued a decision denying Appellant legal custody of E.H., and granting permanent custody of E. H. to the Agency. {¶65} On March 3, 2021, Appellant objected to the Magistrate’s Decision.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 13

{¶66} On March 4, 2021, Appellant objected to the Magistrate’s Decision. {¶67} On March 1, 2022, the trial court adopted the decision of the Magistrate above Appellant’s and Appellant ’s objections. {¶68} On March 28, 2022, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. {¶69} On May 25, 2022, Appellant filed a merit brief with this Court. {¶70} On June 17, 2022, this Court granted Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a Brief. {¶71} Appellee did not file a meri t brief arguing Appellee’s case. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶72} Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal and raises the following two Assignment of Error: {¶73} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO AGENCY WHEN THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSION THAT A LEGALLY SECURE PERMANENT PLACEMENT COULD BE ACHIEVED IN MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, [APPELLANT]’S CUSTODY WITHOUT THE GRANTING OF PERMANENT CUSTODY AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

. {¶74} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCR ETION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR LEGAL CUSTODY TO GRANDMOTHER AND AWARDING LEGAL CUSTODY TO THE AGENCY. ”Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 14
I., I I. {¶75} We address Appellant’s assignments of error together. Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for legal custody a nd granting permanent custody to the Agency . We disagree. {¶76} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. We must determine whether there is relevant, competent and credible evidence upon which the fact find er could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries , 5th Dist. Stark No. CA

- 5758, 1982 WL 2911 (February 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements o f the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction , 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). When reviewing for manifest weight, the standard in a ci vil case is identical to the standard in a criminal case: a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine “whether in resolving conflicts in the eviden ce, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Matter of A.D. , 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 19 CA 20, 2019

- Ohio

- 3671, ¶9



### . {¶77} A trial court may award legal custody to a non

- parent after finding that legal custody is in the child’s best interests. R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); R.C. 2151.415(B); Stull v Richland Cty. Children Services , 5 th Dist. Richland Nos. 11CA47 and 11CA48, 2012

- Ohio

- 738, 71 N.E.3d 660, ¶22. The court’s determination as to whether the facts make itLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 15

in the child’s best interest to be placed in legal custody, an appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard. Id

. {¶78} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶79} “[ 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 bas ed on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. §2151.414(B)(1). 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.” Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohi o 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 requi site degree of proof.” Id

. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all 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). {¶80} 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 vs. 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’Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 16

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davi s v. Flickinger

, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997

- Ohio

- 260, 674 N.E.2d 1159. {¶81} This Court set forth a trial court’s analysis of a permanent custody motion
in In the Matters of: A.R., B.R., W.R. , 5 th Dist. Stark Nos. 2018CA00091, 2018CA00097, 2018CA00098, 2019

- Oh io

- 389. When deciding a motion for permanent custody a trial court must follow guidelines provided in R.C. §2151.414. R.C. §2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon filing of a motion for permanent custody of a chi ld 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. {¶82} 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 no relatives of the child are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty

- two month period. {¶83} Therefore, R.C. §2151.414(B) establishes a two

- pronge d 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.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 17

§2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. {¶84} In the case sub judice , the trial court found E.H. has been in the custody of the Agency for longer than twelve (12) of the last twenty

- two (22) consecutive months. Pursuant to R.C. §2151.414(B)(1) (a), the trial court also found E.H. could not be placed
with either of the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with E.H.’s parents. {¶85} In making this decision, the trial court must consider the factors of R.C. §2151.414(E), which states , in relevant 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 parent within a reasonable period o f time or should not be with the parents, 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 purposes of division (A)(4) of section 215 1.353 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: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and

n otwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to beLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 18

placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. (2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectu al disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after the court holds th e hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code; (3) The parent committed any abuse as described in section 2151.031 of the Revised Code against the child, caused the child t o suffer any neglect as described in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code, or allowed the child to suffer any neglect as described in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code between the date that the original complaint alleging abuse or neglect was filed and th e date of the filing of the motion for permanent custody; (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child whenLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 19

able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwilli ngness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child;

*** (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant. {¶86} In determining whether the child can be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, the court stated that it had considered all relevant evidence and all factors specifically enumerated in R.C. §2151.414(E). Based on the testimony presented , the tr ial court found that E.H. had been in temporary custody of the Agency for more than twelve months out of a consecutive twenty

- two

- month period. {¶87} The trial court further found that efforts made by the Agency to work with the parents of E.H. have been reasona ble and appropriate and followed E.H.’s best interest. The Agency used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of E

. H . from the home, to remedy the conditions that led to removal of E

. H ., and to make it possible for
E

. H . to return home. Specifically, the trial court found these reasonable efforts based on the following actions taken by the Agency: identified areas of concern related to J.H. and B.H., the need to address substance abuse and mental health issues, stability of housing and income, and demonst rate appropriate parenting practices, facilitation of visits with Appellant , B.H., and J.H. , foster placement, and case planning for both B

. H . and Appellant. {¶88} “The 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 , 5 th Dist. No.Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 20

2000CA0024, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal , 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8 th Dist. 1994). {¶89} In determining the best interest of the child at a p ermanent custody hearing, R.C. §2151.414(D)(1) requires the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including,
but not limited to the following :

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, f oster caregivers and out

- of

- home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) 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 ; (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty

- two month period, o r 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 and, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 o f the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state; (d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and
whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent cu stody to the agency;Licking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 21 (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child. {¶90} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007

- Ohio

- 1104, 86 2 N.E.2d 816. {¶91} “A child’s best interest are served by the child being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. In re P.S. , 5 th Dist. Licking No. 16

- CA

11, 2016

- Ohio

- 3489, ¶57. A relative’s willingness to care for the chi ld does not alter the court’s considerations in deciding permanent custody. Id

. {¶92} The trial court’s decision indicates it considered the best interest of the child. The trial court concluded the child’s need for legally secure placement could not be
achieve d without awarding permanent custody to the Agency. Upon review of the entire record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court’s finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. {¶93} J.H. exposed E.H. to J.H. ’s substance abuse, lack of stable housing, domestic violence, and mental health issues. E.H. was born twenty

- eight weeks premature, addicted to marijuana and cocaine. E.H. has been diagnosed with early cerebral palsy and had to be hospitalized due to weight loss and lack of development. J.H. did not complete substance abuse and mental health courses and consistently tested positive for controlled substances, mostly marijuana and methamphetamine. J.H. never obtained steady employment or secured appropriate, s table housing. B.H. , while attending substance abuse classes, does not acknowledge the illegality of marijuana and has no intention of quitting. B.H. was not present at the hearings for permanent custodyLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 22

or legal custody. B.H. has acknowledge that he is no t in a position to care for a child with special needs. {¶94} The Agency also explored placing E.H. with Appellant

. Appellant , E.H.’s maternal grandmother , moved to request legal custody of E.H. The trial court found Appellant had failed to recognize and apprec iate the significant ties E.H. has with his foster family. E.H. has a limited relationship with Appellant , and while the trial court noted Appellant cares for the child, E.H. turns to his foster family for reassurance and comfort. E.H.’s special needs have affected his ability to bond with Appellant {¶95} E.H. shows visible excitement when around his foster parents and siblings, and displays trust and ease towards them. His foster parents have managed his cerebral palsy and he is thriving under their care. They e nsure he attends all therapy and medical appointments and are well versed in his special needs. The foster parents have a safe, stable home, and are committed to E.H. and desire to adopt him. The trial court found that E.H.’s best interests will be served by denying Appellant’s motion for legal custody and granting the Agency permanent custody. {¶96} The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody be granted to the Agency because E

. H . could not be safely reunited with the parents . He has concerns about Appel lant financially meeting the needs of herself and E.H., and that E.H. has bonded significantly with his foster family

. {¶97} We find that the trial court’s determination that permanent custody to the Agency was in the child’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. T he trial court did not abuse itsLicking County, Case No. 2022CA0001 7 23

discreti on in finding it was not in the child’s best interest to be placed in Appellant ’s legal custody. {¶98} Appellant’s first and second Assignment s of Error are overruled. {¶99} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Lic king County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

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

JWW/br 0830