[Cite as In re E.A. , 2020-Ohio-2969.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

In re E.A., H.A. Court of Appeals No. L-19-1286

Trial Court No. JC 17264893

DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: May 15, 2020

* * * * * Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant. Kevin J. Ankney, for appellee.

* * * * * SINGER, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from the November 18, 2019 judgment of the Lu cas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating th e parental rights of appellant, E.S., the mother of E.A. and H.A. (“the children”), and granting permanent custody of the children to appellee, Lucas County Children Serv ices (“LCCS”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.2. {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth two assignments of error: I. The dispositional timeline was not proven by clear and convincing evidence when no certified copies of court orders we re introduced as evidence, and no testimony concerning a motion to extend temporary custody occurred on the record of the final hearing. II. In the alternative, the trial court’s decision to award cu stody to Lucas County Children Services pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(14) and R.C. 2151.414(D 1) was based on insufficient eviden ce, and/or was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Background {¶ 3} Appellant is the mother of E.A., who was born in November 2011, and H.A., who was born in May 2013. D.A is the father of the children. At the time the children were born, mother and father were in a relationship, but were n ot married.

2016 {¶ 4} In November 2016, LCCS became involved with the family due to s ubstance abuse, mental health concerns and domestic violence issues betw een mother and father. A safety plan was instituted which consisted of the children st aying with the paternal grandmother. In addition, case plan services were offered incl uding: parenting classes; domestic violence counseling; dual diagnostic assessment; subst ance abuse treatment; housing; and mental health treatment for mother.3. 2017 {¶ 5} On September 19, 2017, LCCS filed a non-emergency complaint in dependency and neglect and for protective supervision alleging: father was charged with domestic violence for an incident that occurred with mother, in November 2016; mother obtained a protective order against father; and both parents ac cused the other of substance abuse. LCCS further alleged mother completed domestic violence counseling, obtained housing, engaged in mental health treatment, started a parentin g program, visited with the children at the grandmother’s home, mother tested positive for marijuana in January 2017 and August 2017, and failed to comply with substance abuse educ ation. {¶ 6} On September 28, 2017, the court appointed a special advocate/g uardian ad litem (“CASA/GAL”) for the children. {¶ 7} On November 6, 2017, the CASA/GAL filed a report and recommenda tion. {¶ 8} On November 8, 2017, a hearing was held. On November 22, 2017, the magistrate issued a decision adjudicating the children dependen t, with the parents’ consent, and granting LCCS protective supervision over the chil dren while they lived

with mother. {¶ 9} On November 29, 2017, LCCS filed a motion to change disposition and requested an emergency hearing. LCCS asserted mother reported the following to a caseworker: she was assaulted by her paramour, Sam, in early N ovember 2017, after accusing him of stealing her 40-pill prescription of Percocet; she was thrown against the television, which broke, and she had a black eye; she and the c hildren were going to4. reside with her dad’s ex-wife; and her 24-pill prescription of Percocet was also missing. LCCS further asserted mother reported to another caseworker: S am beat her up and she was homeless, moving from place to place with the children; she was not truthful about the missing Percocet and why she had missed parenting meetings. LCCS alleged mother missed a home visit and five parent-child observations in Octob er and November 2017. In addition, LCCS asserted at the November 28, 2017 family case conference, mother reported she and the children are living with Sam and mother re canted her previous

claims of domestic violence with Sam. {¶ 10} Also on November 29, 2017, a hearing was held and LCCS was gran ted interim temporary custody of the children. The children were p laced in a foster home.

2018 {¶ 11} On January 26, 2018, a motion to change disposition hearing was held before the magistrate; mother attended, as did the caseworker a nd CASA/GAL. On February 8, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision ordering, by a preponderance of the evidence, it was in the best interest of the children to grant temporary custody of the children to LCCS effective January 26, 2018. On February 23, 2 018, the judge filed a judgment entry in which she ordered that, by a preponderance of the evidence, granting temporary custody of the children to LCCS was in the children’s best interest. {¶ 12} On August 16, 2018, LCCS filed a motion for extension of tempor ary custody of the children. LCCS alleged the children were engage d in trauma counseling, mother made progress in her case plan services including substa nce abuse, mental health,5. parenting and domestic violence. LCCS also alleged a six-month extension was in the best interest of the children, as there was reasonable cause to believe that the children would be reunified with one of the parents or otherwise permane ntly placed within the period of extension. On September 18, 2018, a hearing was held , and on September 19, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision ordering, by clear and c onvincing evidence, it was in the children’s best interest to extend LCCS’s temporary cust ody. On September 25, 2018, the judge filed a judgment entry granting an extension of LCCS’s temporary custody of the children, in which she ordered, by clear and con vincing evidence, it was in the children’s best interest to extend LCCS’s temporary custody

. 2019 {¶ 13} On January 24, 2019, LCCS filed a motion to change placement, t erminate temporary custody and to determine support and visitation. On February 21, 2019, a hearing was held. The magistrate issued a decision that same d ay finding mother completed all services, has housing and continues with mental h ealth counseling. The magistrate further found the children were engaged in counselin g and it was in their best interest for mother to have legal custody, with LCCS’s protecti ve supervision. The children were returned to mother that day. Mother was living w ith her paramour, Melvin. {¶ 14} On March 20, 2019, LCCS filed a motion to change disposition an d requested an emergency hearing. LCCS asserted on February 25, 2019, its caseworker met with mother and the children at Melvin’s house, and mother reported Melvin had served her with a 30-day eviction notice. LCCS further asserte d on March 12, 2019, its6. caseworker learned two calls were made to 911 to report domesti c violence incidents, one call in November 2018 and one call on March 10, 2019. Mother t old the caseworker the children were at an aunt’s house when the March 10, 2019 incide nt occurred, but when the caseworker called the aunt, the aunt denied the children ha d been there. Mother then admitted the children were present for the domestic violence in cident. Mother stated Melvin called 911 and he said she would lose her children, so m other and the children left the home and were staying with a friend. In addition, LCC S asserted on March 13, 2019, its caseworker met with the children who said Melvin hit mother and they were in the bedroom crying. LCCS also asserts on March 12, 13 and 18, 2019, it was requested that mother “drop urine,” but she failed to do so. {¶ 15} Also on March 20, 2019, a hearing was held. The magistrate iss ued a decision that same day ordering interim temporary custody of th e children to LCCS. The children were removed from mother’s care and were placed with m other’s aunt before going to a foster home. {¶ 16} A hearing was held on May 29, 2019, and the magistrate issued a decision on May 31, 2019, awarding temporary custody of the children to LCCS. The magistrate noted the issues to be addressed through services include menta l health, substance abuse

and domestic violence. The caseworker testified the children w ere present for the February 2019 domestic violence episode, there were new substan ce abuse concerns, mother has to find independent housing and submit to drug scree ns and continue in

services. The children remained in foster care.7. {¶ 17} Also on May 29, 2019, mother was drug tested, and on May 30, 20 19, the test results showed mother tested positive for Buprenorphine (S uboxone) and EtG (alcohol). {¶ 18} On July 2, 2019, LCCS filed a motion for permanent custody of t he children, and to extend temporary custody. {¶ 19} On October 24, 2019, the CASA/GAL filed her final report and recommendation. A hearing was held on November 7, 2019; mothe r participated, father

did not. {¶ 20} On November 18, 2019, the court issued its judgment entry, gran ting permanent custody of the children to LCCS. Mother appealed. F ather is not a party to this appeal. The Permanent Custody Hearing {¶ 21} Mother attended the hearing and testified. LCCS called two wit nesses, the caseworker and the CASA/GAL. The testimony which is relevant t o mother’s appeal is

summarized below.

Caseworker Flowers {¶ 22} Da’Nelle Flowers testified she was an ongoing caseworker for LC CS, and started working with mother, father and the children in Novembe r 2016. The initial concerns were domestic violence between the parents and help wa s needed with the children. An in-home safety plan was implemented, which inclu ded the children being placed with their paternal grandmother, and grandmother supervi sing the separate visits8. of mother and father. Mother was to complete the following ser vices: a domestic violence course; parenting; substance abuse; and a mental healt h diagnosis. Mother did complete a domestic violence course and a parenting course. {¶ 23} Around November 2017, there was a domestic violence incident wi th mother and her new boyfriend, Joe, after mother had completed t he domestic violence course. The children were adjudicated dependent in early Novem ber 2017. Thereafter, protective supervision was granted, and mother was in a relatio nship with Sam by that

time. It was then discovered that there was a domestic violenc e incident between mother and Sam, where mother received a black eye. At first, mother s aid she received the black eye at work, but then she admitted it was due to a domestic vio lence incident. LCCS took temporary custody of the children in November 2017, and th e children went to a foster home, where they stayed for two months before being tran sferred to another foster

home. There was another domestic violence incident between mot her and Sam on December 14, 2017, after the children had been removed from mot her’s care. {¶ 24} Flowers testified mother completed two parenting courses, two d omestic violence courses, underwent assessments where it was recommende d that she go to counseling and a marijuana course; mother complied. Mother was put in touch with a community advocate in November 2018, to help link mother with o utside resources. {¶ 25} Mother consistently visited with the children and there were so me minor concerns, but no glaring issues. Overall, mother did well in t he visits, bringing food for the children and playing games, doing crafts or playing outside with the children.9. {¶ 26} On February 21, 2019, the children were returned to mother’s ca re, and LCCS was granted protective supervision. Mother lived with her boyfriend, Melvin. Flowers went for the five-day home visit with mother and found mother crying. Mother said she and Melvin were not getting along and he had given her an eviction notice so she

and the children had to move out of his home. Mother did not m ention any domestic dispute issues. When Flowers left, mother and the children wer e still at Melvin’s home. Flowers set mother up with a community advocate to help get mot her housing. {¶ 27} Flowers ran 911 calls and discovered there was one domestic dis pute between mother and Melvin on November 23, 2018, and another dis pute on March 10,

2019. If Flowers would have known about the November 2018 inci dent, it would have impacted her decision and changed the plan as far as reunifying the family in Melvin’s

home. Mother was asked about the incidents and said the Novemb er 2018 call happened because Melvin was abusing drugs and he assaulted her, and the March 2019 call was a malicious call by Melvin when mother was trying to get her and the children’s belongings

from the home. The children were removed from mother’s care in March 2019, and placed with a relative. Thereafter, the children were moved to a foster home. {¶ 28} With respect to mother dating Melvin, Flowers received a report that mother was seen leaving a visitation with Melvin around June of 2019. Flowers had concerns because mother completed domestic violence courses, bu t still remains in contact with the domestic violence abusers, so it is unclear if mother can keep the children safe. Mother’s pattern is to go from man to man to ma n. Mother told Flowers10. the children witnessed domestic violence by their father and he ard other domestic

violence incidents. {¶ 29} Regarding the children’s behavior, E.A. has had issues with agg ression at school and in the foster home, so he was referred for counselin g. In the current foster home, E.A.’s behaviors seemed to escalate as he harmed animals and stabbed a kid at school with a pencil. E.A. went back to counseling and he is d oing much better. E.A.

has an IEP at school for his behaviors. {¶ 30} Flowers noted housing has been a case plan service for mother b ecause throughout the case, mother has not had stable, independent hou sing. Mother was currently residing with her dad in a one-bedroom apartment, whi ch is not appropriate for the children because it is too small of a space. {¶ 31} Flowers talked with E.A., and the majority of the time, he said he wanted to be with mother. Flowers could not think of any other services mother could be offered. Flowers does not think mother takes responsibility for the situ ation her children are in,

and Flowers believed it was in the children’s best interest for LCCS to be awarded permanent custody.

Mother {¶ 32} Mother testified that she finished her last domestic violence c ourse in

October 2018. Mother discussed what she learned in the reunifi cation classes and how to

care for the children and handle their behaviors. She also tal ked about the domestic11. violence survivors’ course she took and passed, and the fact th at she had to take a second

course because of the incident between her and Sam. {¶ 33} Mother testified that she missed some drug screens because of emergencies, her child was in the hospital, transportation issu es, child care issues or the paperwork was not there so she could not leave a sample to be t ested. {¶ 34} After the March 10, 2019 domestic violence incident with Melvin , mother

stated that she and the children left Melvin’s house and lived with two of her girlfriends for about two weeks. Then, the children were placed in the temp orary custody of mother’s aunt for a while before LCCS took custody of the child ren. At that point,

mother went to live with her dad. {¶ 35} Mother was asked by the judge when the last time was that she w as with Melvin. Mother responded the last time she physically saw Melv in was in June 2019. Mother said she went back with Melvin after the March 2019 figh t for just one day, which was the time she tested positive for Suboxone. Mother sa id her last contact with Melvin was in July 2019, when she was asking to retrieve her be longings from his

garage. {¶ 36} Mother was cross-examined about her contact with Melvin after t he March 2019 domestic violence incident, and she was asked if she had c ontact with him in April or early May 2019, because that is when she tested positive for Suboxone. Mother agreed she had contact with him, but that was her last contact. Mother was reminded that12. she was seen with Melvin in June 2019, following a visit. Moth er acknowledged she saw Melvin after she tested positive for Suboxone. {¶ 37} Mother testified she called 911 in August 2019, because Melvin was harassing her and threatened to commit suicide, but there was n o physical violence

between them. {¶ 38} Mother was asked about her counseling sessions, and if the last time she attended was August 29, 2019. Mother ultimately admitted that was her last session. {¶ 39} Mother talked about her visits with the children, the last of w hich was the previous Saturday, and how she only missed visits if she was si ck with a fever over 101 degrees. Mother recalled the different activities she and the children did together, like having birthday parties, making silly hats and pet rocks, and d ecorating pumpkins. {¶ 40} At the time of the hearing, November 7, 2019, mother was not in any relationship and she was focusing on herself and her children s o they could heal from everything that they experienced. Mother took responsibility f or what happened with the children, saying it was all her fault. Mother was asked how he r life has changed since June 2019. Mother said she is supposed to be getting housing a nd she is going to get her driver’s license next week so she can start working. Mother st ated she has a job waiting for her as a pizza delivery driver. Mother said she has worked during the case.

CASA/GAL {¶ 41} Maria Gonzalez testified she was appointed the CASA for the chi ldren. She conducted an independent examination and submitted her find ings in the GAL report13. she filed with court. Gonzalez visited with the children when they were with the paternal grandmother, she interviewed the caregivers, the children and m other, she met with the caseworker, she met with father at the beginning of the case, s he visited the children at

their school and she reviewed records. {¶ 42} Gonzalez opined it was in the children’s best interest for perm anent custody to be given to LCCS. Gonzalez observed she has been on the case over the past two years and the children have been reunited with mother two t imes, mother completed all plan services, but both times it fell through. Gonzalez st ated it was a very difficult

recommendation because there is no doubt of the love mother and the children have for each other, mother is very appropriate at visits and the childr en love spending time with mother. However, when the reunification fell through twice, Go nzalez could see the

detriment it caused to the children. The children had witnesse d domestic violence, were removed from the home, attended therapy, had visits with mother starting at Level 1, then Level 2, then the children spent weekends with mother. The chi ldren would be hopeful that this time it would be forever and they would stay, but the n they were asked to leave so the children would be sad. The children both said they want to stay with mom. {¶ 43} Gonzalez said the situation is very hard because mother does no t have housing or stable employment, and she is still dealing with her mental situation. {¶ 44} Regarding E.A.’s behavior, Gonzalez interviewed the foster moth er and learned through a school report about the issues, including hur ting a small animal, being very aggressive at school, using a pencil as something that cou ld harm another child,14. having scissors taken away, being very angry and frustrated. G onzalez did not see these behaviors during visits with mother. {¶ 45} Gonzalez has concerns because of the repeat patterns of domesti c violence. Mother has taken domestic violence classes recommended, and she acts after the fact of the situation, which seems a little bit late because she is alr eady in the situation. Gonzalez saw mother getting into Melvin’s truck on June 8, 2019 , after a visit and Gonzalez was surprised to see that. {¶ 46} Gonzalez was asked if she could, in good faith, recommend that the children go home to mom as of today. Gonzalez replied, “Mom ha s no home.” {¶ 47} Gonzalez was also asked if temporary custody was extended and a t the end of six months, mother has a job, an appropriate place to stay a nd has not been with any guys for the last few months, would Gonzalez change her mind. Gonzalez stated she asked herself that question twice before with the previous reun ifications, and mother was given time so she could be ready. Gonzalez said the children d eserve more than just a mom for a couple of hours on a weekday, and mother needs a lot of support that she does not have right now, as she does not have a steady job or housin g. Juvenile Court’s Decision {¶ 48} The court observed LCCS became involved with the family in Nove mber 2016, and the initial case plan services offered to mother incl uded parenting classes, domestic violence counseling and a dual diagnostic assessment. In addition, a safety plan was instituted which had the children staying with their grandm other. Mother completed15. domestic violence counseling in June 2017, but not the other se rvices offered. A nonemergency protective supervision complaint was filed September 19, 2017, the children were adjudicated neglected and dependent on November 8, 2017 an d LCCS was granted interim temporary custody of the children on November 29, 2017, then temporary custody on January 26, 2018. {¶ 49} The court noted mother completed all case plan services offered , so in February 2019, the children were reunited with mother, who at t hat time lived with Melvin. Due to two 911 calls reporting domestic violence with mother and Melvin, the

children were removed from mother’s care in March 2019. The co urt found mother continued her relationship with Melvin after the children were removed, which was the second time during the case that mother continued her relations hip with a man even after the relationship caused the removal of the children. The court further found mother has

not remedied the domestic violence concerns which caused the ch ildren’s removal from the home numerous times, and mother failed to offer a credible reason why she continually failed to remedy the issues which caused the childr en’s removal from the home. The court also found mother lacked a stable and appropri ate home environment for the children. Regarding father, the court found he abandon ed the children. {¶ 50} The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time an d should not be placed with either parent, and despite reasonable case planning and di ligent efforts by LCCS to assist parents to remedy the problems which caused the children to be placed outside of16. the home, parents continuously and repeatedly failed to substan tially remedy those conditions. The court also found mother was unwilling to preve nt the children from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emo tional, or mental neglect.

The court further found it is in the children’s best interest t o award permanent custody to LCCS for adoptive placement and planning, as the children are c urrently in a stable home

which meets their needs. The court found the children need a s afe, secure and permanent environment, which cannot happen without LCCS being granted per manent custody. First Assignment of Error {¶ 51} Mother asserts the dispositional timeline was not proven by cle ar and convincing evidence because there was no testimony at the final hearing regarding the August 16, 2018 motion to extend temporary custody, nor were ce rtified copies of

motions or court orders introduced or filed as exhibits. Mothe r notes temporary custody terminates one year after the complaint is filed or the child i s placed in shelter care, whichever is earliest, without the granting of a motion to exte nd custody. Mother

observes the court found the case was out of time because it wa s opened more than two years before the final hearing. Mother argues LCCS did not pro ve, by clear and convincing evidence, temporary custody was extended because “th ere was no testimony on the record concerning the Motion to Extend Temporary Custody * * * * and the only indication of such a motion was in a docket entry * * *.” Moth er suggests we should find the juvenile court could have extended LCCS’s temporary custody to allow her time to stabilize housing.17. {¶ 52} LCCS counters it is not disputed that temporary custody was ext ended on September 18, 2018, and there is no time requirement under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), that needs to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. LCCS subm its even if temporary custody was not extended, the trial court was not divested of j urisdiction.

Law {¶ 53} R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) provides in relevant part: Upon the filing of a motion * * * for permanent custody of a ch ild, the court shall schedule a hearing and give notice of the filin g of the motion and of the hearing * * * to all parties to the action and to th e child’s guardian ad litem. * * * The court shall conduct a hearing * * * to determine if it is i n the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental ri ghts and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion. The adj udication that the child is an abused, neglected, or dependent child and any dispositional order that has been issued in the case under sect ion 2151.353 of the Revised Code pursuant to the adjudication shall not be r eadjudicated at the hearing and shall not be affected by a denial of the mot ion for permanent custody. {¶ 54} R.C. 2151.353 states in relevant part: (A) If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependen t child, the court may make any of the following orders of dispos ition:18. * * * (2) Commit the child to the temporary custody of any of the following: (a) A public children services agency;

* * * (G) Any temporary custody order issued pursuant to division (A) of this section shall terminate one year after the earlier of the date on which the complaint in the case was filed or the child was first plac ed into shelter care, except that, upon the filing of a motion pursuant to sect ion 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the temporary custody order shall continue and not terminate until the court issues a dispositional order under th at section. {¶ 55} R.C. 2151.415(A) states in relevant part: (A) * * * [A] public children services agency * * * that has be en given temporary custody of a child pursuant to section 2151.353 of the Revised Code, not later than thirty days prior to the earlier o f the date for the termination of the custody order pursuant to division (H) o f section 2151.353 of the Revised Code or the date set at the disposition al hearing for the hearing to be held pursuant to this section, shall file a m otion with the court that issued the order of disposition requesting that any of the following orders of disposition of the child be issued by the c ourt:

* * *19. (6) In accordance with division (D) of this section, an order f or the extension of temporary custody. {¶ 56} It is well-settled law in Ohio that “a court speaks through its docket and journals. Indus. Comm. v. Musselli (1921), 102 Ohio St. 10, 130 N.E. 32.” Oney v. Allen , 39 Ohio St.3d 103, 107, 529 N.E.2d 471 (1988). Analysis {¶ 57} Upon review, it is clear from a reading of the plain language o f R.C. 2151.414, that during the hearing on a motion for permanent cus tody, the juvenile court shall not readjudicate a dispositional order previously issued under R.C. 2151.353. {¶ 58} Here, the juvenile court followed the strictures of R.C. 2151.4 14. The court granted LCCS’s motion for temporary custody of the childr en on January 26, 2018, in accordance with R.C. 2151.353(A)(2)(a), then LCCS moved to e xtend temporary custody on August 16, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the magistr ate issued a decision ordering, by clear and convincing evidence, it was in the child ren’s best interest to extend LCCS’s temporary custody, and on September 25, 2018, the judge issued a judgment entry, in accordance with R.C. 2151.353(G), in which she ordere d, by clear and convincing evidence, it was in the children’s best interest to extend LCCS’s temporary custody. Since the court’s orders regarding LCCS’s temporary c ustody of the children were dispositional orders made under R.C. 2151.353, the court w as precluded from readjudicating these dispositional orders at the hearing.20. {¶ 59} We therefore find mother’s claim that LCCS did not prove the di spositional timeline by clear and convincing evidence because there was no testimony or certified copies of motions or court orders introduced as exhibits at the hearing regarding extending LCCS’s temporary custody of the children is without m erit. Accordingly, mother’s first assignment of error is found not well-taken. Second Assignment of Error {¶ 60} Mother argues the court’s decision to award permanent custody t o LCCS was based on insufficient evidence and/or was against the manif est weight of the

evidence. Law—Permanent Custody {¶ 61} The juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evi dence: (1) the existence of at least one of the four factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)( 1)(a) through (d), and (2) the child’s best interest is served by granting permanent custody t o the agency. In re M.B. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP755, 2005-Ohio-986, ¶ 6; R.C. 2151. 353(A)(4). Clear and convincing evidence requires proof which “produce[s] in the min d of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be establis hed.” Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syl labus. {¶ 62} A juvenile court’s decision in a permanent custody case will no t be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.H. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, citing In re Andy-Jones , 10th21. Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-1167 and 03AP-1231, 2004-Ohio-3312, ¶ 28. “The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial cour t rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and obs erve their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing t he credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland , 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Furthermore, “[e]very reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the findings of facts [of the trial court].” Karches v. Cincinnati , 38 Ohio St.3d 12, 19, 526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988). Hence, a judgment s upported by some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the case is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ; C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. Factors under R.C. 2125.414(B)(1) {¶ 63} R.C. 2125.414(B)(1) states in relevant part: (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned * * * and the child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a re asonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents. (b) The child is abandoned. R.C. 2151.414(E) {¶ 64} R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable t ime or should not be placed22. with either parent if any one of sixteen factors are met. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(16). R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (14) provide: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s ho me and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent effor ts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initia lly caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed cont inuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child’s home.

* * * (14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, cl othing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to preven t the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emo tional, or mental neglect. Analysis {¶ 65} The record shows the children initially lived with mother and f ather, but due to problems including domestic violence, the children went to live with the paternal grandmother and mother visited with children. The children wer e returned to live with mother and her boyfriend, but shortly thereafter, due to domest ic violence, the children were removed from mother’s care and were placed together in a f oster home. After two months, the children were placed in another foster home. Mothe r consistently visited the children. About a year later, the children were returned to li ve with mother and another23. boyfriend. The children were in mother’s care for about a mont h before they were removed and placed together in a third foster home. Again, mot her continued to visit the

children. When the reunification between mother and the childr en fell through twice, it caused detriment to the children, according to the CASA/GAL. {¶ 66} Each time that the children were removed from mother’s care it was because of domestic violence which occurred between mother and her then-partner. The children heard and sometimes saw the violence. Mother complete d two domestic violence courses, yet she continued to be involved with partner s who were violent. Moreover, mother did not report the domestic violence incidents to the caseworker, and mother was not forthright as to her contact with Melvin after t heir second domestic

violence incident. {¶ 67} Mother also had a pattern of living with her current boyfriend and not having independent, stable housing. Housing was included in mo ther’s case plan, but she did not have her own residence throughout the case, including a t the time of the permanent custody hearing. In addition, mother’s employment wa s not consistent, and she was not employed at the time of the permanent custody heari ng. While mother participated in almost all of the recommended case plan service s, many of the issues

which caused the children to be removed from her care still exi st. {¶ 68} Upon review, we find there was clear and convincing evidence su pporting the juvenile court’s conclusion that the children cannot and sh ould not be placed with

mother. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). We further find the juvenile court’s conclusion that24. mother failed to remedy the conditions which caused the childre n to be placed outside of the home is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the r ecord. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). In addition, we find the juvenile court’s conc lusion that mother is unwilling to prevent the children from suffering emotional abus e or neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(14). {¶ 69} Turning to the second prong of the permanent custody analysis, the best interest of the children, the record shows the children were in and out of mother’s care, in

and out of two relatives’ homes and in and out of three differe nt foster homes over the course of the case. Mother and the children love each other, m other’s visits with the children are very appropriate and the children love spending ti me with mother. When the children were returned to mother’s care they would be hopeful t hat it would be forever and they would stay with mother, but when the children had to l eave mother’s care, they were sad. E.A. had aggression and behavioral issues, for which he has an IEP at school, and E.A. was referred to and attended counseling for his behavi or. E.A.’s wish was to live with mother, but the CASA/GAL recommended that permanent c ustody of the children be granted to LCCS so that the children could have a s table home and be adopted. {¶ 70} Based on the foregoing, we find the juvenile court had before i t clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody of the chil dren to LCCS was in the children’s best interest, as the evidence shows mother demonstr ated she is unable to provide a safe, stable, permanent home for the children. We fu rther find the juvenile25. court’s decision to grant permanent custody of the children to LCCS is supported by sufficient competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Accordingly, mother’s second assignme nt of

error is not well-taken. {¶ 71} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Cour t of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellant is ord ered to pay the court costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Arlene Singer, J. _________________

______________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.