[Cite as In re J.G. , 2020-Ohio-4701.]

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

In re Adoption of J.G., K.W. Court of Appeals No. L-20-1023 L-20-1024

Trial Court No. 2018 ADP 000142 2018 ADP 000143

DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: September 30, 2020

* * * * * John F. Potts, for appellant. David T. Rudebock, for appellee

* * * * * MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellants, T.B. and D.B., appeal the January 6, 2020 judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Proba te Division, denying their petition to adopt their great-grandchildren, J.G. and K.W . Appellee, Lucas County2. Children’s Services (“LCCS”), has filed a brief urging us to af firm the trial court judgments. For the following reasons, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand this matter to the probate court for further proceedings

. I. Background {¶ 2} J.G. (born in 2012) and K.W. (born in 2016) are the biological children of Jo.G. On December 12, 2017, Jo.G.’s parental rights were termi nated and permanent custody of the children was granted to LCCS. The children have been in foster care with a distant cousin, B.G, since August of 2016. {¶ 3} On September 5, 2018, T.B. and D.B., the children’s maternal gr eatgrandparents, filed a petition for adoption. LCCS objected to their petition. It argued that B.G. has taken good care of the children, has been a consi stent, stable presence in their lives, and has expressed an interest in adopting them, wh ile T.B. and D.B. have never held custody of them, have not maintained consistent cont act, have not represented a consistent, stable presence in their lives, have not approach ed LCCS to be studied for adoption, and have not presented LCCS with an approved adoptive home study. It maintained that the children’s placement with T.B. and D.B. wou ld not be the “least

detrimental alternative” for the children and would not be in t heir best interest. LCCS also expressed concern that T.B. and D.B. intended to return th e children to their mother, and it alleged that D.B. had at one time been approved to babys it J.G. with certain restrictions, but she violated those restrictions and lied to t he caseworker about it. LCCS3. noted that T.B. and D.B. sought custody in the juvenile court c ase, but the juvenile court granted custody to LCCS. 1 {¶ 4} In a judgment journalized on January 3, 2019, the trial court g ranted LCCS’s objection and dismissed the petition after T.B. and D.B. failed to appear for a pre-trial, notify the court of their legal representation, provide a depos it for their home study, or respond to LCCS’s objection. T.B. and D.B. moved to vacate the judgment and reinstate their petition to its docket, and the trial court granted their motion. The matter proceeded to hearing. A. The Hearing {¶ 5} A hearing took place on November 25-26, 2019, “on the issue of whether [LCCS] is unreasonably withholding its consent” to T.B. and D.B .’s petition to adopt. The following witnesses testified: D.B.; T.B.; B.G.; Danielle Stroble and Rick Mendieta, LCCS ongoing caseworkers; Linda Baker, an LCCS adoption casewor ker; attorney Mary Clark, the children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”); J.E., the chil dren’s maternal grandmother; A.H., the children’s half-sister; N.H., a family f riend; N.M, the children’s uncle; F.G., the children’s cousin; C.B., T.B.’s son and D.B.’s stepson; and C.R., a cousin

of D.B.

1. Danielle Stroble {¶ 6} Danielle Stroble is employed by LCCS as an ongoing caseworker. She was assigned J.G. and K.W.’s case on March 7, 2016, when it went fr om an investigation to

1 We affirmed the juvenile court judgment. In re J.G., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1311, 2018-Ohio-3981.4. an ongoing case. She was taken off the case in May of 2016, be cause maternal family members—A.H., specifically—made personal threats against her. {¶ 7} J.G. and K.W. were removed from their home because of domestic violence between Jo.G. and K.W.’s father, M.W. Once involved, LCCS beca me aware of drug issues and instability in the household. J.G. was placed with J.E., her maternal grandmother. Jo.G. was pregnant with K.W. at that time. {¶ 8} When K.W. was born, the agency originally planned to place K.W. with J.E. But the agency learned that J.E. had allowed J.G. to stay the n ight unsupervised at Jo.G.’s home, and a new domestic violence incident occurred in J.G.’s p resence. J.E. could no longer be trusted at this point. The agency obtained an ex par te order for custody and talked to the family about other relatives who could provide fo ster care. To Stroble’s knowledge, T.B. and D.B. did not ask to be considered. {¶ 9} When J.G. was living with J.E., Stroble spoke with D.B. about b eing a support for J.E. This could include babysitting and overseeing visits between Jo.G. and the children. D.B. and T.B. submitted fingerprints for a backg round check. The results came back and arrangements were made for D.B. to babysit J.G. o n April 3, 2016, at J.E.’s home; J.E. would be attending a staffing meeting at the hospital following K.W.’s birth. D.B. was not permitted to babysit in her own home becau se a sight and safety check of D.B. and T.B.’s home was required and had not yet been performed. {¶ 10} Instead of staying at J.E.’s home with J.G., D.B. showed up at the hospital for the staffing meeting. Stroble asked D.B. where J.G. was, a nd D.B. told Stroble that5. T.B. was watching J.G. at their home. Stroble said that D.B. k new that this was not permitted because the home had not yet been approved. {¶ 11} Despite this rule violation, LCCS continued to consider D.B. to be a support for the family. Stroble explained to D.B. that they we re trusting her to follow the rules and procedures of the agency. She said that D.B., J.E., and Jo.G. all understood that they needed to follow the rules. But a few days later, J.E. an d Jo.G. waited for Stroble

outside court. Stroble asked who was with J.G. J.E. and Jo.G admitted that D.B. was watching J.G. at D.B.’s home, which had still not been approved . Stroble called D.B. and

asked if J.G. had been to her home and D.B. said no. She did n ot tell Stroble the truth— that J.G. was there and had spent the night—until Stroble told her that J.E. and Jo.G. had already admitted that J.G. was there. At this point, LCCS conc luded that D.B. could not be trusted and could not provide oversight. {¶ 12} After D.B. lied to Stroble, it was not determined that she coul d have no further involvement with the kids; it was merely determined tha t she could not be approved as an oversight or babysitter. T.B. and D.B. never as ked Stroble about placing the children with them, so she cannot say that they would not h ave been considered for placement, but she acknowledged that an even greater level of t rust would be required to place the children with them. {¶ 13} Stroble testified that she is not aware of D.B. or T.B. ever se nding cards or letters to the children. On cross-examination, she agreed that while D.B. could not take J.G. to her own home, she would have been permitted to take her to a public place like6. the zoo or COSI. Stroble emphasized that if the child was goin g to be taken to a private home, this needed to be discussed with a supervisor.

2. Rick Mendieta {¶ 14} Rick Mendieta is also employed by LCCS as an ongoing caseworker . He was assigned to J.G. and K.W.’s case on May 24, 2017. Cristina Disilvis was the children’s caseworker in between Stroble and Mendieta. By the time Mendieta was assigned to the case, LCCS had already been awarded permanent c ustody of the children. {¶ 15} J.G. and K.W. have been in B.G.’s home since August 5, 2016. M endieta conducts monthly home visits, some of which are unannounced. H e talks with J.G. alone, but K.W. is too young for an alone interview. J.G. has been tired lately and refuses to talk, but they usually discuss school and any concer ns she may have. Of the approximately 30 times he has visited, J.G. has refused to talk to him only four or five times. She has not relayed any concerns about her living envir onment. {¶ 16} J.G. is in second grade. She is feisty and stubborn and has a mind of her own. She has had minor issues with her peers, but overall she gets very good grades.

She is not involved in extracurricular activities. J.G. was in counseling, but that has been successfully completed. J.G. sometimes talks about Jo.G. and J .E.; she talks more about J.E. than Jo.G. Recently, they showed up at her school and tha t embarrassed her, but she has also talked about them dropping off gifts for Christmas. B .G. has asked J.E. and Jo.G. not to show up randomly at her house or at school. J.G. has not expressed any feelings about A.H.7. {¶ 17} K.W. is babied and loved by everyone in the house. B.G. someti mes carries him around. K.W. was involved with Help Me Grow until he reached age three. He has completed treatment with a pulmonologist. Mendieta desc ribed K.W. as fearless. {¶ 18} B.G.’s 17-year-old daughter also lives in the house. She inter acts with the children like a typical sibling. Sometimes she wants to play w ith them, sometimes she bickers with J.G., and sometimes she wants to stay in her room. B.G. has two medium sized dogs. Mendieta has no concerns with the dogs. They are not dangerous and he has not observed dog feces or urine in the home. {¶ 19} B.G. is J.G.’s fourth home. She has had two foster homes and w as placed

with J.E. K.W. went to one other foster home for about four mo nths, then moved in with

B.G. the same date as J.G. The children are comfortable at B.G .’s home, they love B.G. and her daughter, and they appear to be at ease. B.G. talks to the kids, helps with homework, and cooks dinner. The children seem bonded with her and are doing well; they appear well-adjusted. Mendieta has no concerns with B.G.’ s home. It is small, but

it meets the children’s needs. {¶ 20} The initial goal of the case plan was reunification, but there is now an adoptive service on their case plan. The agency has not been l ooking for an adoptive home because B.G. has expressed an interest in adopting the chi ldren; she has completed pre-services and the adoption application and is licensed to ad opt them. She has not filed a petition yet because of the ongoing case. The adoption worke r is Linda Baker.8. {¶ 21} Mendieta has had no contact with T.B. or D.B. They have never emailed or called with inquiries. They have never asked him how they m ight go about completing an adoptive home study or be considered for adoption. To his k nowledge, they have never had contact with the children. Before permanent custody was awarded to LCCS, the biological parents were visiting at the agency; T.B. and D. B. could have done this too. Mendieta became aware of T.B. and D.B.’s adoption petition when legal counsel provided him with the motion. {¶ 22} T.B. and D.B.’s home study was not approved. Mendieta believes it is

because of their lack of bond with the children and an issue wi th them being less than forthcoming during LCCS’s involvement. B.G.’s is the only appr oved adoptive home study the agency has. {¶ 23} Mendieta has concerns with T.B. and D.B. being permitted to ado pt the children. K.W. does not know them; B.G.’s home is the only hom e he has known and it

would be traumatic to remove him. J.G. does not have an active relationship with them

and has never mentioned them. His recommendation is that B.G. be permitted to adopt the children. LCCS does not like moving children, especially a fter they have had multiple moves and are in a home where they are safe, are getti ng their needs met, and are someplace that may be a permanent solution. {¶ 24} Mendieta has never told J.G. that her great-grandparents are in terested in adopting them and has never asked her what she thought of them. J.G. has some trust issues because her mother and grandmother have made promises th at did not come true,9. so he would not want to get her anxious or raise her hopes unti l he knew for certain what the plan was. T.B. and D.B. have not yet come back into their lives, so he does not know

how J.G. would feel or react.

3. D.B. {¶ 25} D.B. testified that she is the children’s great-grandmother. S he last saw K.W. three years ago, when he was in the hospital after he was born. She does not know the last time she saw J.G. The kids live with B.G., who is a d istant cousin. D.B. has

never visited the children at B.G.’s home. She called B.G. onc e to ask if she could bring Christmas presents for the kids, but B.G. would not allow it. She has not spoken to anyone from LCCS to try to obtain visitation or contact with th e kids, nor did she contact LCCS to arrange to get gifts to the children—she said she did n ot know that she could do

that. {¶ 26} D.B. says that B.G. is not “[her] kind of person.” She describ es B.G. as “too flighty” and “hormonal.” She maintains that J.G. never me t B.G. before being placed in her care. D.B. believes that B.G. has excluded her a nd her husband from the

children’s lives. She has never seen B.G. interact with the ki ds. She has never witnessed interactions between B.G., J.E., and Jo.E. {¶ 27} D.B. never contacted LCCS herself to get a home study; J.E. con tacted the home study assessor. D.B. first stated that she did not interp ret the home study as concluding that she was not recommended to adopt the children, but ultimately acknowledged that the home study “was denied,” which she attrib uted to her age. She10. did not contact anyone at LCCS after learning the results of th e home study. D.B.

conceded that J.E. and Jo.G. have contributed toward the costs associated with trying to obtain custody of the children. The GAL never contacted her or inspected her home. {¶ 28} D.B. maintains that she and T.B. love their great-grandchildren and want them in their home. She believes that she and T.B. can provide them with a loving, nurturing home and it is in their best interest to be with thei r great-grandparents. She describes herself as a young 63 with no significant health prob lems, and she insists that she is physically able to raise a young child. She is confiden t that if the children adapted to B.G.’s home, they will be able to adapt to her home. {¶ 29} D.B. testified that J.E., who is her daughter and the children’ s grandmother, visits her home a few times a week. Jo.G., the children’s moth er, comes for holidays and visits occasionally. D.B. said that she did not know if she wo uld allow J.E. and Jo.G. to have contact with the children if her petition for adoption is granted. She supposed that “in the beginning,” she would not. She would want the children to become settled and relaxed in her home before she would allow contact with them, b ut after they were settled, she would probably allow J.E. and Jo.G. to see them “i f things were permitted.” She denied that if allowed to adopt the children, she intends t o return them to Jo.G. {¶ 30} D.B. acknowledged that her 90-year old mother-in-law lived with her and her husband for about five-and-a-half months, beginning in May of 2019. She was bedridden and required a lot of care. They placed her in a nur sing facility for respite care that was initially supposed to last two weeks. It ultimately l asted four weeks and her11. mother-in-law did not return to their home. Instead, she went to live with her daughter. D.B. explained that this decision was made so that her mother-i n-law could spend time with her daughter, who was unable to visit her at T.B. and D.B. ’s home because of lack of transportation. {¶ 31} D.B. said that she attended a staffing at Toledo Hospital after K.W. was born. She acknowledged talking on the phone with LCCS casework er, Danielle Stroble; she said that Stroble hung up on her. D.B. denied that LCCS in formed her of any restrictions with respect to babysitting J.G., and she denies v iolating any LCCS restrictions. She did not think it would hurt anything to let T.B. babysit J.G. because he is her great-grandfather.

4. B.G. {¶ 32} J.G. and K.W. have been in B.G.’s home since August 5, 2016. J o.G. is the one who asked her if the children could stay with her. They we re in foster care with LCCS and they were looking for somebody in the family that they could be with. The process started in May of 2016. B.G. submitted her fingerprint s. A home study was performed and was approved. {¶ 33} K.W. is three and very bubbly. He talks a lot and is full of l ife. When he came to her, he had been diagnosed with asthma, hypothyroidism, and laryngomalacia—a hole in the esophagus. He sees a pulmonologist, an endocrinolo gist, and his family physician. He was involved with Help Me Grow until he was thre e and now he is in Head Start. He had to wear special pants to keep his legs toge ther when he first started12. walking, and he wore special shoes. He had speech therapy, but his speech has improved. He sees his doctors approximately every three months

. {¶ 34} J.G. is bubbly and princess-like. She loves attention, loves t o learn new things, is interested in math and science, and reads at a fourt h-grade level even though she is in the second grade. School is going well for her. J.G . has taken art classes at the museum. Next year she may start soccer or basketball. {¶ 35} J.G. and K.W. get along like normal siblings. They like to go to the park and the library, and they like to take walks. B.G. also has a 17-year-old daughter, H.G. J.G. and H.G. get along like sisters would—sometimes they get a long; sometimes they

don’t. {¶ 36} B.G. is willing to adopt the children. She has gone through th e adoptive home study process and was approved. She lives in a three-bedr oom house, but it has sufficient room for the children. She has two medium-sized dog s. They are loud but gentle and they love the kids. There have been no negative int eractions between the kids and the dogs. {¶ 37} In September, J.E. and Jo.G. came to give the kids some clothes . Jo.G. said she was doing better and was in rehab. B.G. wanted to see some records from rehab or speak with the counselor to verify that Jo.G. was doing better, but this never happened. They came a few times and wanted to see the kids on Halloween o f 2018. There was a bad interaction at J.G.’s school. Jo.G. was “bouncing around” and the police had to get involved to escort J.G.’s bus home. The police believed Jo.G. was under the influence13. and may have wanted to take J.G. The principal called her and wanted to talk to her about the situation and the police spoke with her. Because of this, B.G. ended up not spending Halloween with J.E. and Jo.G.; instead she took the ki ds trick-or-treating with a friend. After that, B.G. stopped answering Jo.G.’s phone calls . She is not aware of any criminal charges being filed against Jo.G. in connection with t his incident. {¶ 38} B.G. knows T.B. and D.B.—T.B. is her cousin. D.B. called her a round last November to ask if the children could come for Thanksgiving or Christmas. B.G. did not allow it because she was concerned that D.B. was going to let J o.G. take them. She had

no further interaction with T.B. and D.B. after this. B.G. has always gotten along with T.B. and D.B. They are polite, friendly, clean, set a good exa mple, and she has no reason to believe that they would be bad adoptive parents. {¶ 39} When Jo.G. still had visitation rights, B.G. spoke with her a l ot. She would call periodically to speak with the kids and wanted to come to see them as much as possible. But LCCS did not want J.E. and Jo.G. to see the kids outside of visitation, so she tried to keep them at bay and allow only telephone contact. Jo.G. would call about twice a week, then might not call again for six or eight weeks. Since the agency obtained permanent custody, Jo.G. would pop in demanding to see them. S he behaved volatilely. The interaction with J.E. was similar. It would go really well or really badly. She no longer has phone communications with them because if J.E. or Jo .G. disagreed with her, it would end up in a fight.14. {¶ 40} A.H. stopped by three or four times and would sit outside on th e porch with her and visit with J.G. She stopped coming around when she got pregnant. Usually those visits were okay, but the last time she was there, she showed u p with a car full of men. It was dark out and B.G. did not know A.H. was coming, so she did not answer the door. A man got out of the car and started beating on the door. {¶ 41} J.E. and Jo.G. have given the kids gifts. T.B. and D.B. never have, and they have not seen the kids since they have been in B.G.’s care . If they were to see the kids, B.G. thinks it should be monitored because she is concern ed they will hand the kids over to Jo.G. and J.E. because “[she has] heard them all say it .” Jo.G. told her at one time that she knew a woman who was planning to adopt the children sh e was caring for and return them to their biological mother. Jo.G. wanted B.G. to d o this for her. B.G. does not know if T.B. and D.B. would go along with Jo.G.’s desire to return the children to

her. {¶ 42} B.G. wants to adopt the kids because they are like her babies. She thinks it is in their best interest. It is concerning to her that T.B. a nd D.B. do not know the children. J.G. never speaks of them. She showed J.G. a pictur e of them and she didn’t know who they were. J.G. misses Jo.G. but has expressed that s he is scared sometimes and not trusting when she is with her. She mentions J.E. once in a while. She does not

mention A.H. {¶ 43} N.H. has dropped off gifts for the kids before from J.E., Jo.G. , and A.H. B.G. did not have a problem with A.H. visiting until it got “na sty,” then she just stopped15. communicating with A.H. B.G. blocked her phone calls in Octobe r of 2018, after she

swore at her and made demands. She thinks monitored visits wit h A.H. would be appropriate. B.G. believes A.H. is a bad influence on the kids . She thinks A.H. parties, drinks, and does drugs. She also believes that A.H. has sung v ulgar raps songs to the children and taught them gang signs. She demonstrated some of the hand gestures she has seen them make but does not know what the signs mean. She and A.H. fought

because B.G. would not let her take the kids with her. {¶ 44} Around a month or two ago, while driving, B.G. saw A.H.’s car i n Rossford. She (or perhaps someone else in her vehicle) followe d B.G., passed her, then turned around and came at her head-on. B.G. called the police, then followed A.H. onto I-75 to get her license plate number. She does not think that A.H. was coming to see the children because it was around noon on a weekday, when J.G. was in school. {¶ 45} B.G. volunteers at Maumee Valley Save-a-Pet. She used to work at Northwood Club Pet Resort. She was employed there for six mont hs. She does some painting work. The last time she had a full-time job was when the kids came to live with her. She stopped working at that point and her ex-boyfriend he lped support her. They broke up in October of 2017. {¶ 46} B.G. gets child support of $500 for H.G., until next year when she turns 18, and she gets support for the other children. The state pays fo r K.W.’s health care. She receives no compensation for taking him to appointments. She d enied that she has an economic interest in keeping the kids. At first she received n o income for the kids, but16. this changed around the end of the summer of 2019. Since signi ng the adoption papers, she gets a subsidy of $700. Before the $700 subsidy, she recei ved $400 from Ohio workforce. She would still be willing to adopt even without th e subsidy. {¶ 47} B.G. believes H.G., J.G., and K.W. are well-adjusted. She agre es that it is a healthy thing for kids to maintain a relationship with grandp arents and aunts and uncles and it would be a good thing for the kids to have a relationshi p with their sister.

5. Linda Baker {¶ 48} Linda Baker is employed by LCCS as an adoption caseworker. Whe n LCCS decides to pursue permanent custody, there is an adoption referral made. She monitors the case until there’s a permanent custody decision an d then she works with the prospective adoptive family towards finalization by monitoring the adjustment of the child and the family in the home. She was assigned to J.G. and K.W.’s case in May of

2017. {¶ 49} After permanent custody is granted to the agency, Baker is in c ontact with the family every other month until an adoptive placement agreem ent is signed, then monthly. Barker has been to B.G.’s home and has observed the c hildren. B.G. lives in the Rossford school district. Her home is small but adequate, with a large side yard. The children are well-adjusted and Barker has no concerns about the ir interactions. B.G. is loving, nurturing, and patient. The children have food and she lter and J.G. is in school. J.G. likes school and is healthy. K.W. had some issues early o n but seems healthy now.17. {¶ 50} Barker has no concerns about B.G.’s dogs. B.G. is willing to a dopt and the agency has consented. There was a home study and a pre-finaliz ation assessment report approving B.G.’s home. {¶ 51} The agency holds a matching conference, mandated by the state, where it looks at the home study of families interested in adopting. Th ere is also a child characteristic check that goes along with it that takes into ac count the children’s behavior, any special needs, ages, number of children, whether there has been juvenile court involvement, whether psychiatric services are needed, the child ren’s level of bonding, school services, continuity of care, and whether siblings would stay together. A matching conference took place here. {¶ 52} Barker has had no contact with T.B. and D.B. They never contac ted her for a home study. She did not know who they were until the adoptio n petition was filed. She did not receive an approved home study for them. T.B. and D.B. were not evaluated

because she did not know about them. {¶ 53} B.G.’s is the only home Barker has investigated or examined. B ecause Barker does not know T.B. or D.B., she cannot comment on whethe r they would be good adoptive parents. She does not know A.H. and has no opinion wh ether it would be good for her to have regular contact with J.G. and K.W. {¶ 54} J.G. has expressed excitement at being adopted by B.G. She wan ts certainty as to where she is going to be and she is happy where she is. Barker has not18. discussed with her whether she would be happier if she were ado pted by her greatgrandparents. 6. Mary Clark {¶ 55} Clark was appointed as the children’s GAL. She has completed a n investigation. She does monthly home visits, some announced, s ome unannounced. She plays with the children when she visits. B.G.’s home has three bedrooms. She has two dogs, but they are usually outside or behind a gate when Clark comes because Clark has allergies. {¶ 56} K.W. was born positive for methadone and had withdrawal in the beginning. B.G. has met all of his medical, social, and emotio nal needs. J.G. did not have much structure when she was living with her grandmother. She had more structure at her first foster home and adjusted well, but she still exper ienced trauma. J.G. transitioned nicely into B.G.’s home. B.G. is very loving and open with communication. When J.G. was seeing her mother at the agency, it was chaotic f or her. Visitation had to

be terminated because it was not in J.G.’s best interest. {¶ 57} J.G. is very talkative. K.W. is also talkative but sometimes d ifficult to understand. Clark talks with J.G. about school, her friends, h er favorite colors, and dancing. J.G. always has things to show her and talk to her ab out. She loves reading and reads at a fourth-grade level. She likes art. Clark told B.G. about scholarships for programs at the art museum. J.G. participated and loved it. J .G. says she wants B.G. to adopt her. She does not talk about her mom much. Living with her mom scared J.G.19. because Jo.E. and M.W. fought. She does not talk about J.E. or her great-grandparents and it has been a very long time since she has talked about A.H

. {¶ 58} Clark was present during the permanent custody trial. Her opin ion at the permanent custody hearing was that LCCS should be awarded perma nent custody of the children. She saw T.B. and D.B. at the permanent custody heari ng but does not know them and has had no contact with them. They did not seek custo dy in the permanent custody case. They have not contacted her. She knows about th eir history with the agency and the lack of trust. She knows Jo.G. really wants to get the kids back and B.G. has been good at saving the children from that drama. She is n ot sure T.B. and D.B.

could do this. {¶ 59} Clark recommends that B.G. be permitted to adopt the children. B.G. is a relative who was recommended by Jo.G. in the first place, J.G. has been with B.G. half her life, and K.W. has been there all his life. They are bonde d with B.G., there is structure, they are loved, they are part of the family, and the ir needs are being met. While she is certain that T.B. and D.B. are a nice family and w ant what is best for the children, Clark sees no reason for J.G. and K.W.’s situation to be disrupted. She believes it is in their best interest that they remain with B.G. {¶ 60} There was no reason to independently investigate T.B. and D.B., especially after Clark saw the home study. She agrees that the home study was not approved because of the lack of a prior relationship. Since she has bee n involved with the children, she has not heard of them having a relationship. She has done no comparative analysis20. between B.G. and T.B. and D.B. and she sees no reason to do one . She believes it would be traumatic and detrimental to disrupt the bond the children c urrently have with B.G. They are thriving where they are. {¶ 61} Clark at one point was A.H.’s GAL. Initially A.H. tried to sta y above the drama of the family, but she ultimately dropped out of twelfth grade, got pregnant, and

now has two children. Clark thinks it has been hard for her to be a functioning adult because there were a lot of countervailing forces. After A.H. became emancipated, Clark no longer had contact with her. Clark trusts B.G., so she trus ts when B.G. expresses concerns about A.H.’s influence. Generally speaking, Clark bel ieves it is good for minor siblings to maintain regular contact with their older siblings if the older sibling is appropriate. She trusts that B.G. will someday allow A.H. to c ome back into their lives.

7. J.E. {¶ 62} J.E. is the maternal grandmother of J.G. and K.W. She is the daughter of T.B. and D.B. She testified that when LCCS obtained custody of J.G., she was initially allowed visitation at the agency. She would generally be there with her daughter, Jo.G., and her granddaughter, A.H., J.G.’s older sister. She approxim ates that she visited with

the kids four to five times. She testified that the second to last time she visited, she noticed a creamy discharge in J.G.’s underwear, which she repor ted to caseworker

Christina Disilvis. About a month later when she visited with J.G., J.G. told her that her “pee pee hurts.” The left lip of her vagina appeared to have “ a little burn” and there was “a really bad discharge.” She reported this to a number of peo ple, including “the mayor,21. the commissioner, the FBI, * * * even the sister at Rosary Cath edral.” She also spoke with Robin Reese, an LCCS ombudsman. She claims that no action was taken, but on cross-examination she acknowledged that Disilvis told her that her allegation of sexual

abuse was determined to be unfounded. {¶ 63} J.E. claims that after making these complaints, she was no long er able to see J.G. J.G. was living with B.G. at this time. She claimed that her relationship with B.G. was good until she made this report. After that, B.G. den ied access to J.G. {¶ 64} Before LCCS obtained custody of J.G., J.G. had a good relations hip with her great-grandparents. They saw each other at least every cou ple of weeks, but maybe two to three times a week during the summer because they went s wimming there. She also spent the holidays with her great-grandparents. She said J.G.’s great-grandparents were important to J.G. and she was close to them. Several fami ly photos were shown to

J.E. and she identified them. {¶ 65} The last time J.E. saw J.G. was October 30, 2018. B.G. allowed J.E. and Jo.G. to see the children for Halloween. She let them give the kids candy and costumes and take them trick-or-treating. She said K.W. hugged Jo.G. an d wrapped his arms and legs around her.

8. A.H. {¶ 66} A.H. is the great-granddaughter of T.B. and D.B. She is the si ster of J.G. and K.W. She is 20 years old. She has two children, both of w hom have the same father. She was emancipated at age 17 and left school her senior year. She plans to get her GED,22. then she wants to go to beauty school and become an aestheticia n. A.H. is employed. When she works, her children are watched by their father. He s ometimes works installing furnaces. She has a car and makes the car payments. {¶ 67} Before she was emancipated, A.H. lived with her grandmother, J. E. She spent holidays at T.B. and D.B.’s home, was very close with the m, and would see them a few times a week. Her great-grandparents are important to her and have always taken an

interest in her. This is also true for J.G. {¶ 68} J.G. was three years old when she was taken from her home. J.G . was like a daughter to A.H. She last saw her a year ago. B.G. will not let J.G. see her or talk to her on the phone. B.G. changed her phone number. Before last year, B.G. would let her come by to visit one or two times a week and would let her call . A.H. noticed a sudden change in B.G.’s attitude. B.G. eventually said it was getting to be too much for her. She denied that she went to B.G.’s home with a bunch of guys in her car. She did not teach J.G. gang signs or teach her any songs with offensive lyrics. {¶ 69} Three to five months ago, B.G. followed A.H. in her car and it scared her. She went the wrong way down a one-way street to avoid a confron tation with her. B.G. took her phone out and recorded A.H. B.G. then followed her do wn the expressway. The Rossford police never called to question her. She never tr ied to smash B.G.’s car. {¶ 70} A.H. met B.G. for the first time when she was about 16, then ag ain when B.G. came to get J.G. from LCCS. She had no prior relationship with B.G.23. {¶ 71} A.H. got to meet K.W. but never got to build a relationship wit h him. She

has not been able to see him since he has learned to walk and t alk. It makes her emotional and depressed and she feels a loss not being able to see her brother and sister. J.G. would always be excited to see her. {¶ 72} A.H. denies that she uses drugs or alcohol. When she is not at home with her kids, she goes on dates with their dad. She would like to be a part of her siblings’ lives again. {¶ 73} A.H. acknowledged that she was charged with a safe school assau lt, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction of offici al business. She was sentenced to jail time, suspended on the condition of probation . She has a theft conviction for stealing merchandise at Macy’s. Her last arrest was approximately a year ago. She denies that she has a bad temper or that she is a bad influence on J.G. She has never lost her temper with B.G., J.G., or K.W.

9. N.H. {¶ 74} N.H. is a friend of T.B. and D.B.’s family. He and J.E. went t o B.G.’s home several times to visit the kids. The first time, it was v ery cordial. J.E. and B.G. smoked a cigarette in the backyard while the kids played. The next time, a few weeks later, things were tense. B.G. went outside while J.E. visited with the kids. N.H. went back a couple more times to deliver gifts for the children. He chatted with B.G. while the kids opened their gifts. He described that B.G.’s house was in “pretty decent order,” but the odor of her three dogs bothered him.24. {¶ 75} N.H. has known B.G. for a long time. Her ex-husband was one of N.H.’s

students. The last time he saw B.G. was the Christmas before l ast. He went with J.E. and Jo.G to deliver presents. J.E. knocked, but nobody answered. After they left, they were pulled over by two Rossford police officers who said that they had been notified that they were at the property and there was an order prohibiting them fr om being there. The officers contacted B.G. and B.G. agreed to allow N.H. to drop o ff the gifts. He left them on the porch because no one answered the door when he knocked. {¶ 76} N.H. often had contact with J.G. before she was placed with B.G . He has observed J.G. with her great-grandparents at holidays. J.G. wo uld run up and give her great-grandparents hugs.

10. N.M. {¶ 77} N.M. is the grandson of T.B. and D.B., the son of J.E., the bro ther of Jo.G., and the children’s uncle. He lives with J.E. He spent a lot o f time with A.H. and J.G. when they were growing up because they lived on the same street . He would see J.G. almost daily. J.G. spent “a pretty good amount” of time with h er great-grandparents. They would go to their home for holidays and family gatherings. {¶ 78} N.M. described T.B. as a good, respectful man. He and his gran dfather enjoyed outdoors activities together, like fishing, and T.B. wo uld help N.M. with school projects. D.B. is a good cook. She loves the kids and is very motherly toward them. T.B. and D.B. have a big yard; J.G. liked to play and run aroun d in the yard.25. 11. F.G. {¶ 79} F.G. is the great-granddaughter of T.B. and D.B. Before J.G. w as placed in foster care, she saw her twice a week. F.G. goes to T.B. and D .B.’s home approximately twice a week. She described it as very calm and family-oriente d. Her great-grandparents are dependable and were a big part of J.G.’s life. J.G. was al ways excited to see them

and she would run to them. F.G. has never met K.W.

12. C.B. {¶ 80} C.B. is the son of T.B. and the stepson of D.B. He described h is father as an outdoorsman who is good with kids. C.B. lived with T.B. and D.B. after separating from his girlfriend, so he would see J.G. when Jo.G. brought he r over. He said that D.B. has been very good to him and he loves her. She is patient wit h her grandchildren and makes cookies for them. It has been approximately 15 years sinc e T.B. and D.B. have cared for a child under the age of ten. T.B. had his rotator c uff repaired so he does not fish much lately. He was hospitalized within the last three ye ars for a respiratory issue. C.B.’s grandmother lived with T.B. and D.B. for a couple of mon ths and nurses came to the home to assist in her care. C.B. has a couple of theft con victions and convictions for driving under suspension.

13. C.R. {¶ 81} C.R. is D.B.’s first cousin. She spends time at T.B. and D.B.’ s home for holidays and cookouts and sees them at funerals and other famil y gatherings. She has

seen J.G. at T.B. and D.B.’s home. J.G. was close with T.B. an d D.B. and loves them.26. They are good with kids and are physically able to take care of them despite their age. T.B. has had surgeries in the past but no “health issues.” C.R . has not seen J.G. in three years. She described B.G. as “not right,” but she conceded tha t she has never met her or

been to her home.

14. T.B. {¶ 82} T.B. testified that he and D.B. are retired. They have been ma rried for 43 years and have one child together. He has three children from a previous marriage. {¶ 83} T.B. testified that he is under no physical limitations that wo uld impair his ability to raise young children. He described himself as activ e. He hunts, fishes, and cares for his three-acre yard. He looks forward to having youn g children around and said that they keep him young. He wants to teach J.G. how to raise livestock. {¶ 84} T.B. does not like B.G.; he believes she is flighty and “her mo rals aren’t exactly up to [his] standards.” He believes she behaves in a s exually provocative way.

He never contacted LCCS about the concerns he had with B.G. and he never filed charges. {¶ 85} T.B. disagrees that it would be too traumatic to remove the chi ldren from B.G.’s care. He and his wife have always been close with J.G. and the children should be with their maternal family. They always had fun together and s he was always active with them. J.G. came from “a family with drugs,” so he imagines tha t the transition to B.G.’s home was positive, but he believes it would be easier for her t o transition to being in their

home. He is certain she will remember them.27. {¶ 86} T.B. denied that their petition for adoption is just a sham to give the

children back to their mother. He claims that he would not let anyone—including his own children—be around the children if they were on drugs or no t in their right mind. He and D.B. are able to take care of the children financially. {¶ 87} Jo.G. and J.E. have helped pay the costs associated with petiti oning to adopt the children, but T.B. stated that the entire family has contributed to the costs. He said they could afford to pay themselves but it made the family feel good to help. {¶ 88} Two years ago, T.B. had rotator cuff surgery. His mother lived with them for five or six months. They paid for most things for his moth er until “social security kicked in,” but she also had aides. It has been 15 years since he and D.B. cared for children under the age of 10 for an extended period of time. H e let D.B. handle speaking with LCCS about the home study, but insisted that he would not rely on her to provide care for the children. He never contacted LCCS to arrange to v isit with the children. B. The Trial Court Judgment {¶ 89} In judgments journalized on January 6, 2020, the trial court de nied T.B. and D.B.’s petitions for adoption. It found that the evidence was uncontroverted that the children are currently in a stable family relationship and have adjusted well to their current home, school, and community. It observed that J.G. exp erienced negativity while with her birth parents and the juvenile court acknowledged this negativity by terminating parental rights. The court noted that J.G. has had four placem ents, none of which were with T.B. and D.B., and has expressed a desire to be adopted by her current caregiver. It28. recognized that the GAL recommends that the children remain tog ether in their current placement and expressed concerns that a new placement could ver y likely be problematic. The court was persuaded that the agency has “real and significant” concerns that if the petition for adoption is granted, the children will have contact with their birth parents. {¶ 90} T.B. and D.B. appealed the trial court judgments and assign the following

errors for our review:

I. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR FOR THE PROBATE COURT TO

FIND APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE “AN APPROVED HOME

STUDY ASSESSMENT.”

II. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR TO FIND THAT LCCS WAS NOT

UNREASONABLY WITHHOLDING CONSENT TO APPELLANTS’

PETITIONS FOR ADOPTION.

III. IT CONSTITUTED ERROR NOT TO BIFURCATE THE

PROCEEDINGS. II. Law and Analysis {¶ 91} In their first assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that th e trial court erred when it found that they did not have an approved home stu dy assessment under R.C. 3107.031. In their second assignment of error, they argue that the trial court erred when it concluded that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold its c onsent to adoption under R.C. 3107.07(H). And in their third assignment of error, they argue that the court erred in failing to bifurcate the hearing on the issues of (1) whether the agency29. unreasonably withheld its consent to adoption, and (2) whether adoption of the children by T.B. and D.B. would be in the children’s best interest under R.C. 3107.161. We address each of these assignments in turn. A. The Home Study {¶ 92} In their first assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that it was contrary to law for the probate court to find that they did not have an app roved home study assessment. They maintain that the section of the home study as sessment entitled “Disposition of Adoption Parties” is left blank and, therefore, does not express one of the permissible recommendations required under Ohio Admn. Code 5101 :2-48-12(T). {¶ 93} R.C. 3107.031 requires that a home study be conducted “for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person seeking to adopt a minor is suita ble to adopt.” A written report of the home study must be filed with the court stating “ the opinion of the assessor as to whether the person who is the subject of the report is su itable to adopt a minor.” R.C. 3107.031. Under Ohio Admn. Code 5101:2-48-12(T), “[t]he a ssessor shall make one or more of the following recommendations at the completion of the adoption homestudy: (1) [a]pprove the applicant(s) as adoptive parent(s) [;] (2) [a]pprove the applicant(s) as adoptive parents and recommend the applicant(s) for certification as a foster caregiver(s) simultaneously[;] (3) [d]eny the adoption a pplication.” {¶ 94} T.B. and D.B. are correct that the disposition section of the h ome study assessment is left blank. But as they acknowledge, in the sect ion of the assessment30. entitled “Family Strengths and Needs,” the assessor provided a narrative, stating that she is not recommending an adoptive placement with T.B. and D.B. S he explained: I am not recommending an adoptive placement with this family at this time. [T.B. and D.B.] are good people who have reared the ir children and were involved with grandchildren. I believe they want [J.G . and K.W.] to be reared with family and are making this gesture out of lov e. However, they do not have any direct experience with these children. I am uncomfortable placing them permanently if they have not had a chance to develop a relationship and see if they are up t o the demands of two young children. In other situations like this, the fami ly has had, at the least, supervised visitations at LCCS and have an establish ed relationship with the children. It is unclear why [T.B. and D. B.] have not had this opportunity. They told me they were denied by LCCS. During my three month involvement with [T.B. and D.B.], it has appeared stressful for them to complete the homestudy process. Communication with them was difficult and it appeared that cari ng for [T.B.]’s mother was an additional stressor. They also indicate d that their children’s support would be limited because they would not visi t in the inclement weather. I also have questions about their health an d stamina and believe it was difficult for them to be open with me about issues that could impact their parenting.31. {¶ 95} T.B. and D.B. maintain that the home study assessment did not c onclude that their home was unsuitable; rather it “essentially describe d [their] personal characteristics and their home in more-or-less glowing terms.” It also described that T.B. and D.B. met the applicable criteria for maturity, responsibili ty, financial capability, and love of the children. Nevertheless, “out of the blue,” the ass essor declined to recommend them as an adoptive placement based on their lack of direct exp erience with the children and the absence of an opportunity to “develop a relationship an d see if they are up to the demands of two young children.” They counter that it is untrue that they have had no direct experience with the children, and they emphasize that wh ile K.W. was taken from his biological mother shortly after birth, J.G. spent every maj or holiday with them until being placed with B.G. {¶ 96} Regardless of whether T.B. and D.B. agree with the assessor’s c onclusions, their first assignment claims error in the trial court’s conclu sion that they lack an approved home study. They argue that this conclusion was contr ary to law given that “the report itself fails to conform to the requirements of law. ” We must disagree. It may have been preferable for the assessor to have completed the sec tion of the form entitled “Disposition of Adoption Application” and to have checked one o f the two boxes provided: (1) adoption application denied; or (2) adoption app lication approved. But the

assessment makes clear that the assessor recommended that T.B. and D.B. not be approved for adoptive placement. As such, the assessment inclu ded one of the recommendations required under Ohio Admn. Code 5101:2-48-12(T).32. {¶ 97} We, therefore, find T.B. and D.B.’s first assignment of error n ot well-taken. B. Withholding of Consent {¶ 98} Generally speaking, an agency that has permanent custody of a m inor must consent in writing to the adoption of the minor before a petiti on to adopt may be granted. R.C. 3107.06(D). But under R.C. 3107.07(H), consent to an adop tion is not required of “[a]ny legal guardian or lawful custodian of the person to be a dopted, other than a parent, who * * *, after examination of the written reasons for withhol ding consent, is found by the court to be withholding consent unreasonably.” In their se cond assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that the trial court erred in concluding th at LCCS did not unreasonably withhold its consent to their petition for adoptio n. {¶ 99} In order to dispense with the consent requirement, it must be s hown by clear and convincing evidence that the agency unreasonably with held its consent to the adoption. In re Adoption of I.C., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1157, 2011-Ohio-1145, ¶ 32, citing Matter of Jeffrey A., 6th Dist. No. L-08-1006, 2008–Ohio–5135, ¶ 9. “Clear and convincing evidence” is “‘that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind

of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the all egations sought to be

established.’” Id., quoting Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). It is an intermediate burden of proof—more than a prep onderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. {¶ 100} “[A]n adoption proceeding is a two-step process involving a ‘co nsent’ phase and a ‘best-interest’ phase.” (Internal citation omitted .) In re Jeffrey A. at ¶ 4. If33. “the court finds that the required consents have been obtained or excused and that the adoption is in the best interest of the person sought to be ado pted as supported by the evidence, it may issue * * * a final decree of adoption or an i nterlocutory order of adoption * * *.” R.C. 3107.14(C). We review a trial court’s d etermination of the reasonableness of the agency’s withholding of consent under an abuse-of-discretion

standard. In the Matter of Adoption of Shortridge, 4th Dist. Pike No. 387, 1985 WL 9478, *4 (May 30, 1985) (“[W]e believe the proper focus is upon whether the court below, in determining the withholding of consent to adoption wa s reasonable, abused its discretion.”). An unreasonable decision is one that lacks soun d reasoning to support the

decision. Hageman v. Bryan City Schools , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-742, 2019- Ohio-223, ¶ 13. {¶ 101} Here, the court found that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold c onsent to T.B. and D.B.’s petition for adoption. It reasoned that (1) J. G. has had four placements and a fifth placement would likely be problematic for her; (2) the children are currently in a stable family relationship and are well-adjusted to their hom e and community; (3) J.G. is well-adjusted to school; (4) J.G. is of the age that she has expressed a desire to be adopted by her current caregiver and has expressed that she exp erienced negativity while with her birth parents; (5) there is a “real and significant” c oncern that the children would once again have contact with their birth parents if T.B. and D. B. are allowed to adopt; and (6) the GAL recommends that the children remain together in their current placement. Compare In re Jeffrey A. at ¶ 11 (finding that LCCS unreasonably withheld34. consent when it relied on only one factor—that petitioners were not blood relatives of the children—and ignored numerous other factors, including the chil dren’s relationship with the petitioners, the nurturing home environment, the relationsh ips between the children and petitioners’ biological children, and the developmental pro gress the children achieved under petitioners’ primary care). While the court ack nowledged that T.B. and D.B. are genuinely concerned with the children’s best interests , it found that those interests would be best served by the children remaining in the ir current placement. {¶ 102} Having reviewed the record in its entirety, including the trans cripts from the two-day hearing, we conclude that it was not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the agency unreasonably withheld its consent to the adopti on. We find that the trial court’s decision is supported by sound reasoning, and it did no t abuse its discretion in concluding that LCCS did not unreasonably withhold its consent. {¶ 103} Accordingly, we find T.B. and D.B.’s second assignment of error not

well-taken.

C. Bifurcation {¶ 104} In their third assignment of error, T.B. and D.B. argue that th e trial court erred in failing to bifurcate the proceedings with respect to t he issues of consent and the best interest of the children. They maintain that the trial co urt began the hearing by announcing that the November 25, 2019 hearing would be dedicate d to the issue of whether LCCS unreasonably withheld its consent to adoption, but the court nevertheless went on to deny their adoption petition, concluding that a new placement would not be in35. the children’s best interest. They insist that this was error because they were denied the opportunity to be heard on the issue of the children’s best int erests. {¶ 105} Before the hearing began, the trial court announced its intent to limit the hearing to the issue of consent and to hold a second hearing on the issue of the children’s best interest, perhaps with an agreement by the parties that ce rtain evidence presented in the first hearing may be stipulated to in the second hearing. It recognized the difficulty in separating the two issues, particularly given that LCCS had wit hheld its consent because it felt that adoption by T.B. and D.B. would not be in J.G. and K.W.’s best interest. But the court led the parties to believe that a second hearing woul d take place: The court discussed with counsel in chambers the difficulty in this kind of case of separating the consent – reasonableness of with holding consent issue from the actual best interest hearing which is, t hose factors are found in Section 3107.161 and very difficult to bifurcate t hese hearings because I guess obviously the agency has failed to consent to t hese petitions because the agency feels they are – it’s not in the best intere st of the children so it’s very difficult to bifurcate those. However, we are proceeding today to hearing on the issue of whether the agency is unreasonably withholding its consent and then based up the outcome of this hearing, the court will make a determina tion as to whether or not the court can make a determination whether the p arties could possibly agree as to whether or not any of the evidence o btained at36. this hearing could be stipulated to for further hearing if nece ssary regarding

the best interest. {¶ 106} As we observed above, “‘an adoption proceeding is a two-step pr ocess involving a “consent” phase and a “best-interest” phase.’” In re Jeffrey A., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-08-1006, 2008-Ohio-5135, at ¶ 4, quoting In re Adoption of Jordan , 72 Ohio App.3d 638, 645, 595 N.E.2d 963 (12th Dist.1991). The consent and best-interests portions of the proceedings may be considered in one hearing. In re Adoption of Walters , 112 Ohio St.3d 315, 2007-Ohio-7, 859 N.E.2d 545, ¶ 21 (“One hea ring to address both requirements is sufficient.”). Conversely, a court may hold se parate hearings for the consent and best-interests portions of an adoption proceeding. Id. {¶ 107} Despite stating that the issues of consent and best interest wo uld be bifurcated, the trial court concluded in its judgment entries t hat it would be in the children’s best interest to remain in their current placement a nd it denied T.B. and D.B.’s petition without engaging in further proceedings: In consideration of these factors, all other factors contained in ORC 3107.161, and in consideration of the least detrimental availab le alternative, this court is unable to find that the agency is unreasonably wi thholding its consent from this petition. This court agrees with the assessm ent of the guardian ad litem that the child[ren] should remain in [their] current placement.37. Accordingly, this court hereby finds that the agency is not unreasonably withholding its consent from this petition and the refore the petition is hereby denied and dismissed. {¶ 108} The trial court essentially concluded that because it is in the children’s best interest to remain in their current placement, LCCS did no t withhold its consent unreasonably. And because LCCS did not withhold its consent unreasonably, T.B. and D.B.’s petition must be denied. This is not the proper analysi s. “The reasons for the refusal to consent are simply part of the evidence weighed by the court.” (Emphasis added.) Matter of Adoption of Crabtree , 4th Dist. Jackson No. 482, 1984 WL 5626, *2 (Aug. 31, 1984). Even where the refusal of the agency is not u nreasonable, it is still within the final authority of the probate court whether to gran t or deny the adoption petition based on its own independent analysis of the best inte rests of the child. In re

Haun , 31 Ohio App.2d 63, 68, 286 N.E.2d 478, 481 (8th Dist.1972). See also In re Dickhaus, 41 Ohio Misc. 1, 5, 321 N.E.2d 800, 803 (C.P.1974) (“Where sub stantial reasons exist for withholding the answer and consent, and the c ourt is satisfied that it is not in the best interest of the child to require it, the petiti on for adoption will be denied.”). {¶ 109} Frankly, it is difficult to imagine what additional evidence T. B. and D.B. could put forward in a separate hearing on the issue of best in terest. It presented nine witnesses who testified to the couple’s love for the children, the closeness the couple once had with J.G., the couple’s ability to care for the childr en, B.G.’s role in alienating the couple from their great-grandchildren, the couple’s intenti ons with respect to allowing38. contact between the children and their biological mother and gr andmother, among

various other issues. {¶ 110} It is also difficult to understand why the trial court would pu rport to bifurcate hearings on issues that, under the circumstances, wer e so inextricably intertwined. But this is the procedure the court told the part ies it planned to employ. The Ohio Supreme Court held in In re Adoption of Walters , 112 Ohio St.3d 315, 2007-Ohio7, 859 N.E.2d 545, ¶ 10, that “R.C. 3107.11(A) does not require the notice of a hearing on an adoption petition to include language that both the conse nt and best-interests requirements will be addressed at the hearing.” But where the court expressly advises the parties that it intends to bifurcate hearings on these issues, we believe the parties should be able to rely on the court’s explanation of how the proceedin gs will be conducted so they can prepare accordingly. We, therefore, find T.B. and D.B.’s third assignment of error well-taken. We remand this matter to the probate court for a best-interests he aring at which the parties may present any evidence pertinent to the issue of the best int erests of the children that was not already presented during the consent hearing. The cour t must then independently analyze whether, under R.C. 3107.161, adoption by T.B. and D.B. is in the best interests

of J.G. and K.W.

III. Conclusion {¶ 111} We find T.B. and D.B.’s first assignment of error not well-take n. The probate court properly concluded that the home study had not be en approved. While the39. appropriate box on the form was not checked, the assessment spe cifically stated that an adoptive placement with T.B. and D.B. was not being recommended

. {¶ 112} We find T.B. and D.B.’s second assignment of error not well-tak en. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that L CCS’s consent for T.B. and D.B. to adopt the children was not withheld unreasonably. {¶ 113} We find T.B. and D.B.’s third assignment of error well-taken. The probate court told the parties that it was bifurcating the issu es of consent and best interests, but then denied their adoption petition without perm itting them to submit additional evidence pertaining to the best interests of the chi ldren. The court was required to independently consider the best-interests factors d espite finding that LCCS did not withhold its consent to adoption unreasonably. {¶ 114} We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the January 6, 2020 j udgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. We r emand this matter to the probate court for a best-interests hearing at which the par ties may present any evidence pertinent to the issue of the best interests of the ch ildren that was not already presented during the consent hearing. The court must then inde pendently analyze whether, under R.C. 3107.161, adoption by T.B. and D.B. is in t he best interests of J.G.

and K.W. {¶ 115} LCCS is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24

.40. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part.

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

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ______________________

_________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, 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/.