[Cite as In re L.M., 2022-Ohio-238.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MARION COUNTY 

 

IN RE: 

 L.M., CASE NO. 9-21-17 

DEPENDENT CHILD. 

 O P I N I O N 

[JENNIFER F. - APPELLANT] 

 

IN RE: 

 S.M., CASE NO. 9-21-18 

DEPENDENT CHILD. 

 O P I N I O N 

[JENNIFER F. - APPELLANT] 

 

Appeals from Marion County Common Pleas Court 

Family Division 

Trial Court Nos. 18 AB 0081 and 18 AB 0080 

Judgments Affirmed 

Date of Decision: January 31, 2022 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Edwin M. Bibler for Appellant 

 Nathan R. Heiser for Appellee 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-2- 

SHAW, J. 

{¶1} Mother-Appellant, Jennifer F. (“Mother”), appeals the April 28, 2021 

judgments of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, granting 

permanent custody of her two minor children to Appellee, Marion County Children 

Services (“MCCSB”). Because the trial court did not err in determining permanent 

custody was in the best interest of the children, we affirm the judgments. 

Background 

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of S.M., born in December of 2009, and 

L.M., born in April of 2015.1

 On March 5, 2018, MCCSB filed complaints alleging 

S.M. to be a dependent child, and L.M. to be an abused and dependent child. Mother 

has a younger child, born in April of 2016, who was also the subject of a complaint 

and who was placed in the legal custody of his father after MCCSB’s involvement 

in this case. The complaints alleged that the maternal grandfather smoked marijuana 

in front of the children, that the home was infested with mice and roaches, and that 

two of the children had tested positive for cocaine while residing in the home. The 

complaints requested protective supervision of Mother’s children. The trial court 

appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the children in this case. 

{¶3} At an adjudicatory hearing held on May 18, 2018, Mother stipulated 

that both children were dependent. Following a dispositional hearing, the magistrate 

1

 The children’s biological father is deceased. 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-3- 

ordered that the children shall remain in the legal custody of Mother under 

protective supervision by MCCSB. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s 

decision. The case plan for Mother included goals for her to ensure that her children 

were not exposed to drug paraphernalia or drug use, to gain and maintain income, 

and to obtain and maintain housing for the children. The case plan also required 

that she complete a mental health assessment and submit to random drug screens. 

The record indicates the two children continued to test positive for cocaine 

throughout the first four months of the case, but the Mother did not. Because there 

was concern that there was cocaine residue in the home, the carpet was removed 

and portions of the home were repainted. Mother eventually moved from that home 

to resolve the issue. 

{¶4} In early 2019, because of a child endangering charge against Mother 

stemming from allegations she mistreated her youngest child, MCCSB initiated a 

safety plan agreed upon by the Mother and placed the children in a kinship 

placement. Mother later pled to disorderly conduct. 

{¶5} On March 20, 2019, MCCSB requested emergency custody of the 

children and also requested temporary custody because of sexual abuse allegations 

against an individual living at the safety plan placement. As a result, the trial court 

magistrate granted interim temporary custody of the children to MCCSB. An 

amended case plan basically set the same goals for Mother. 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-4- 

{¶6} Over the next year, the trial court held several review hearings, each 

continuing temporary custody with MCCSB. However, on June 19, 2020, MCCSB 

filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. 

{¶7} On August 27, 2020, the guardian ad litem for the children filed a report 

recommending that permanent custody be granted to MCCSB. The trial court 

rescheduled a hearing on MCCSB’s motion for permanent custody three times, and 

it eventually took place on March 11, 2021. The guardian ad litem filed a 

supplemental report prior to that hearing and made the same recommendation. 

{¶8} At the permanent custody hearing, MCCSB presented testimony from 

these individuals: a mental health therapist who had diagnosed and treated Mother, 

MCCSB’s visitation center supervisor, the foster parents, and the ongoing case 

worker for MCCSB. Mother presented her own testimony and that of Michael P. 

{¶9} Following the March hearing, MCCSB filed a motion requesting 

permission to offer further evidence, essentially rebuttal evidence in response to 

certain testimony offered by the Mother. An additional evidentiary hearing was 

held on April 21, 2021. The guardian ad litem filed a second supplemental report 

prior to the hearing, and also provided cross-examination testimony. By judgment 

entries filed April 28, 2021, the trial court granted permanent custody of the children 

to MCCSB. The trial court found that the evidence relating to the best interest 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-5- 

factors in R.C. 2151.414 demonstrated that an award of permanent custody to 

MCCSB was in the best interest of the children. 

{¶10} Mother now appeals, raising the following assignment of error for 

review: 

THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT IN GRANTING 

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW, 

AND AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AS 

GRANTING M.C.C.S.B.’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF S.M. 

AND/OR L.M. 

{¶11} In her assignment of error, Mother argues that the trial court’s decision 

to grant MCCSB permanent custody of her two children was against the manifest 

weight of the evidence, contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. Specifically, 

Mother challenges the grant of permanent custody on the ground that it was not in 

the children’s best interest. 

Permanent Custody Standards and Procedures 

{¶12} When reviewing a grant of permanent custody, we note that “the right 

to raise one’s child is a basic and essential right.” In re X.S., 3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 

10-20-09, 10-20-10, 10-20-11, 10-20-12 and 10-20-13, 2021-Ohio-1774, ¶ 21 

(citations omitted). Nevertheless, the rights and interests of a natural parent are not 

absolute. Id. citing In re Thomas, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-03-08, 2003-Ohio-5885, 

¶ 7. “R.C. 2151.414 outlines the procedures that protect the interests of parents and 

children in a permanent custody proceeding.” In re N.R.S., 3d Dist. Crawford Nos. 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-6- 

3-17-07, 3-17-08 and 3-17-09, 2018-Ohio-125, ¶ 12, citing In re B.C., 141 Ohio 

St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 26. 

{¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B), a trial court is authorized to grant 

permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court finds, by clear 

and convincing evidence, that: (1) any of the circumstances in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e) applies; and (2) permanent custody is in the best interest of 

the child under the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re X.S. at ¶ 22. R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d) provides, in pertinent part, that the trial court may grant custody 

of a child to MCCSB if the court determines that the child had been in the agency’s 

temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month 

period. 

{¶14} “When determining whether permanent custody is in the best interest 

of the child, the trial court must consider the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), 

as well as all other relevant factors.” In re X.S. at ¶ 22, citing In re N.R.S. at ¶ 15. 

The best interest factors include: 

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the 

child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-ofhome providers, and any other person who may significantly 

affect the child; 

(b) The wishes of the child as expressed directly by the child or 

through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the 

maturity of the child; 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-7- 

(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the 

child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public 

children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period 

* * *; 

(d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement 

and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a 

grant of permanent custody to the agency; 

(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this 

section apply in relation to the parents and child. 

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). 

{¶15} The trial court’s best-interest finding must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence presented to it. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); In re N.R.S. at ¶ 16. 

Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that “ ‘will produce in the mind of the 

trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ˮ 

In re C.H., 3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-19-10, 10-19-11, 10-19-12 and 10-19-13, 2020-

Ohio-716, ¶ 61, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954). 

{¶16} Moreover, issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight 

to be given to the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. In re C.H. at ¶ 62. 

“Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is ‘crucial in a child custody 

case, where there may be much evidence in the parties’ demeanor and attitude that 

does not translate to the record well.’ ” (Emphasis sic) Id. citing Davis v. 

Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 419 (1977). 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-8- 

{¶17} Furthermore, when an appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s 

permanent custody decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court 

“ ‘ “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of 

witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder 

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that 

the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” ʼ ˮ Eastley v. Volkman, 

132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20 (citations omitted); accord In re C.H. at 

¶ 64. Thus, a trial court’s decision on terminating parental rights “will not be 

overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record contains 

competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or 

conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights 

have been established.” In re N.R.S. at ¶ 16, citing In re Miajanigue W., 6th Dist. 

Lucas No. L-06-1088, 2006-Ohio-6295, ¶38, citing In re Forest S., 102 Ohio 

App.3d 338, 344-345, Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, paragraph three of the 

syllabus. 

Best Interest 

{¶18} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) requires the trial court to consider the totality of 

the circumstances when making its best interest determinations and no single factor 

is given greater weight than others by the statute. In re N.R.S. at ¶ 16, citing In re 

Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, ¶ 56 (2006). Here, the trial court 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-9- 

expressly considered each of the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1), and determined by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the 

children’s best interest that permanent custody be awarded to MCCSB. The trial 

court also determined that the children had been in the temporary custody of 

MCCSB for more than twelve of the last twenty-two months. Mother does not 

dispute the trial court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) for the requisite 

period of time. The record supports that finding. Mother has challenged only the 

trial court’s determination than an award of permanent custody to MCCSB was in 

the children’s best interest.

Child’s Interactions and Interrelationships 

{¶19} The first best interest factor requires consideration of the children’s 

personal interactions and relationships. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). In this appeal, 

Mother has pointed to evidence in the record of the children’s bond with her. The 

trial court recognized this evidence when it concluded that Mother shared a bond 

with the children. At the same time, however, there was evidence before the trial 

court that the children had been placed with a foster family for two years and that 

they have developed a bond with the family. According to both the MCCSB 

caseworker and the guardian ad litem, the children are well adjusted and happy in 

their foster placement. Both foster parents stated the children are well integrated 

into the family’s home life and get along great with their three children. The record 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-10- 

also shows MCCSB facilitated visitation with Mother, the children, and their 

younger sibling who is in the legal custody of his father. 

{¶20} If permanent custody were to be awarded to MCCSB, both foster 

parents are willing to adopt the children. The trial court further noted that the foster 

parents are willing to allow contact with Mother in the future if they believe the 

contact would be in the children’s best interest and that it would be their intent to 

continue the children’s relationship with their younger sibling. 

{¶21} Additionally, the trial court noted the interaction between Mother and 

the children has been troubling on several occasions. In particular, according to the 

foster parents and the MCCSB caseworker, S.M. assumes the maternal role. The 

record indicates that this has been observed during visitation with Mother. The 

Mother acknowledged this fact, stating, “[S.M.] always thought she had to be the 

mother bird.” (Mar. 11, 2021 Tr. at 294). The foster parents additionally explained 

that when S.M. first arrived in their home, she acted very much like she had to 

assume the maternal role, and that it took time for her to behave more like a child 

her age. They related that S.M. has attended counseling consistently while in their 

care, and they believe it has helped. Thus, the trial court noted that S.M. is now in 

a situation where she does not need to take on the maternal role. 

{¶22} On another occasion, April 14, 2021, during visitation, Mother 

discussed the foster parents in a negative way with the children, which caused a 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-11- 

supervisor to intervene and ask her to stop. Mother reacted angrily, and two 

supervisors attempted to calm her. When they were unable to calm her, the visit 

was terminated. Mother admitted that this visit had been terminated early because 

she was yelling and upset about the foster parents. According to the ongoing 

MCCSB caseworker, Mother was consistent with her visits with the children, but 

was unable to progress past supervised visitation. 

Child’s Wishes 

{¶23} As to the second best interest factor, regarding the children’s wishes, 

the guardian ad litem reported that S.M. has been unable to choose between living 

with her Mother or her foster parents and that L.M. wanted to return to live with her 

Mother. As the trial court noted, however, L.M. had just turned six (6) years old at 

the time of the April hearing. The trial court noted that “L.M.’s position is 

changeable, and she sometimes wants to stay with the [foster parents].” (Apr. 28, 

2021 J.E. at p. 18). In this regard, the trial court found that L.M. “is negatively 

impacted by her interaction with [Mother], as evidenced by her behavior at 

[daycare] the day following visits.” Id.

{¶24} Further, the children’s guardian ad litem had given her opinion that 

granting MCCSB’s motion for permanent custody was in the best interest of both 

children. 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-12- 

Custodial History 

{¶25} Third, the custodial history of the children reflects MCCSB obtained 

temporary custody in March 2019 and placed them in a foster home where they have 

remained for a period of over two years. 

Legally Secure Permanent Placement 

{¶26} Regarding the fourth best interest factor, Mother has contended that 

the best interest of the children would be served by the trial court allowing her more 

time to continue working on the case plan goals, emphasizing the improvements she 

has made toward the end of the case, her current employment, the fact that she had 

obtained appropriate housing, and her bond with the children. 

{¶27} While the trial court recognized, and the evidence indicates, that 

Mother found appropriate housing in January 2021 and that she has maintained 

employment at McDonald’s for eighteen (18) months, it also stated that “[a] legally 

secure placement cannot be accomplished without a grant of permanent custody to 

MCCSB.” (Apr. 28, 2021 J.E. at p. 19). Notably, the trial court also stated that 

Mother was unable to secure appropriate housing from the beginning of the case in 

March 2018 until January 2021. The trial court also found that Mother moved ten 

(10) times during the pendency of this case. 

{¶28} A legally secure permanent placement “is more than a house with four 

walls. Rather, it generally encompasses a stable environment where a child will live 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-13- 

in safety with one or more dependable adults who will provide for the child’s 

needs.” In re B.F., 3d Dist. Paulding No. 11-21-04, 2021-Ohio-4251, ¶ 57, quoting

In re K.M., 3d Dist. Crawford Nos. 3-18-11 and 3-18-12, 2018-Ohio-3711, ¶ 29, 

quoting In re M.B., 4th Dist. Highland No. 15CA19, 2016-Ohio-793, ¶ 56; see also

In re K.M., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 15AP64 and 15AP-66, 2015-Ohio-4682, ¶ 28 

(observing that legally secure permanent placement requires more than stable home 

and income but also requires environment that will provide for child's needs). 

Although Mother’s physical home was appropriate, the trial court noted: 

Michael P[.] is on the lease for [Mother’s] Mound Street 

residence, and whether he lives there or not, he is often there. He 

admits that he is a “pothead” and [Mother] has repeatedly tested 

positive for THC since [Michael] was released from prison and 

reentered [Mother’s] life. 

(Apr. 28, 2021 J.E. at p. 19). 

{¶29} Additionally, the trial court shared MCCSB’s concerns about 

Mother’s judgment as to Michael P. The ongoing caseworker and the guardian ad 

litem both expressed concerns about Mother continuing to maintain a romantic 

relationship with someone who has a history of domestic violence. Michael P. was 

previously in prison for domestic violence and has violated protection orders on 

more than one occasion. When Mother was questioned at the permanent custody 

hearing about appearing at a visit with the children in January 2021 with a noticeably 

blackened eye, she stated that her black eye did not come from Michael P., but rather 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-14- 

indicated that her cousin, Luke, had given her the black eye when they fought after 

she told him to leave because she found he had drugs. Mother also indicated there 

would be a police report regarding the incident. Michael P. denied giving Mother a 

black eye in January 2021. 

{¶30} Here, the trial court specifically found Mother’s testimony asserting 

that Michael P. never struck her not credible. There was evidence before the trial 

court that Mother had told her mental health therapist about her boyfriend, Michael, 

assaulting her in the summer of 2020, and that they remained together. There was 

also evidence before the trial court that Mother had reportedly disclosed at the 

January 2021 visit “that her boyfriend hit her, that she responded by hitting him with 

a baseball bat, and that she called his mother to pick him up and take all of his things 

from the house.” (Apr. 28, 2021 J.E. at p. 6). Mother agreed that she had told the 

MCCSB worker about retaliating with a baseball bat, but stated her previous story 

was not true. Later testimony of the guardian ad litem indicated, in fact, that there 

was nothing substantiating Mother’s version of how she received the black eye in 

January 2021. The guardian ad litem’s recommendation continued to be for the trial 

court to grant MCCSB permanent custody. 

{¶31} The trial court also considered testimony about another incident, 

which occurred on February 8, 2021, in which the Marion Police Department was 

dispatched to Mother’s residence. As summarized by the trial court: 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-15- 

[Mother] testified that a neighbor called because there was 

screaming at Mother’s home. She said that Michael P[.] had been 

there, that she and [Michael] had been fighting over a text he 

received from a former girlfriend, and that he left at about 10:30 

p.m. After he left, she was alone in the home and screaming for 

help because she was off her medication. She said she threw a 

coffee cup and it shattered, and that she cut her cheek while 

cleaning up the shattered cup. 

(Apr. 28, 2021 J.E. at p. 19). 

{¶32} Thus, with regard to Mother’s home environment, the trial court

found, as Mother is pregnant with Michael P.’s child, that it seems likely that he 

will continue to be involved in Mother’s life. Mother’s home environment also 

remains one in which drug use and paraphernalia are likely present, as indicated 

above. 

{¶33} Moreover, we again note that the evidence showed that the children 

are doing well in their current foster home and are bonded with their foster family. 

The foster family provides the children with a safe environment where the children 

are not at risk of being exposed to drug use or domestically violent behavior. The 

foster parents plan to adopt both children. The guardian ad litem also expressed her 

continued belief that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children. 

{¶34} For all of the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Mother that the trial 

court should have given her more time to complete all of the case plan goals. 
Case Nos. 9-21-17 and 9-21-18 

-16- 

Applicability of R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) Factors 

{¶35} There were no factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) applicable to 

this case. 

Conclusion 

{¶36} Our review reflects that in the case of each child, the trial court made 

the appropriate considerations and found by clear and convincing evidence that it is 

in the children’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of MCCSB. 

Moreover, in light of the clear and convincing evidence that supports the trial court’s 

conclusion that the award of permanent custody to MCCSB is in the children’s best 

interest, the trial court’s decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Accordingly, Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶37} Having found no error prejudicial to the Appellant-Mother herein in 

the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

 Judgments Affirmed 

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur. 

/jlr