[Cite as In re J.C., 2017-Ohio-7149.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: J.C. 

 T.C. 

 A.C. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 28550 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE Nos. DN 14-06-354 

DN 14-06-355 

DN 14-06-356 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: August 9, 2017 

 

 CARR, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, K.C. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her minor children in the legal custody of 

a maternal aunt. After the trial court issued its final judgment in this case, Mother filed a 

suggestion of the unexpected death of her oldest child, J.C. Because the custody of J.C. has 

tragically become moot, J.C. is dismissed from this case. This Court affirms the trial court’s 

decision as it pertains to Mother’s other two children. 

I. 

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of T.C., born January 20, 2012; and A.C., born 

February 27, 2014. The children’s father was not involved in the trial court proceedings and did 

not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 
2 

 

{¶3} On June 2, 2014, Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”) filed 

complaints to allege that Mother’s children were neglected and dependent. Mother has 

significant cognitive delays and, although she had been working on a voluntary case plan for 

many months, she was still unable to meet the children’s basic needs or provide them with a safe 

and sanitary home. The children were adjudicated neglected and dependent and placed in the 

temporary custody of CSB. 

{¶4} While Mother’s children remained outside of her custody, she worked with inhome service providers to improve the physical condition of her home. CSB did not dispute that, 

with the assistance of in-home service providers, Mother was able to maintain a clean home 

without the children there. The agency remained concerned, however, about Mother’s ability to 

independently care for her children. Mother did not consistently engage in case planning 

services and failed to demonstrate an ability to care for the children without the assistance of 

other adults. 

{¶5} During May 2016, CSB moved for permanent custody and Mother alternatively 

moved for legal custody of the children. The next day, CSB filed notice that it was decreasing 

Mother’s supervised visitation time and relocating visitation from her home to the visitation 

center. A hearing was later held before a magistrate. The parties agreed that CSB had been 

making reasonable efforts to find a suitable permanent home for the children. The disputed 

issues at the hearing were the appropriate length and level of supervision of Mother’s visits and 

whether visitation should continue in her home or be returned to the visitation center. 

{¶6} Although the magistrate decided that Mother’s visits should not change, the trial 

court later set aside that ruling. The trial court held that Mother continued to require supervision 

and that visitation should be relocated to the visitation center because Mother no longer qualified 
3 

 

for assistance from a service provider that had been assisting with the supervision of her in-home 

visits with the children. 

{¶7} The final dispositional hearing was continued because the guardian ad litem 

withdrew and a new guardian was appointed. Before the final dispositional hearing, the new 

guardian ad litem filed a motion to place the children in the legal custody of a maternal aunt 

(“Aunt”), who had been involved with the children throughout their lives and was prepared to 

provide them with a permanent home. Following a hearing on the competing dispositional 

motions, the trial court denied CSB’s motion for permanent custody and Mother’s motion for 

legal custody and granted the motion to place the children in the legal custody of Aunt. Mother 

appeals and raises two assignments of error, which will be addressed in reverse order to facilitate 

review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING APPELLANTMOTHER’S MOTION FOR LEGAL CUSTODY WHERE CSB FAILED TO 

USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE APPELLANT-MOTHER AND 

HER MINOR CHILDREN. 

{¶8} Mother’s second assignment is that CSB failed to exert reasonable reunification 

efforts in this case. She failed to challenge the efforts exerted by the agency prior to or during 

the final dispositional hearing, however. Moreover, the record reveals that, by the time of the 

final dispositional hearing, Mother had been receiving ongoing case planning services for more 

than two years. CSB had connected Mother with numerous outside service providers, but 

Mother did not consistently follow through with any of them. Although Mother now argues on 

appeal that she did not understand what was expected of her on the case, the evidence in the 

record demonstrates that Mother continued to deny that she was cognitively impaired and had 
4 

 

even been able to convince the Summit County Department of Developmental Disabilities 

(“Summit DD”) that she no longer qualified for services. 

{¶9} At the hearing held after CSB gave notice that it would decrease Mother’s 

visitation time and relocate her visits to the visitation center, Mother’s only challenge to the 

agency’s case planning efforts was that she should be allowed to have longer and unsupervised 

visits with the children. Mother’s trial counsel stipulated that CSB had exerted reasonable 

efforts to find a suitable permanent home for the children. The magistrate entered that stipulated 

reasonable efforts finding on the record and Mother did not challenge that finding. Because 

Mother has failed to argue or demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 

raise a reasonable efforts challenge or plain error in the trial court’s ultimate reasonable efforts 

finding, her second assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO GRANT LEGAL CUSTODY TO 

MATERNAL AUNT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶10} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court’s decision to place the 

children in Aunt’s legal custody was not supported by the evidence. This Court emphasizes in 

this case that, although the trial court placed Mother’s children in the legal custody of Aunt, it 

denied CSB’s alternative motion for permanent custody of the children. The juvenile court’s 

disposition of legal custody to a relative is a less drastic disposition than permanent custody to a 

children services agency because it does not terminate parental rights but instead “leaves intact 

‘residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.’” In re Shepherd, 4th Dist. Highland 

No. 00CA12, 2001 WL 802209, *7 (Mar. 26, 2001), quoting former R.C. 2151.011(B)(17). 
5 

 

Aunt emphasized to the trial court that she agreed to assume the role of legal custodian so that 

Mother would be able to retain rights as the children’s mother. 

{¶11} “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse, the juvenile court’s 

determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a parent or a relative is based 

solely on the best interest of the child.” See In re K.H., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27952, 2016-Ohio1330, ¶ 12. “Although there is no specific test or set of criteria set forth in the statutory scheme, 

courts agree that the trial court must base its decision [regarding legal custody] on the best 

interest of the child.” In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23, citing In re 

Fulton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA 2002-09-236, 2003-Ohio-5984, ¶ 11. 

{¶12} Mother asserts that she had made substantial progress on the reunification 

requirements of the case plan, but the record demonstrates otherwise. Several witnesses testified 

that Mother engaged in case plan services only sporadically. Early in the case, Mother was 

receiving services from Summit DD but, because she missed so many appointments, many 

service providers refused to work with her. She was later terminated from Summit DD services 

because she convinced an assessor that she could care for herself. That same witness explained 

that Mother’s disability assessment pertained only to her ability to care for herself, not for her 

children. Another witness from Summit DD testified that she believed that Mother 

underreported her disability because she did not want to receive services. Although Mother was 

twice scheduled to be reassessed by the state, she missed the scheduled appointments. 

{¶13} Mother participated in some counseling, but only on a sporadic basis. Her 

counselor testified that, because Mother had missed so many appointments, she would no longer 

schedule appointments for Mother, but she allowed her to attend on a limited, walk-in basis. The 
6 

 

counselor further explained that she was working with Mother to help her cope with the stress in 

her life, not on any of the goals of the case plan. 

{¶14} Moreover, Mother’s progress on the case plan may have been relevant to the best 

interest of her children, but it was not dispositive. See, e.g., In re K.C., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 

26992, 26993, 2014-Ohio-372, ¶ 22, citing In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio5003, ¶ 21. The primary focus of the trial court’s legal custody determination was the current 

parenting ability of Mother and Aunt and whether it was in the best interest of the children to be 

permanently placed in the legal custody of either of them. In re K.C. at ¶ 20. 

{¶15} The evidence pertaining to the best interest of the children fully supported the trial 

court’s decision. “[T]his Court has held that the best interest test set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), 

although it relates to permanent custody, ‘provide[s] guidance’ in legal custody determinations.” 

In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, quoting In re T.A., 9th Dist. 

Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. When determining the children’s best interest under 

R.C. 2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction 

and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, their custodial history, and their need for 

permanence in their lives. See In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834, 24850, 2009-Ohio6284, ¶ 11. 

{¶16} Throughout this case, Mother’s interaction with her children was limited to 

supervised or monitored visitation. Witnesses agreed that Mother and the children love each 

other and enjoy being together, but the evidence was not disputed that Mother lacked the ability 

to care for her children without assistance. According to a social work assistant who supervised 

some of mother’s visits, Mother’s interaction with the children during visits was “minimal[.]” 
7 

 

She explained that Mother tended to sit on the couch and watch the children and would intervene 

only when the children began fighting. 

{¶17} Several visitation supervisors testified that they had to intervene during every visit 

to prompt Mother to interact with the children and/or to protect the children from harming 

themselves. Despite two years of redirecting Mother’s interaction with the children, those who 

supervised the visits testified that they had seen little improvement in Mother’s ability to interact 

with or supervise the children. The caseworker, a licensed social worker who had worked for 

CSB for nearly 15 years, opined that Mother lacked the ability to care for her children on her 

own. 

{¶18} CSB repeatedly planned to expand Mother’s visits with the children, but those 

expanded visits did not occur because Mother continued to exercise “poor judgment” by 

choosing to do something other than working toward reunification with her children. At one 

point during the case, Mother was scheduled to have an expanded visit with her children but she 

chose instead to go on an out-of-state trip with her boyfriend. Another time, Mother missed a 

visit because she had been arrested for getting into an altercation with the children’s father, in 

violation of a no contact order. 

{¶19} On the other hand, the children’s interaction with Aunt was positive. Aunt had 

been involved with the children throughout their lives, had been regularly visiting them during 

this case, and her home had been approved by CSB as a kinship placement. Aunt had visited the 

children in the foster home twice a week to learn their daily routines. The foster mother testified 

that Aunt did well with the children and that she “[d]efinitely” observed a bond between Aunt 

and the children. The caseworker also testified about a positive bond between Aunt and the 
8 

 

children and explained that CSB also supported legal custody to Aunt as the least restrictive 

placement for the children. 

{¶20} The children’s interaction with Aunt had progressed to overnight visits at Aunt’s 

home. Aunt testified that she was prepared to assume the role of the children’s legal custodian, 

that she “fully understood” that role, and explained that she wanted to help Mother retain some 

of her parental rights. Aunt and Mother have other family members who were prepared to assist 

Aunt with the children and their visits with Mother. 

{¶21} The guardian ad litem testified that the children were not mature enough to 

express their own wishes, so she spoke on their behalf. She had filed the motion for legal 

custody to Aunt because Aunt was able to provide appropriate care for the children and would 

maintain a good relationship between Mother and the children. The guardian ad litem expressed 

“grave concerns” about Mother’s ability to independently care for the children on a daily basis. 

She explained that Mother did not seem to appreciate that her obligation to her children was 

more than providing them with a clean home and emphasized that the children were young, 

active, and “need constant direction.” 

{¶22} Mother’s children had been living in a temporary placement for nearly two years 

and were in need of a legally secure permanent placement. The trial court reasonably concluded 

that placing them in the legal custody of Aunt would provide them with such a placement and 

would also allow them to maintain a relationship with Mother. 

{¶23} Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in concluding that legal 

custody to Aunt was in the best interest of the children. Mother’s first assignment of error is 

overruled. 
9 

 

III. 

{¶24} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The appeal is dismissed, in part, as 

it relates to J.C. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division, is affirmed. 

Appeal dismissed, in part, 

and judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

HENSAL, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 
10 

 

APPEARANCES: 

PAUL GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.