[Cite as In re A.J. , 2017-Ohio-9134.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: A.J. A.J. C.A. No. 28653

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 14-07-0441 DN 14-07-0442

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 20, 2017

SCHAFER, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, D.J. (“Father”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed tw o of his minor children in the legal custody of their paternal grandparents (“Gr andparents”). This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} Father is the biological father of two children with the initials A.J.: a girl, born June 7, 2013; and a boy, born April 11, 2014. Alt hough Father has other children, they are not parties to this appeal. The mother of A.J. and A.J. (“Mother”) did not participate in the final dispositional hearing and did not app eal from the trial court’s judgment. {¶3} Before this case began, Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”) had a voluntary case with this family because Mother had attempted suicide and CSB was also

concerned about domestic violence and substance abuse in the home. Because Mother did not comply with the requirements of the voluntary ca se plan, CSB filed this involuntary case on July2

10, 2014. A.J. and A.J. were later adjudicated depe ndent children and placed in the legal custody

of CSB. {¶4} When this involuntary case began, Mother was living with Father, but had moved in and out of his home several times during their on and off relationship. Father and Mother’s relationship had been plagued by ongoing dome stic violence, often with Mother as the perpetrator. Even under a court-ordered case pla n, Mother refused to engage in any services to

address her serious mental health and substance abuse problems. Although the case plan did not require Father to end his relati onship with Mother, it did require that they engage in counseling to address the violence in their relationship. Although Father complied with many of the requirements of the case plan, he did not engage in counseling with Mo ther and/or end his relationship with her. Mother did not maintain contact with CSB or the trial court and continued to struggle with mental health and substance ab use problems. Moreover, incidents of domestic violence continued between the parents throughout this case, including during the months that the final dispositional hearing was held. {¶5} Because Mother was not complying with the case plan, she was required to visit the children at the visitation center. Father was permitted to visit the children at the home of their relative caregiver. The children lived with an aunt during most of this case, but they were later placed in the home of Grandparents. CSB ev entually moved to have the children placed in the legal custody of Grandparent s and Father alternatively m oved for legal custody of the

children. {¶6} Following a four-day hearing that was he ld over several months, the magistrate decided that A.J. and A.J. should be placed in th e legal custody of Grandparents. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision the same day, pending the filing of timely, written objections.3

Father objected to the magistrate’s decision, argu ing only that the best interest finding was not supported by the evidence. The trial court overru led Father’s objection and placed A.J. and A.J. in the legal custody of Grandparents. Father appeals and raises two assignments of error.

II Assignment of Error I The trial court abused its discretion in granting legal custody of the minor children to their paternal grandparents as it is not in their best interest and father has substantially completed his case plan. {¶7} Father’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in concluding that legal custody to Grandparents was in the best interest of his children. “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependenc y, or abuse, the juvenile cour t’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-Ohio-1330, ¶ 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 cu stody] 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. {¶8} The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008- Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, their custodial history and their need for perm anence in their lives. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). The juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A. , 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010850, 15CA010860, 2017-Oh io-1, ¶ 17. Of relevance here, those4

additional factors include the children’s adjustment to their environment; the mental and physical health of all persons involved; and whether there is violence, abuse, or neglect in any household

involved. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). {¶9} Father’s argument is based primarily on hi s assertion that he had “complied with every facet of his case plan.” This Court has repeatedly stressed, however, that “evidence of case plan compliance may be relevant to the trial court’s best interest de termination, but is not dispositive.” In re G.A ., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28664, 28665, 2017-Ohio-8561, ¶ 13, citing In

re J.J ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22236, 2004-Ohio-6538, ¶ 8. {¶10} Father also emphasizes that he has a fa mily bond with his children “that must be preserved.” The trial court’s placement of the ch ildren in the legal cust ody of Grandparents did not sever that bond, however, because it leaves in tact his residual parental rights including his right to visitation with his children. See In re A.L ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28440, 2017-Ohio7689, ¶ 18. In fact, because the children had been placed with Father’s parents and Father had a good relationship with them, they were permitting him to spend every day with the children in

their home. {¶11} Grandparents agreed with other witnesses that, when Father visited the children without Mother, his interaction with them was always loving and appropriate. Although CSB still had some concerns that Father may have a drinking problem and that he was not employed, the primary concern expressed by CSB, the guardian ad litem, Grandparents, and Father’s

counselor was that Father con tinued to have a relationship w ith Mother. Mother had done nothing during this case to address her ongoing mental health and substance abuse problems or her long history of domestic violence with Father.5

{¶12} Throughout this case, domestic violence continued between Mother and Father. Police were called to Father’s home multiple times to respond to incidents of domestic violence that had involved weapons, substance abuse, and/or physical injuries. Father insisted that Mother was the one with the substance abuse probl em and that she was always the aggressor in

the domestic violence incidents between them. Ev en if Father’s assertions about Mother were true, he had continued to allow her into his home throughout this case. {¶13} For example, one month after Father m oved for legal custody but before the hearing commenced, police responded to an incide nt of domestic violence between Mother and Father. One of the responding officers testified that both parents appeared to be intoxicated and that both parents had sustained minor injuries . Again, between the second and third hearing dates, police responded to Father’s house because of an incident of domestic violence between

Mother and Father. Mother was arrested becau se the police believed that she had been the primary aggressor and Father had sustained more serious injuries than Mother. {¶14} After Mother was arrested for domestic vi olence against Father, he continued to call her and provide her with money while she was incarcerated. Father admitted during the final day of the hearing that he still helped Mother and had allowed her to stay at his home because she had no one else to turn to. Notably, Father never stated during his testimony that he would protect his children from Mother or the ongoing vi olence between them. In fact, Father had also

told one of his counselors that he wanted Mother to be able to see the children. The trial court reasonably concluded that, if Father had legal cu stody of the children, he may not protect them from ongoing domestic violence between Mother and Father or other inappr opriate behavior by

Mother.6

{¶15} Furthermore, Father does not argue that he could provide his children with a better home than Grandparents or that legal custody to them was not in the best interest of his children. All witnesses agreed that Grandpare nts had been meeting the children’s needs and were loving and nurturing with them. Grandpare nts were providing the ch ildren with a safe and stable home and had ensured that the parents did not visit the children together and that Mother had no unsupervised contact with them. CSB fully supported legal custody to Grandparents and the guardian ad litem opined that legal custod y to Grandparents was in the children’s best

interest. {¶16} Given the evidence before the trial court, Father has failed to demonstrate that the

trial court erred in concluding that legal cust ody to Grandparents was in the best interest of his children. Father’s first assignment of error is overruled. Assignment of Error II

The trial court erred as a matter of la w in granting legal custody of the minor children to their paternal grandparents when [CSB] did not use reasonable case planning and diligent efforts for reunification with their father. {¶17} Father’s second assignment of error is th at CSB failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. Father did not raise this issue at the hearing or through his objections to the magistrate’s decision, so he has forfeited all but plain error. See In re B.C. , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26976, 26977, 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 24, citing Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv). Because Father did not timely raise a reasonable efforts challenge in the trial court and does not argue plain error, this Court need not address this argument on appeal. In re I.T ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27826, 2016-Ohio-4668, ¶ 13, citing In re T.W ., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27477, 2016-Ohio-92, ¶ 11-12. Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.7

III. {¶18} Father’s assignments of error are overr uled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juven ile Division, is affirmed. 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 manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent 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.

JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.8

APPEARANCES: JASON D. WALLACE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. ELIZABETH ABBOTT, Guardian ad Litem.