[Cite as In re A.J., 2014-Ohio-3755.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

IN RE: A.J., B.J., & M.R. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

(Mother's Appeal) : 

 : Case No. 14-CA-35 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case 

Nos. F2011-0601; F2011-0603; F2012-

0447 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 26, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Father-Appellant: For Licking County DJFS-Appellee: 

 

MICHAEL R. DALSANTO LIA MEEHAN 

3 South Park Place, Suite 220 20 S. Second Street, Fourth Floor 

Newark, OH 43055 Newark, OH 43055 

 

For Mother-Appellant Guardian ad Litem: 

DREAMA BOGART SHEENA SJOSTRAND-POST 

P.O. Box 30402 195 E. Broad St. 

Gahanna, OH 43230 Pataskala, OH 43062 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Mother-Appellant Crystal Rosumenko appeals the April 4, 2014 judgment 

entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division terminating her 

parental rights as to B.J., A.J., and M.R. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} Appellant Robert Johns is the Father of B.J. (born June 12, 2001) and A.J. 

(born November 23, 2004). Appellant Crystal Rosumenko is the Mother of B.J., A.J., 

and M.R. (born May 18, 2012). Paul Rosumenko is the father of M.R.1

{¶3} Licking County Department of Job and Family Services ("LCDJFS") 

became involved with the family in June 2011. A voluntary case was opened due to 

allegations of Mother's substance abuse and poor home conditions. Mother was 

enrolled in the Licking County Alcoholism Prevention Program (LAPP). Mother resided 

with Paul Rosumenko and married him on September 5, 2011. Paul Rosumenko is a 

registered sex offender with past charges of domestic violence, menacing, and a 

violation of the civil stalking protection order. In October 2011, Paul Rosumenko was 

sent to prison for a probation violation. Mother's case with LAPP was closed because of 

Mother's poor attendance. 

{¶4} In October 2011, LCDJFS filed a dependency complaint for A.J. and B.J. 

The children were placed under protective supervision and placed in Father's home. In 

December 2011, A.J. and B.J. were adjudicated dependent. 

{¶5} While A.J. and B.J. resided with Father, LCDJFS provided Father with 

multiple resources to assist with the care of the children. B.J. had anger, anxiety, and 

attachment issues. A.J. was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and 

 

1

 Paul Rosumenko has not filed an appeal of the April 4, 2014 judgment entry. 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 3 

attention deficit disorder. Both children took medication. Father at one point due to a 

lack of medication for one child, gave the one child the other's medication. The children 

suffered from lice and Father's home had bed bugs. Father moved from the home to a 

one-bedroom apartment. Father had serious health issues related to a hip replacement 

requiring Father to stay in a nursing home during his recovery in August 2012. The 

LCDJFS resources assisted Father with understanding the need to keep a clean and 

safe home and provide the children with structure. The resource providers stated there 

was no doubt Father loved his children, but he struggled with caring for the children and 

their special needs. One resource provider stated that Father would hear but not listen 

to the recommendations. 

{¶6} On March 12, 2012, LCDJFS filed a motion to modify in B.J.'s case, 

asking that his disposition be modified from protective supervision to temporary custody, 

due to B.J.'s behavioral issues. While residing with Father, B.J. was truant from school 

at least 45 days. B.J. stabbed a teacher with a pencil. On May 24, 2012, the court 

granted the motion and B.J. was placed in a treatment foster home. 

{¶7} A.J. was returned to Mother's custody, subject to protective supervision. 

While A.J. resided with Mother, Mother was residing with Nick Hutchinson and his 

daughter. Nick Hutchinson was a violent alcoholic. There were unsubstantiated 

allegations that Nick Hutchinson and his daughter sexually abused A.J. LCDJFS 

received complaints of problems in Mother's home such as parties and questionable 

people in the home. 

{¶8} M.R. was born on May 18, 2012. 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 4 

{¶9} On July 17, 2012, LCDJFS sought and obtained an ex parte emergency 

order granting shelter care of A.J. and M.R. Mother tested positive for oxycodone. 

Mother has been diagnosed with an opioid related disorder. Shelter care was granted 

on July 18, 2012. On November 9, 2012, M.R. was adjudicated dependent and placed 

in the temporary custody of LCDJFS. A.J. was also placed in the temporary custody of 

LCDJFS. A.J. was placed in the treatment foster home with B.J. 

{¶10} On May 17, 2013, Paul Rosumenko was sentenced to six years in prison 

for aggravated burglary and domestic violence, where Mother was the victim of the 

domestic violence charge. 

{¶11} On May 31, 2013, LCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody. A 

hearing before the magistrate was held on October 11 and 14, 2013. 

{¶12} Ryan Houck, the family's caseworker, testified LCDJFS has worked with 

the family for two years and five months and has not seen improvement in Mother or 

Father to allow for reunification with the children. The guardian ad litem recommended 

that permanent custody be granted to LCDJFS. 

{¶13} On November 26, 2013, the magistrate issued his decision recommending 

that permanent custody of A.J., B.J., and M.R. be granted to LCDJFS. 

{¶14} Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court set a 

non-oral hearing on January 17, 2014. 

{¶15} On April 4, 2014, the trial court adopted the decision of the magistrate and 

granted permanent custody of A.J., B.J., and M.R. to LCDJFS. 

{¶16} It is from this decision Mother now appeals. 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 5 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶17} Mother raises one Assignment of Error: 

{¶18} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING LICKING COUNTY JOB 

AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILDREN'S SERVICES MOTION FOR PERMANENT 

CUSTODY BECAUSE LICKING COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILDREN 

SERVICES FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF 

POSSIBLE RELATIVE PLACEMENT REQUIRED BY R.C. 2151.412.(G) ET SEQ. AND 

OHIO ADM. CODE 5101:2-39-01 ET SEQ." 

ANALYSIS 

{¶19} Mother argues in her sole Assignment of Error that LCDJFS did not, 

pursuant to R.C. 2151.412, consider whether extended family members would be 

suitable custodians for the children. Because LCDJFS failed in their duty, Mother 

argues the trial court erred when it held that LCDJFS made reasonable efforts to avoid 

removal of the children. We disagree. 

{¶20} R.C. 2151.412(H)(2) states: 

(H) In the agency's development of a case plan and the court's review of 

the case plan, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount 

concern. The agency and the court shall be guided by the following 

general priorities: 

* * * 

(2) If both parents of the child have abandoned the child, have 

relinquished custody of the child, have become incapable of supporting or 

caring for the child even with reasonable assistance, or have a detrimental 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 6 

effect on the health, safety, and best interest of the child, the child should 

be placed in the legal custody of a suitable member of the child's 

extended family; 

* * * 

{¶21} Mother concedes that LCDJFS was under no statutory duty to make 

reasonable efforts to place the children with a relative. The Fourth District Court of 

Appeals stated: 

As the leading paragraph of R.C. 2151.412(G) makes clear, the 

language of this code section is precatory. We discussed this issue 

recently in In re M.O., Ross App. No. 10CA3189, 2011–Ohio–2011, at ¶ 

15: 

‘Ohio's courts have consistently recognized that the language in 

R.C. 2151.412(G) is precatory, not mandatory.’ In re A.E., Franklin 

App. Nos. 07AP685 & 07AP–748, 2008–Ohio–1375, at ¶ 35, citing 

In re Halstead, Columbiana App. No. 04 CO 37, 2005–Ohio–403, at 

¶ 39, in turn, citing In re Hiatt (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 722, 621 

N.E.2d 1222. As the Seventh District explained: 

[T]his statute does not command the juvenile court to act in a 

specific manner. Instead, it sets out general, discretionary priorities 

to guide the court. So while the guidelines may be helpful to the 

juvenile court, it is not obligated to follow them. Therefore, the 

juvenile court's judgment is not in error simply because the court 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 7 

chose not to follow one of these suggested guidelines. Halstead at 

¶ 39.” 

 In M.O., we went on to hold that a public children services agency 

has no statutory duty to make “reasonable efforts” to place the child with 

an extended family member before it can obtain permanent custody of the 

child. Id. at ¶ 16. 

In re M.H., 4th Dist. Vinton No. 11CA683, 2011-Ohio-5140, ¶ 44-45. 

{¶22} Mother argues that LCDJFS was required to exercise due diligence to 

investigate whether there was a potential relative placement under Ohio Adm.Code 

5101:2-39-01(P)(1) before moving for permanent custody. She states the record in this 

case shows that LCDJFS did not investigate relative placement for the children; 

therefore, LCDJFS did not make reasonable efforts prior to the removal of the children 

from Mother’s custody. 

{¶23} At the permanent custody hearing, Ryan Houck, caseworker for the family, 

testified she was provided relative or kinship placements by Father and Mother but the 

three that LCDJFS were able to explore were ruled out based on the Ohio Revised 

Code. (T. 192). 

{¶24} The record in this case shows that LCDJFS made reasonable efforts to 

place the children with a suitable relative but its investigation revealed there was no 

relative suitable for placement. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting 

permanent custody of the children to LCDJFS based on Mother's argument in the 

present appeal. 
Licking County, Case No.14-CA-35 8 

CONCLUSION 

{¶25} Mother's sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶26} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J., 

Farmer, P.J. and 

Wise, J., concur.