[Cite as In re M.M., 2022-Ohio-1569.]

COURT OF APPEALS

STARK COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: M.M.

JUDGES:

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

: Hon. John W. Wise, J.

:

:

: Case No. 2021CA00159

:

:

: OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Family Court Division, 

Case No. 2020JCV00306

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 10, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For - JFS For – Father

BANDON J. WALTENBAUGH DEAN L. GRASE

402 2nd Street S.E. 700 Courtyard Centre

Canton, OH 44702 116 Cleveland Ave. N.W.

Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as In re M.M., 2022-Ohio-1569.]

Gwin, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant-father, N.M. [“Father”] appeals the December 6, 2021 Judgment 

Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, which 

terminated his parental rights with respect to his minor child M.M. (b. Mar 24, 2020) and

granted permanent custody of the child to appellee, Stark County Department of Jobs 

and Family Services (”SCDJFS”).1

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Father2is the biological father of M.M. b. Mar. 24, 2020. Father has one other 

child Y.M. 1T. at 7.3 The case involving M.M. was commenced March 26, 2020 with the 

filing of a complaint alleging dependency and/or neglect. On May 20, 2020, SCDJFS

amended the original complaint and deleted the original allegation of neglect. On May 

20, 2020, the trial court found M.M. to be a dependent child and placed him into the 

temporary custody of SCDJFS.

{¶3} The allegations of the complaint detailed concerns regarding Father’s 

homelessness, his being with Mother, and her extensive family services history. 1T. at 

67. 

{¶4} Case plan objectives for Father included obtain a psychological evaluation, 

steady employment, stable housing, domestic violence free, individual counseling, and 

Goodwill Parenting. 1T. at 67.

1 For the Mother’s appeal, see, In re M.M., 5th District Stark No. 2021CA00156. Although Father 

couches his arguments in terms of “the parents,” the instant appeal focuses upon those facts relevant to 

Father’s efforts to challenge the motion for permanent custody.

2 See, OH ST Supp. R. 44(H) and 45(D) concerning the use of personal identifiers.

3 The Tuscarawas County Department of Jobs and Family Services was granted permanent 

custody of Y.M on Aug. 4, 2021. 1T. at 7.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 3

{¶5} On September 23, 2020, the trial court reviewed the case. 1T. at 54-55. The 

trial court approved and adopted the case plan, found that SCDJFS had made reasonable 

efforts to finalize the permanency planning in effect, compelling reasons existed to 

preclude a filing of permanent custody, and ordered the status quo. Id. Specifically, the 

trial court found that the Father had not successfully completed parenting classes, was

not making progress in counseling, Father had recently disclosed domestic violence by 

Mother and described the visits with the child as "stressful and high anxiety". Magistrate’s 

Order, Sept. 23, 2020. The court found that Father completed his drug assessment with 

no recommendations. The magistrate noted that Father was employed, the family had 

appropriate housing, and the family was paying their bills. Id. The magistrate further noted 

that Father had changed his story. Originally Father had stated that Mother hit him. Later, 

he changed his story claiming he was attacked by a stranger on the street, not Mother.. 

Id.

{¶6} On December 29, 2020, Father and Mother filed motions to amend the case 

plan to change counselors, and to change the provider of their parenting program.

{¶7} On January 6, 2021, the trial court denied both motions filed by the parents. 

1T. at 55. Specifically, the trial court found that the parents had already changed service 

providers multiple times throughout the case including, but not limited to, counselors, 

psychological assessors, and parenting class providers, and that more changes were not 

warranted. The parents did not file objections to that decision. 1T. at 56.

{¶8} On February 9, 2021, SCDJFS filed a motion seeking permanent custody

of the child. Mother filed a Motion on April 15, 2021 asking the Court to return the child 

or in the alterative, extend temporary custody. (Docket No. 95). On April 15, 2021, 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 4

Mother filed a Motion to grant custody to her sister Jimilah Lundy. (Docket No. 94). 

Mother’s motions set at the same time as the hearing on the permanent custody motion. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 6, 2021 at 33.

{¶9} The Father of the child filed a Motion requesting that this matter be transferred

to Tuscarawas County. The Court granted that Motion with an Order filed on April 19, 

2021. However, on May 12, 2021, the Court vacated that Entry. Permanent custody 

proceedings were set for August 5, 2021.

{¶10} The following evidence was presented during the hearing.

Father’s case plan

{¶11} Father was ordered to complete a parenting evaluation, parenting classes, 

individual counseling, that he be free of domestic violence, and that Father obtain stable 

housing and income. 1T. at 28; 67.

Father’s mental health evaluation

{¶12} Dr. Aimee Thomas a psychologist and Licensed Professional Clinical 

Counselor for Lighthouse Family Center met with Father and completed a parenting 

evaluation report on January 13, 2020. 1T. at 96; Exhibit 54; Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 6, 2021 at 43.

{¶13} Dr. Thomas reported that Father was experiencing some adjustment issues 

related to his involvement with the agency and the removal of the child from his custody. 

1T. at 97. Father also was a very passive individual. Father described himself as more 

4 Actually, Father completed two (2) assessments in this case. Dr. Thomas completed the first 

assessment. This first assessment was a parenting assessment. (SCDJFS Exhibit 5). Dr. Dean completed 

the second assessment. The second assessment, which was a psychological assessment, occurred at 

Father’s request. 1T. at 67-68; 96; SCDJFS Exhibit 3. Dr. Dean did not testify during the permanent 

custody proceedings. Both assessments resulted in similar conclusions for Father. Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 6, 2021 at 44.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 5

care free. However, Dr. Thomas found Father presented with many features consistent 

with dependent personality disorder. Dr. Thomas described Father as someone who 

might tolerate an unhealthy relationship because of that passivity and dependency. 1T. 

at 97.

{¶14} Dr. Thomas described Father’s problems as having a negative impact on his 

ability to parent. Dr. Thomas explained that if they are involved with a partner who can 

be combative or has serious mental health issues that would need to be addressed. Such 

individuals would have a hard time intervening, protecting themselves and children from 

any problems that could occur based on that person's mental health disorder or anger 

management problems. 1T. at 98.

{¶15} Dr. Thomas diagnosed Father with adjustment disorder with depression and 

anxiety and unspecified personality disorder with dependent and passive traits. 1T. at 

98. Dr. Thomas recommended Father,

I recommended that he participate in counseling towards processing 

his relationship with [Mother]. Um and the concerns in that relationship. 

Also understanding and educating him about the gravity of concerns with 

her mental health with the hope that he might become an ally to assist her 

in addressing those concerns. I recommended that he successfully 

complete Goodwill Parenting classes as well and demonstrate the ability to 

provide for the family financially.

1T. at 98-99. Dr. Thomas opined that Father’s frequent attempts to change mental health 

counselors would be a concern. Id. at 99. 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 6

Father’s interaction with the child

{¶16} Father regularly visits his son. The visits are supervised at the Agency. 

Agency workers have observed concerns regarding basic safety techniques and Father 

not listening to redirection. When Father would visit on his own, there were concerns with 

diapering and Father did not support M.M.’s head in spite of redirection.

Father’s counseling

{¶17} Father received counseling services from Kimberly Ford, who was certified 

by the Court as an expert witness in counseling and couples counseling. 1T. at 141. At 

the time of the Permanent Custod hearing, Father had attended twelve weekly counseling 

sessions with Ms. Ford. Id. at 142. Ms. Ford testified that Father had made good 

progress in the counseling sessions. 1T. at 143.

{¶18} Anne Myers testified that she was the individual therapist for Mother and 

Father. She further provided couples counseling to the parents. Anne Myers testified 

that there was progress with the parties in couples' therapy. 1T. at 118. However, Ms.

Myers testified that Mother and Father did not reach any of their individual therapeutic 

goals. 1T. at 114-117. Ms. Myers testified that the Mother and the Father did not reach 

any goals in couples counseling. Id. at 117.

Relative Placement

{¶19} Jimilah Lundy, Mother’s sister, testified that she had contact with both the 

Tuscarawas County Children Services and the SCDJFS. 1T. at 187. Ms. Lundy is 

employed with the IRS and resides in a two-bedroom apartment located in Bartlett, 

Tennessee. Id. at 184-185. She testified that she has no criminal history. She further 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 7

explained that she had one of her children at the age of fourteen and the other at the age 

of fifteen. She informed the court that children services in Nevada became involved when 

she had her children due to her age when she became a mother, but she raised both of 

her children to the age of adulthood. Ms. Lundy testified that she was willing to take 

custody of M.M. and follow any orders the court deems necessary. She testified that she 

spoke with the SCDJFS caseworker about her desire to take custody of M.M., but the 

caseworker never got back to her as she had promised.

{¶20} Jamie Grunder testified that she never spoke to Ms. Lundy, and never 

considered her for placement of M.M. 1T. at 32; 41-42.

Recommendations

{¶21} On July 29, 2021, the Guardian ad Litem for the child filed her final report,

recommending that SCDJFS be granted permanent custody of the child.

{¶22} Ms. Grice testified that Father had not made progress in his case plan, and

that the child would be at imminent risk of harm if returned to Father’s custody. Ms.

Grice testified that she did not believe an extension of the case would change her

recommendation that permanent custody be granted. 1T. at 73.

Entry granting permanent custody

{¶23} The trial court overruled Mother’s motion to extend temporary custody and 

Mother’s motion for legal custody to the maternal Aunt Jimilah Lundy.

{¶24} The trial court found Mother and Father have had parental rights involuntarily 

terminated with respect to a sibling of M.M. pursuant to section 2151.414 or section or 

section 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code, and both Mother and Father have 

failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 8

termination, Mother and/or Father can provide a legally secure permanent placement and 

adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of M.M.

{¶25} The Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be 

placed with either parent within a reasonable period, and should not be placed with such 

parents pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 specifically citing the parents’ failure to remedy the 

problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home.

{¶26} The trial court further found that despite the minimal bond that may have 

developed between any parent and M.M., the harm caused by severing the bond with the 

parents is outweighed by the benefits of permanency in the child's life. The trial court 

concluded it is in the best interest of M.M. to grant Permanent Custody to SCDJFS for 

purposes of adoption. M.M. deserves to be in a stable, loving environment.

Assignment of Error

{¶27} Father raises one Assignment of Error.

{¶28} “I. THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT'S 

MOTION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY CUSTODY PURSUANT TO O.R.C. § 2151.415(D) 

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”

Law and Analysis

{¶29} Father argues that he has shown “dedication to completing their case plans 

and to reunifying with M.M. This is evidenced by their continuing to engage frequently 

and regularly with therapists that were qualified as experts by the Court.” [Appellant’s 

Brief at 11.] Father contends the testimony from the trial demonstrates that the parents 

met the conditions set forth in R.C. 215.415(D) to be granted a six-month extension of 

Temporary Custody in order to complete their case plan.[Appellant’s Brief at 14].
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 9

Standard of Review

{¶30} R.C. 2151.415(D)(1) authorizes the trial court to extend temporary custody 

for six months only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that such an extension is 

in the best interest of the child and that “there has been significant progress on the case 

plan of the child, and there is reasonable cause to believe that the child will be reunified 

with one of the parents or otherwise permanently placed within the period of extension.”

{¶31} We review a trial court's decision of a motion to extend temporary custody 

for abuse of discretion. Matter of C.K., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2020-0027, 2020-

Ohio-5437, ¶ 21, citing In re E.T., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22720, 2005-Ohio-6087, ¶ 9. 

{¶32} An abuse of discretion can be found where the reasons given by the court 

for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice, or 

where the judgment reaches an end or purpose not justified by reason and the evidence. 

Tennant v. Gallick, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26827, 2014-Ohio-477, ¶35; In re Guardianship 

of S .H., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0066–M, 2013–Ohio–4380, ¶ 9; State v. Firouzmandi, 

5th Dist. Licking No. 2006–CA–41, 2006–Ohio–5823, ¶54.

Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the juvenile court’s decision to not extend 

temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D)(1) is clearly untenable, legally incorrect 

or amounts to a denial of justice, or whether the judgment reaches an end or purpose not 

justified by reason and the evidence.

{¶33} In the case at bar, we note that Father did not file a motion to extend 

temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D)(1).5 Further, as the SCDJFS correctly 

notes,

5 Mother did file such a motion.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 10

It is also important to note that, because of the delay in scheduling 

the permanent custody trial, a six-month extension of temporary custody 

would only have lasted until September 26, 2021. This is because the 

original complaint was filed on March 26, 2020, and, under R.C. 2151.353 

(G), SCJFS temporary custody of the child would have ended on March 26, 

2021, and the six-month extension would have ended on September 26, 

2021. This date was only approximately six weeks after the permanent 

custody trial and would have been over for months by the time of the trial 

court's decision.

Appellee’s Brief at 15. The record does not establish that there was clear and convincing 

evidence that a six-week extension would have been in the child’s best interest, that there 

had been significant case plan progress, or that reunification was likely.

Requirements for Permanent Custody Awards

{¶34} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when 

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court 

schedule a hearing and provide notice upon filing of a motion for permanent custody of a 

child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has 

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.

{¶35} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to 

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court 

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant 

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply:
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 11

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not 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, or has not 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 if, as 

described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the 

child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in 

another state, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's 

parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's 

parents; 

(b) the child is abandoned; 

(c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who 

are able to take permanent custody; or 

(d) 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, or 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 and, as described in division (D)(1) of 

section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the 

temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 12

{¶36} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial 

court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial 

court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding 

the best interest of the child.

Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time– R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

{¶37} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining the child 

cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with 

the parents. R.C. 2151.414(E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding 

under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should 

not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be 

placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon 

the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one factor 

alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a 

reasonable time. See In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996–Ohio–182, 661 N.E.2d 

738; In re Hurlow, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 98 CA 6, 1997 WL 701328 (Sept. 21, 1998); In re 

Butcher, 4th Dist. Athens No. 1470, 1991 WL 62145(Apr. 10, 1991).

{¶38} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to consider in determining 

whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or 

should not be placed with the parents. Specifically, Section (E) provides, in pertinent part, 

as follows:

(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this 

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 13

Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, the court 

shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and 

convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this 

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the 

Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child’s

parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with 

either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either 

parent:

(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and 

notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency 

to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child 

to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and 

repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be 

placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have 

substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental 

utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and 

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to 

the parents for changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and 

maintain parental duties.

(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual 

disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is 

so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 14

permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within 

one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this 

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the 

Revised Code;

* * *

(11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with 

respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or section 2151.353 

or 2151.415 of the Revised Code, or under an existing or former law of this 

state, any other state, or the United States that is substantially equivalent 

to those sections, and the parent has failed to provide clear and convincing 

evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can 

provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the 

health, welfare, and safety of the child.

* * *

(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

{¶39} As set forth above, the trial court’s findings are based upon competent 

credible evidence. The record includes the recommendation of the guardian ad litem for 

the child, and the testimony of the witnesses at trial. The trial court was in the best position 

to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

{¶40} In the instant case, the trial court did not explicitly cite to a single factor in 

R.C. 2151.414(E). However, the detailed findings in the December 6, 2021 Judgment 

Entry and the entire record in this matter make it apparent the trial court relied on several

of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E), including R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), failure to remedy
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 15

conditions and R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), chronic mental illness or intellectual disability. See,

In re B.W., 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016 AP 09 0045, 2017-Ohio-605, ¶ 39, appeal

not allowed, 149 Ohio St.3d 1409.

{¶41} The trial court noted Father’s mental health concerns, Father’s refusal to seek 

professional help directed at dealing with his ability to stand up to Mother and protect the 

child, and Father’s constant changing of mental health professionals demonstrate Father’s

significant cognitive deficits and their effect on his ability to understand his own needs and

those of his child. The trial court additionally noted that Father has lost custody of one 

other child. Despite offering numerous services, Father was unable or unwilling to 

mitigate the concerns that led to the child’s removal.

{¶42} A parent’s successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive 

on the issue of reunification. The ultimate question under R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) is whether 

the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal. In 

re Shchigelski, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 99–G–2241, 2000 WL 1568388(Oct. 20, 2000); In 

re McKenzie, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 95CA0015, 1995 WL 608285(Oct. 18, 1995). A parent 

can successfully complete the terms of a case plan yet not substantially remedy the 

conditions that caused the children to be removed—the case plan is simply a means to a 

goal, but not the goal itself. Hence, the courts have held that the successful completion 

of case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social 

services agency. In re J.L., 8th Dist. No. 84368, 2004–Ohio–6024, ¶ 20; In re Mraz, 12th 

Dist. Nos. CA2002–05–011, CA2002–07–014, 2002–Ohio–7278. In the case of In re: 

Summerfield, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005CA00139, 2005-Ohio-5523, this Court found where, 

despite marginal compliance with some aspects of the case plan, the exact problems that 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 16

led to the initial removal remained in existence, a court does not err in finding the child 

cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

{¶43} The evidence demonstrated the very little successful efforts Father had 

made on the case plan. On that point, the evidence demonstrates that any improvement 

that Father has made in her life is tentative and, perhaps, temporary, and that he is at risk 

of relapse. The trial court found that, regardless of Father’s compliance with aspects of 

his case plan, he was still not able to be a successful parent to this child or protect the 

child. 

{¶44} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s 

determination that the child cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable time or 

should not be placed with Father.

Reasonable Efforts

{¶45} The Supreme Court of Ohio in In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 78, 862 N.E. 

2d 816, 821(2007) noted,

[N]o one section of the Revised Code addresses the concept of 

reasonable efforts. Overall, Ohio’s child-welfare laws are designed to care 

for and protect children, ‘whenever possible, in a family environment, 

separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the 

child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety.’ R.C. 2151.01(A). To that 

end, various sections of the Revised Code refer to the agency’s duty to 

make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family unit. For example, 

R.C. 2151. 412 requires the agency to prepare and maintain a case plan for 

children in temporary custody with the goal ‘to eliminate with all due speed 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 17

the need for the out-of-home placement so that the child can safely return 

home.’ Under R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b), an agency may not file for 

permanent custody under R.C. 2151. 413(D) - the ‘12 months out of 22 rule’-

‘[i]f reasonable efforts to return the child to the child’s home are required 

under section 2151. 419’ and the agency has not provided the services 

required by the case plan.

{¶46} A “reasonable effort” is “* * * an honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and 

the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver, 79 Ohio 

App.3d 59, 63, 606 N.E.2d 1011(12th Dist. 1992). The issue is not whether there was 

anything more the agency could have done, but whether the agency’s case planning and 

efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. In re J.D., 3rd 

Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-10-34, 2011-Ohio-1458. The child’s health and safety is paramount 

in determining whether reasonable efforts were made. In re R.P., 5th Dist. Tuscarawas 

No. 2011-Ohio-5378.

{¶47} R.C. 2151.419 requires the trial court to determine whether the agency filing 

the complaint for custody “has made reasonable efforts * * * to eliminate the continued 

removal of the child from his home, or to make it possible for the child to return home.” 

Subsection (B)(1) mandates the trial court to issue written findings of fact setting forth the 

reasonable efforts made by the agency, including a brief description of “the relevant 

services provided by the agency to the family of the child and why those services did not 

prevent the removal of the child from his home or enable the child to return home.” 

{¶48} However, even where a trial court has failed to include in its judgment entry, 

the findings contemplated by R.C. 2151.419(B)(1) we have found that the ultimate issue 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 18

is the reasonableness of the Department’s efforts, and have concluded those efforts may 

be determined from the record. In the matter of Kell/Bess Children, 5th Dist. No. 

97CA0278, 1998 WL 401767(Mar. 23, 1998); Hunt v. Ickes, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 

2014 AP 08 0032, 2015-Ohio-309, ¶19

{¶49} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s 

determination that SCDJFS efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances 

of the case.

{¶50} The trial court found that neither parent has made significant progress on the 

case plan. The trial court noted,

The Stark County Department of Job and Family Services made 

numerous allowances for this family in order to allow the parents to address 

their mental health and parenting issues. The multiple allowances made in 

this case were to no avail. Multiple assessments, parenting classes, 

multiple team meetings, and multiple counselors were provided to this 

family. This court has never witnessed such a monumental attempt by Stark 

County Department of Job and Family Services to provide so many 

accommodations to one family in an attempt at successful reunification of a 

family.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 6, 2021 at 47. We find that the record 

supports that SCDJFS was working toward the goal of reunification. We find no evidence 

of dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, or breach of duty on the part of SCDJFS.

{¶51} Having reviewed the record, we find that SCDJFS made a good faith effort 

to reunify Father and his child. Furthermore, the record contains clear and convincing 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 19

evidence to support the court’s determination that the child could not be placed with 

Father.

The Best Interest of the Child

{¶52} An agency that seeks permanent custody of a child bears the burden of 

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the 

child’s best interest. In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 

26. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must consider:

{¶53} R.C. 2151.414(D) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors in 

determining whether the child’s best interests would be served by granting the permanent 

custody motion. These factors include but are not limited to: (1) the interrelationship of 

the child with others; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) 

the child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether such a placement can be 

achieved without permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) 

to (11) apply. 

{¶54} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11), which are referred to in R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(e), involve a parent’s having been convicted of or pleaded guilty to 

specific criminal offenses against the child, the child’s sibling or another child who lived 

in the parent’s household; a parent’s withholding medical treatment or food from the child; 

a parent’s repeatedly placing the child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or 

drug abuse; a parent’s abandoning the child; and a parent’s having had parental rights 

as to the child’s sibling involuntarily terminated.

{¶55} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re 

C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 20

not require a juvenile court to make specific findings regarding each best-interest factor 

listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or to include in its decision or judgment entry a written 

discussion of each of those factors. In re: A.M., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5102, 

2020WL6439610 (Nov. 3, 2020), ¶33.

{¶56} A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent 

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he 

discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent 

custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the 

nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will have on the lives 

of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 

1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 

(8th Dist. 1994). 

{¶57} The trial court rejected Mother’s request to transfer custody of M.M. to her 

sister,

To place [M.M.] in the legal custody of his Maternal Aunt, Jimilah 

Lundy would place [M.M.] in jeopardy. Attorney Waltenbaugh effectively 

cross-examined Jimilah Lundy. Still, it was evident from her testimony both 

on direct and cross-examination, Ms. Lundy does not believe Mother poses 

any threat to [M.M.] in spite of Mother's anger management and mental 

health issues. It is evident that, like Father, Ms. Lundy defers to Mother's 

dominant personality and it would not be in the best interest for this court to 

grant Ms. Lundy legal custody of [M.M.].

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 6, 2021 at 51-52.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 21

{¶58} We conclude that the juvenile court’s judgment entry demonstrate that the 

court complied with R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).

{¶59} Both the caseworker and the GAL testified it would be in the child’s best

interests to be placed in the permanent custody of the Agency. The trial court noted that 

M.M. was placed in the same foster home as one of his brothers. M.M. appears well 

adjusted and bonded in his present placement. Considering the many obstacles in 

Father’s life the trial court found the child’s need for a legally secure placement cannot be 

achieved without permanent custody.

{¶60} Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that more time or a return of 

custody to the Father will in any way benefit the child. 

{¶61} In the present case, the trial court concluded the child's need for legally 

secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to 

SCDJFS. Upon review of the record, the record supports the trial court's finding that 

granting the motion for permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. 

{¶62} In short, the juvenile court’s judgment entry demonstrate that the court 

satisfied its statutory duty to consider the best interest factors set out in R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e).

{¶63} For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s determination that Father had 

failed to remedy the issues that caused the initial removal and therefore the child could 

not be placed with him within a reasonable time or should not be placed with him was 

based upon competent credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or 

sufficiency of the evidence. We further find that the trial court’s decision that permanent 
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00159 22

custody to SCDJFS was in the child’s best interest was based upon competent, credible 

evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶64} We further find that the record does not establish that there was clear and 

convincing evidence that a six-week extension would have been in the child’s best 

interest, that there had been significant case plan progress, or that reunification was likely.

{¶65} Because the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s judgment, we 

overrule Appellant-Father’s sole assignment of error, and affirm the decision of the Stark 

County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division.

By Gwin, P. J.,

Hoffman, J., and

Wise, John J., concur