[Cite as In re P.T., 2020-Ohio-4900.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LUCAS COUNTY 

In re P.T., A.T. Court of Appeals No. L-20-1092 

 L-20-1093 

 

 Trial Court No. JC 18266748 

 

 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

 Decided: October 14, 2020 

* * * * * 

 Christopher S. Clark, for appellant, D.S. 

 Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant, A.T. 

 Jeremy G. Young, for appellee 

* * * * * 

SINGER, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the April 9, 2020 judgment of the Lucas County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating the parental rights of appellant, 

A.T., the mother (“mother”) of P.T. and A.T., and appellant, D.S., the father (“father”) of 
2. 

the children, and granting permanent custody of the children to appellee, Lucas County 

Children Services (“LCCS”). Mother and father have filed separate appeals, which have 

been consolidated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. 

{¶ 2} Father sets forth two assignments of error: 

I. The trial court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence 

that appellee made reasonable efforts to re-unify the children with 

appellant-father. 

II. The trial court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence 

that it is in the best interest of the children to terminate appellant-father’s 

parental rights and to award permanent custody of the children to Lucas 

County Children Services (“LCCS”). 

{¶ 3} Mother sets forth two assignments of error: 

I. The evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the minor 

child A.T. could not be returned to the parents was not clear and convincing 

when the child had only been removed approximately seven months before 

the final hearing. 

II. The evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the minor 

child A.T. herein could not be returned to the parents was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence when the child had only been removed 

approximately seven months before the final hearing. 

 
3. 

Background 

{¶ 4} Mother and father are the parents of P.T., who was born in January 2018, 

and A.T., who was born in April 2019. Mother and father, who were in an on-again, offagain relationship, never married. 

{¶ 5} In January 2018, LCCS became involved with the family when P.T. was 

born with marijuana in her system, and there were mental health concerns with mother. 

{¶ 6} On January 22, 2018, LCCS filed a complaint in dependency and neglect 

and a motion for shelter care hearing. A hearing was held that day, and the magistrate 

issued a decision finding: mother has untreated mental health issues, domestic violence 

issues and no housing; both parents have criminal histories; and father admits to 

marijuana use and lives with his dad. The magistrate granted LCCS interim, temporary 

custody of P.T., and P.T. was placed in a foster home. 

{¶ 7} On January 25, 2018, the court appointed a special advocate/guardian ad 

litem (“CASA/GAL”) for P.T. 

{¶ 8} On February 9, 2018, the original case plan was filed. Thereafter, numerous 

amended case plans were filed, and approved by the court. 

{¶ 9} On March 1, 2018, father filed a motion for legal custody and to determine 

visitation and support. 

{¶ 10} On March 7, 2018, a hearing was held, and on March 8, 2018, the

magistrate issued a decision adjudicating P.T. dependent, and granting LCCS temporary 

custody. P.T. remained in the foster home. 
4. 

{¶ 11} On March 12, 2018, the judge filed a judgment entry in which she found, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that P.T. was dependent and it was in P.T.’s best 

interest to award LCCS temporary custody. LCCS’s temporary custody of P.T. was 

extended several times. 

{¶ 12} On October 24, 2018, father filed a motion for legal custody and to 

determine visitation and support. On November 16, 2018, mother filed a motion for legal 

custody. 

{¶ 13} In April 2019, A.T. was born. LCCS filed a complaint in dependency, and 

was granted protective supervision over A.T., who lived at home with mother and father. 

A case plan and amended case plans were filed and approved by the court. 

{¶ 14} On April 10, 2019, the court appointed the same GAL for A.T. 

{¶ 15} On July 25, 2019, a joint motion to dismiss the motions for legal custody 

was filed; the motion was granted the same day. 

{¶ 16} On August 12, 2019, LCCS filed a motion to change disposition and for 

temporary custody of A.T., and requested an emergency hearing. LCCS alleged mother 

reported to Melissa Coburn, the permanency worker for the family, that there were 

domestic violence incidents with the children present, and mother was scared of father. 

The magistrate issued an ex parte order that same day ordering A.T. into shelter case 

custody at once. A.T. was removed from the parents’ care and placed in the same foster 

home with P.T. 
5. 

{¶ 17} On August 20, 2019, the judge issued a judgment entry. Custody and 

placement of A.T. was reviewed and approved. 

{¶ 18} On November 15, 2019, father filed a motion for legal custody of A.T. 

{¶ 19} On December 12, 2019, LCCS filed a motion for permanent custody of 

P.T., and on February 13, 2020, LCCS filed a motion for permanent custody of A.T. 

{¶ 20} On February 19, 2020, the trial court consolidated P.T. and A.T.’s cases. 

{¶ 21} On March 30, 2020, the CASA/GAL filed her report and recommendations. 

Also on that day, the hearing on the motions for permanent custody was held. Mother 

and father arrived together, approximately two hours late. The court announced its 

decision on March 31, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the court issued its judgment entry, 

granting permanent custody of the children to LCCS. Father appealed, then mother 

appealed. 

The Permanent Custody Hearing

{¶ 22} Mother and father testified at the March 30, 2020, hearing. LCCS called 

the caseworker and CASA/GAL. The relevant testimony is summarized below. 

Caseworker

{¶ 23} Emily Mauter testified to the following. She is an ongoing caseworker for 

LCCS, and started working with mother, father and P.T. in January 2018. The case was 

opened because P.T. tested positive for marijuana at birth and there were concerns 

regarding mother’s mental health, and domestic violence, substance abuse and housing 

issues for mother and father. 
6. 

{¶ 24} Mother has been diagnosed with bipolar personality disorder and has been 

in multiple facilities for treatment. Mother has an older child, a son, who has a different 

dad. The son was adopted in 2019, and mother’s parental rights were terminated. 

{¶ 25} The case plan services for both mother and father included undergoing a 

dual diagnostic assessment (“DDA”), completing anger management, parenting and 

maintaining stable housing. Mother completed her DDA in January 2018, and was 

diagnosed with anxiety, depression and misuse disorder, mild. It was recommended that 

she undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Mother was prescribed medication. Mother 

completed dual recovery group in June 2018. It was also recommended that mother 

attend counseling twice a month, which she did until October 2018, at which point she 

missed ten sessions. There were concerns that mother’s medication had changed and she 

was not sleeping well, but it turned out mother was pregnant, which she withheld. There 

were then concerns if mother was getting medical treatment. Mother did resume 

counseling, which continued through June 2019. Also in June 2019, mother completed 

the psychiatric evaluation, and she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 

recurrent, with anxious distress and other specified personality disorders. It was 

recommended that she complete a diagnostic assessment (“DA”) for dialectical behavior 

therapy (“DBT”) through Perrysburg Counseling or another counseling service. Mother 

completed the DA on October 8, 2019, but she did not follow through with DBT. 
7. 

{¶ 26} Father completed a DDA in March 2018, and was not recommended for 

mental health services. Mother and father completed anger management in April 2018, 

and parenting classes in May 2018. 

{¶ 27} Regarding visits, the parents’ visits with the children were appropriate. At 

first, mother and father visited consistently with P.T., with supervised visits starting in 

July 2018. In January 2019, overnight visits with P.T. were added, one night a week for 

four weeks. On February 13, 2019, P.T. was with mother and father, which was the first 

week P.T. was having two overnights with parents. Mother and father were told they 

could take P.T. to a medical appointment, because P.T. had a fever and was not feeling 

well. Mother emailed Mauter the next day to ask if they could make an appointment; a 

medical appointment was made, but parents did not take P.T. due to car trouble. On 

February 15, 2019, when P.T. was picked up by visitation transportation, father said P.T. 

had burns on her hand, he was not sure from what, and P.T. needed medical attention. 

The foster family took P.T. to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a first and 

second degree burn. There was an open investigation that was substantiated for neglect 

by the parents for not seeking medical attention for P.T. The cause of the burn was never 

determined. As of February 15, 2019, the parents’ visits with P.T. were returned to 

LCCS. 

{¶ 28} When A.T. was born in April 2019, mother and father were doing services 

and were doing well, so A.T. went home with protective supervision. 
8. 

{¶ 29} In August 2019, there were domestic violence concerns, and the children 

were present. Mauter learned, via mother’s hospital records, about domestic violence 

incidents resulting in injuries to mother. At a staffing meeting on August 19, 2019, 

mother said domestic violence between her and father was going on for a long time. 

Based on the disclosure, LCCS removed A.T. from the home, and LCCS filed for 

custody. A.T. was placed in the same foster home as P.T. Level 2 visits at LCCS were 

arranged for the children with mother and father, separately. Mother denied to Mauter 

multiple times that there was domestic violence, then mother would confirm there was 

domestic violence. It was a challenge to tell when mother was truthful. 

{¶ 30} In September 2019, mother admitted that she had a medical condition 

which caused her to faint or pass out five to eight times a day. In order to keep the 

children safe during visits, Level 1 visits were instituted. Mother stopped visiting the 

children from November 1, 2019 until February 3, 2020, and the reasons given by mother 

were: she was visiting a relative in New York; she had transportation issues; and she did 

not want to visit in Level 1, so until she was in Level 2, she would not visit the children. 

Mother was told in order to move to Level 2, she had to attend visits and keep Mauter updated on her medical diagnosis and treatment. Since November or December 2019, 

Mauter’s contact with mother was difficult as mother did not see the point of seeing 

Mauter. LCCS suspended visitation with the children on March 17, 2020. 

{¶ 31} Father stopped visiting with the children from November 4, 2019 until 

January 31, 2020, due to work. Mauter reached out to father, and he restarted visits. The 
9. 

last time Mauter saw father was February 28, 2020, when he was visiting with P.T., and 

had concerns about a bruise on her thigh, a scratch on her leg, and her hair was not 

greased properly. Mauter contacted the foster family who explained P.T. scraped her leg 

while jumping on a diaper box and she had a rash, which was darker and discolored. 

Father insisted the scrape was a dog scratch, and he got hostile. Mauter recalled there 

were other allegations made by the parents, and after LCCS investigated, the parents 

would continue to make allegations. 

{¶ 32} In February 2020, there was a report of domestic violence made by mother 

that father had slapped her or assaulted her. 

{¶ 33} As to mother’s marijuana use, she tested positive on February 23, 2018, 

and was a no-show for a test on April 9, 2018. From April 12, 2018 to June 20, 2019, 

mother’s drug screen was clean. When A.T. was born in April 2019, mother did not test 

positive for marijuana. In July 2019, mother tested positive for THC twice, and she told 

Mauter that she had a medical marijuana card and smoked marijuana. Mauter talked to 

mother about how she did drug treatment for marijuana and should not be testing positive 

for it. In November 2019, mother was a no-show for a test, and on March 9, 2020, 

mother tested positive for marijuana. 

{¶ 34} Concerning father’s marijuana use, his drug screens were clean from 

February 22, 2018 until December 4, 2018. Father did not test positive for marijuana in 

April 2019, when A.T. was born. He did test positive on June 20, 2019. In his latest 

drug test, on December 17, 2019, he was clean. 
10. 

{¶ 35} Regarding housing, mother and father lived together the majority of the 

case, starting in April 2018. At the time of trial, mother was living at the YWCA and 

father had housing, but had been served with an eviction notice. 

{¶ 36} Mother did not complete domestic violence survivor services, although she 

said she completed domestic violence courses when she was with a prior boyfriend. 

Mother did not follow through with recommendations and treatment, and does not have 

stable housing. Mauter was still concerned about mother’s mental health. Father has yet 

to complete batterer’s intervention and there is an outstanding warrant because of the 

February 10, 2020 domestic violence charge. 

{¶ 37} Mauter last spoke with mother on March 9, 2020, when mother said she 

wants to mend the relationship with the foster family. Mother said she never had any ill 

will, it was father who would go to war with other people. Mother was okay with the 

foster family adopting the children. 

{¶ 38} P.T. has been in LCCS’s temporary custody for pretty much her entire life, 

and LCCS took temporary custody of A.T. in August 2019. The children are in the same 

foster home, and there have never been any concerns with the foster family. The children 

are very happy, well taken care of and adored. 

{¶ 39} Mauter believed it was in the children’s best interest for LCCS to be 

awarded permanent custody, and she recommended that LCCS be awarded permanent 

custody so of the children can be adopted by the foster family. Although the parents have 
11. 

completed some services, there are still concerns for housing, substance abuse, mental 

health and domestic violence. 

Mother

{¶ 40} Mother testified to the following. She arrived at court with father because 

he paid for an Uber to pick her up, then pick him up. Mother thinks LCCS first got 

involved in this case when the woman who has her son called and made a referral 

because that woman wanted P.T. and did not approve of father. Mother stated the 

caseworker said the main concern was mother’s mental health, as she has been diagnosed 

with borderline personality disorder, bipolar 2, insomnia, generalized anxiety disorder, 

social anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and major depression. 

Her symptoms include having a major fear of abandonment, risky behavior, almost 

delusional thinking, paranoia, mood swings, fears, being codependent and very 

impulsive, getting very angry and lying. Mother was familiar with a certain sexuallyoriented website, as she had posted pictures of herself on it during manic episodes. 

Mother is prescribed medication, which she said she is taking. 

{¶ 41} Mother also has physical ailments including fainting spells, a knee issue, 

back pain and a bulging disk. She is waiting on a pain management referral for the 

bulging disk and will see a cardiologist for the fainting spells. 

{¶ 42} Mother said she was approved, in November 2019, for a medical marijuana 

card in Ohio, for PTSD and chronic back pain. Mother said father was looking into 

getting a medical marijuana license, and she saw the information so she spoke with her 
12. 

doctor and was approved. Mother was asked about her prescribed dosage of the 

marijuana and the frequency that she took it, and she replied “[t]here is no specific 

dosage * * * I usually will smoke at night and at bedtime. * * * [M]y anxiety causes 

racing thoughts to not let me fall asleep. * * * [N]ow I’m up to three to four times a day 

because of how severe my depression has become.” Mother stated the marijuana is 

ingested by edibles, vape oil, cooking it in food. On cross-examination, mother was 

asked about smoking marijuana, but she said she did not say that she smoked at night; she 

said she took her medication at night. Mother understood she could not smoke 

marijuana, she had to vape it. Mother was asked when the last time was that she smoked 

illegal marijuana and she responded “[i]t definitely has been years.” 

{¶ 43} Mother admitted she lied numerous times to the caseworkers and CASA. 

Mother lied about being pregnant with A.T., which caused her stress, and which may 

have caused A.T.’s lack of development. Mother also lied to caseworker Emily Mauter 

and the police about father being violent. Mother said domestic violence has not been an 

issue with father, but she was involved in domestic violence with her son’s dad. She 

acknowledged the police have come out to the house regarding her and father, but mother 

said she fabricated everything because she was afraid father would take the children and 

abandon her. In June 2019, mother remembers going to the emergency room 

complaining about neck, back and arm pain, which she blamed on her boyfriend 

assaulting her, but she said that was not really the cause. Then, on February 10, 2020, 
13. 

mother told the police that father struck her in the eye, but she said she also fabricated 

this. 

{¶ 44} When asked if she was visiting the children, mother said she was not 

feeling well, and her last two visits she had a really bad fever and she did not want to get 

the children sick. If she is not completely healthy, she tries not to be around the children. 

Mother stated she did not visit for three months, from November 2019 to February 2020, 

because losing the children was killing her and she did not want to let them see her 

falling apart. 

{¶ 45} Mother said P.T. has been sick a majority of her life and A.T. has been sick 

since she has been in LCCS custody. Mother stated she was doing well and then LCCS 

took A.T. without giving mother any options. Mother opined the children’s care in 

LCCS custody is not appropriate, and the children have had diaper rash, a yeast infection 

and eczema. When mother tried to raise concerns with the caseworker, mother got 

backlash from the children’s foster mom. Mother said the relationship with the foster 

mom was awesome at first, but after mother complained about the children’s diaper rash 

going on too long, the relationship has not been the same. 

{¶ 46} At the time of trial, mother was living in the YWCA, where she had been 

for about a month. Mother said she went there to live because Melissa Coburn, the 

permanency worker for the family, “was trying to convince me to put domestic violence 

charges on [father] and go to the YWCA with [A.T.] * * * and she was informing me that 

if I didn’t leave, my child would be removed. And I wish I would have took heed to the 
14. 

warning and left but not at that time.” Mother said she left the home on Streicher in 

August 2019, then stayed with a friend on the couch and was “hopping couches” until she 

got into the YWCA. Mother had no solid income, as she lost her job due to the fainting 

spells. 

{¶ 47} Mother did not complete the domestic violence classes and she was in 

limbo with her therapy, as she is in the process of switching mental health providers. 

Mother was supposed to go to DBT in Perrysburg, but she said it was very difficult 

because she did not have a vehicle and no buses go out there. 

{¶ 48} Mother apologized for the lies she told and the headaches she caused. She 

understood she could go to jail for falsifying police reports, but said it was not right to let 

the court believe the lies she told about father. Mother said it would be in the children’s 

best interest to be with father because he is very appropriate and is an amazing father. 

Father

{¶ 49} Father testified to the following. Before mother was pregnant with P.T., 

father was testing her to see if she could handle children, because mother told him about 

what happened with her son, but she said she was a good mom. Mother watched father’s 

sister’s kids who were “kind of bad, rough.” Father thought if mother “could kind of 

control a kid raised in the city who mom let them do what they want, like they had no 

rules, then * * * I will feel much better that you can do it.” 

{¶ 50} After P.T. was born and removed from the home, LCCS requested that 

father undergo a dual assessment, attend parenting classes and anger management 
15. 

classes. Father complied with all of the requests. There was a point where father and 

mother had unsupervised visits with P.T., which was around the time that A.T. was born. 

In October and December 2019, father underwent two more assessments. Father and 

mother were assessed on the same day in October 2019, but went to the facility 

separately. Father then began therapy in December 2019, and domestic violence classes 

in March 2020. 

{¶ 51} Father thought it was best for his children to live with him. Father lives on 

East Streicher, but plans to move because the house is sad. Due to the cornavirus, 

however, he does not have current plans to move, even though he is packed and ready to 

go. 

{¶ 52} Father is not a bad guy, he does not hit. Father knew mother had anxiety 

and depression, but only found out about the rest of her mental health issues through 

paperwork. Father and mother moved in together in March 2018, and after a month she 

started to cry, she was not happy and she was mad. “As time went on I start, like, this 

ain’t the one that I was messing with, like before we moved together.” Father tried to tell 

mother to get help, but she would get mad and break glasses. 

{¶ 53} Father discovered that mother was a liar in May 2018, so “[w]e faked a 

relationship. * * * We told CSB we were together but we wasn’t together.” 

{¶ 54} Father’s previous attorney told father if he had his own place, he would 

have the kids. Father recorded this conversation and mother heard it. Father said he then 

became the enemy. Mother’s “reaction was, oh, you going to try to take the kids and 
16. 

raise them with another girl and I ain’t never going to see them.” Mother was a little 

aggressive and crying. Father and mother stayed together at that time. 

{¶ 55} Father last smoked pot in September 2019. Father had been working, but 

coronavisrus shut the building down and stopped the bus. 

{¶ 56} Father was asked how many children he has, and he responded “[o]ne, two 

– I have four * * * [P.T. and A.T.] [a]nd a 20-year old and one I didn’t tell Children 

Services.” 

{¶ 57} The last time mother spent the night at father’s house was in October 2019, 

when mother stopped by to get a few items and passed out on the floor. Mother was not 

supposed to be there, so father put mother in the bedroom and he left and went to see 

“one of the girls that I talk to.” 

{¶ 58} Father talked about visits with the children, and said he did not see the 

children from November 5, 2019 until January 31, 2020, which was 87 days. He 

explained he was working 12-hour shifts, from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m., and he had to catch 

the bus at 4:30 p.m., and “the bus would have us at the Erie Street Market about 8:40, 

8:45.” 

CASA/GAL

{¶ 59} Holly Miller testified to the following. She was appointed as the CASA for 

P.T., and the GAL for A.T. when she was born. 

{¶ 60} Miller conducted an investigation and dependent examination and

submitted her findings and recommendation in the GAL report she filed with court. 
17. 

{¶ 61} Miller visited with the children, met with the caseworkers and the parents’ 

attorneys. She viewed the children’s interactions with each other, with the parents and at 

their foster home. The children are bonded with each other and doing very well. The 

children are very comfortable in their foster home, and “very confident and trusting of the 

foster family and very bonded with each other and the other child that’s in the home.” 

The interactions between the children and the parents were very appropriate. Miller last 

saw the parents with the children in August or September 2019, due in part to the parents 

not visiting with the children. Miller did observe mother behave in an inappropriate 

manner in the summer of 2018, when mother was upset and trying to point out a red spot 

on P.T. Miller said the spot did not look red, and mother “was really angry and leaned 

over and was screaming in my face.” Mother had “ongoing concerns with every bump, 

and scratch and rash on the children, and they’ve all been addressed.” The children had 

significant diaper rash which was appropriately treated, as they see a dermatologist. 

{¶ 62} Miller last spoke with mother in October 2019, because mother did not 

want contact with Miller, as mother was “out of this case,” and not participating in case 

plan services. Miller saw mother’s photographs and soliciting services, including pricing 

and her location on Streicher, on a website posted February 25, 2020. 

{¶ 63} Regarding whether father should be granted custody of the children, Miller 

was very concerned that he has not engaged in individual therapy and domestic violence 

batterers’ services. She was also very concerned that there are on-going reports of 

domestic violence and extremely troubled by the lack of visits for so long. She 
18. 

mentioned Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and a birthday were missed. Miller 

opined this demonstrates a lack of commitment to the children. 

{¶ 64} As to reunification efforts, overnights with P.T. occurred, but then the burn 

happened and the overnight process stopped. A.T. was born, after the hidden pregnancy, 

and protective supervision started. There were still allegations of domestic violence, so 

A.T. was removed. In mid and late September and early October 2019, Miller and Emily 

Mauter went to the parents’ home three times, as they were unable to connect with 

mother or father. Mother said she did not want to be contacted and father said he was 

busy working. Up until October 2019, there were still discussions about reunification, 

but then there was the failure to do case plan services and lack of visitation for three 

months by both parents. Miller opined there is nothing more that LCCS could have done, 

and there is nothing more for LCCS to do as the same concerns in the beginning of the 

case are still the same concerns today, two years later. 

{¶ 65} Miller recommended permanent custody to LCCS, as it was in the 

children’s best interest. She based this on so little movement with case plan services, 

lack of services, lack of commitment, lack of stability and absence of truth. A legally 

secure, permanent placement was extremely important for the children’s growth and 

development, which cannot be achieved with the parents. 

Permanent Custody Law

{¶ 66} The juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to a children 

services agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of 
19. 

at least one of the four factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d), and (2) the 

child’s best interest is served by granting permanent custody to the agency. In re M.B., 

10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP755, 2005-Ohio-986, ¶ 6; R.C. 2151.353(A)(4). Clear and 

convincing evidence requires proof which “produce[s] in the mind of the trier of facts a 

firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 

Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶ 67} A juvenile court’s decision in a permanent custody case will not be 

reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.H., 

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, citing In re Andy-Jones, 10th 

Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-1167 and 03AP-1231, 2004-Ohio-3312, ¶ 28. “The underlying 

rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge 

that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures 

and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the 

proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 

1273 (1984). Furthermore, “[e]very reasonable presumption must be made in favor of 

the judgment and the findings of facts [of the trial court].” Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 

Ohio St.3d 12, 19, 526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988). Hence, a judgment supported by some 

competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the case is not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. Id.; C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio 

St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. 

 
20. 

Factors under R.C. 2125.414(B)(1) 

{¶ 68} R.C. 2125.414(B)(1) states in relevant part: 

(a) The child is not abandoned * * * 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. 

R.C. 2151.414(E)

{¶ 69} R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot be 

placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed 

with either parent if any one of sixteen factors are met. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) - (16). R.C. 

2151.414(E)(1), (2) and (4) provide: 

(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. 

(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 permanent 

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

after the court holds the hearing * * *; 
21. 

* * * 

(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the 

child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child 

when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide 

an adequate permanent home for the child; * * *. 

Juvenile Court’s Decision

{¶ 70} The court outlined and thoroughly addressed each of the case plan services 

offered to mother and father, as well as other concerns and issues which were present in 

the cases. The court also reviewed the testimony and evidence offered at trial, upon 

which it relied in reaching its conclusions and findings. 

{¶ 71} The court found, inter alia, under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), that the children: 

were not abandoned; have not been in the temporary custody of LCCS for twelve or more 

months; and cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. 

{¶ 72} The court further found, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4), the 

following. Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the parents failed to complete the needed 

services to solve the problems causing the children’s removal, and “‘non-compliance 

with a case plan is grounds for termination of parental rights.’” The court further found 

despite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by LCCS, the parents failed to 

substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside of the home. 
22. 

{¶ 73} Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), the court found no evidence that mother has 

resolved or made substantial progress in addressing her mental health issues to a degree 

that the children would be safe in her care. 

{¶ 74} The court found, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), the parents demonstrated a 

lack of commitment to the children by failing to visit from November 2019 until 

February 2020. Mother failed to visit for 94 days, and father failed to visit for 87 days. 

The court did not accept the parents’ excuses for not visiting the children, and noted 

“[m]any parents work many hours (indeed many with 12-hour shifts), yet they find time 

to parent their children on a full-time basis.” The court set forth it “has great concerns 

that father went almost 3 months without seeing his children for the one hour per week he 

has allotted.” 

{¶ 75} The court also found the parents failed to complete their case plan services, 

and instead of addressing their problems, they spent more energy complaining and trying 

to hide their problems. 

{¶ 76} The court observed that LCCS requested an updated diagnostic assessment 

due to domestic violence concerns, and father completed assessments at Unison in late 

2019, both of which included recommendations for clinical therapy. The court found 

“the Unison documents contain clear evidence of father’s refusal to participate in mental 

health treatment.” The court noted “[f]ather’s mental health records contain evidence of 

his childhood trauma and other unresolved mental health issues.” The court found 

“father remains in denial about the problems he must address.” 
23. 

{¶ 77} The court found “domestic violence remains a prevalent concern * * *. If 

true, both parents failed to address a serious problem. If untrue, mother’s disturbing 

behavior coupled with father tolerating or ignoring her behavior and failing to step up to 

provide a safe and stable home forecast a bleak future if these children returned to their 

care.” 

{¶ 78} The court found mother’s trial testimony, that she accused father of 

domestic violence to cover up her fainting condition, not credible. The court did find 

“the most compelling and credible evidence of the domestic violence contained in 

mother’s own admissions on page 122 of the St. Charles Mercy Hospital medical 

records.” As “[m]other’s June 2019 medical records document the severe degree of the 

injury she suffered causing her to seek medical attention.” In addition, the court observed 

“the undisputed evidence at trial indicates father has an active charge for domestic 

violence - and an active warrant - in Toledo Municipal Court. Mother took the effort to 

have father charged with domestic violence in February 2020.” 

{¶ 79} The court considered all of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) 

through (e), and found it was in the children’s best interest to award permanent custody to 

LCCS, as the foster caregivers are a prospective adoptive home. The court found the 

children were well-cared for in the foster home, and all of their needs are met. 

{¶ 80} The court further found LCCS made reasonable efforts to avoid the 

continued removal of the children from the home, and to implement and finalize a 

permanent plan, by providing case plan services to the parents and the children. The 
24. 

court specifically found “continuation in the family home of either parent is contrary to 

the welfare and best interest of the children.” 

Father’s First Assignment of Error 

{¶ 81} Father contends the trial court erred in finding, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that LCCS made reasonable efforts to re-unify the children with him. Father 

maintains he substantially complied with LCCS’s case plan, and LCCS did not meet its 

burden of proving it made reasonable efforts at reunification. Father acknowledged there 

were concerns regarding visitation for three months, but he had to work 12-hour shifts 

and take the bus to and from his job. As to father’s marijuana use, he observes there was 

no “testimony that the usage had or would affect his behavior toward his children,” so his 

marijuana use should not disqualify him from being a father to his children. 

Law 

{¶ 82} R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) provides: 

[A]t any hearing * * * at which the court removes a child from the 

child’s home or continues the removal of a child from the child’s home, the 

court shall determine whether the public children services agency * * * has 

made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the child’s 

home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child from the child’s 

home, or to make it possible for the child to return safely home. 
25. 

{¶ 83} The agency has the burden of proving that it made reasonable efforts to 

reunite the family. Id. “In determining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child’s 

health and safety shall be paramount.” Id. 

{¶ 84} In In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 41, 

the Ohio Supreme Court held that the reasonable efforts requirement, in R.C. 

2151.419(A)(1), does not apply in a hearing on a motion for permanent custody. 

Analysis 

{¶ 85} Upon review, the juvenile court was not required to make a reasonable 

efforts finding under R.C. 2151.419. Nonetheless, the court did find, by clear and 

convincing evidence, LCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The evidence 

shows 

{¶ 86} LCCS prepared and presented to father numerous case plans which were 

reasonably calculated to reunify the family and keep the children safe and healthy. 

Father initially complied, and completed the services. However, as the cases progressed, 

the concerns which caused LCCS’s original involvement reoccurred and persisted for the 

remainder of the cases. These concerns included substance abuse, domestic violence and 

housing. Moreover, father did not visit the children for almost three months, and only 

resumed visits after the caseworker reached out to him. 

{¶ 87} While LCCS continued to try to work with father throughout the cases, 

father did not restart services until near the time that LCCS filed for permanent custody. 
26. 

Then, father attended several domestic violence classes and participated in some therapy 

sessions. This was almost two years after P.T.’s case with LCCS commenced. 

{¶ 88} We conclude the trial court’s finding, that LCCS had made reasonable 

efforts to reunite the family, is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, 

although the trial court was not required to make such a finding. Accordingly, father’s 

first assignment of error is not well-taken. 

Father’s Second Assignment of Error 

{¶ 89} Father asserts the trial court erred in finding, by clear and convincing 

evidence, it is in the best interest of the children to terminate his parental rights and 

award permanent custody of the children to LCCS. Father observes the court cites to 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and relies on on-going mental health and domestic violence 

concerns, but he completed anger management and mental health services as 

recommended. Father claims the court questioned his mental health without providing 

any explanation or justification as to its significance, and the court cites to R.C. 

2151.414(E)(2), but there is no reference to father as it pertains to mental illness or 

chemical dependency that is so severe that it makes him unable to provide an adequate 

permanent home for the children. 

{¶ 90} Last, father notes the court cites to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), that the parents 

demonstrated a lack of commitment by failing to support, visit or communicate with the 

children when able to do so, but father argues he has explained that he had to work, 

which made it difficult to appear for the scheduled visits. Father submits the primary 
27. 

concern of the court in terminating the parental rights was the overall instability of 

mother which was imputed to him. 

Best Interest Standard

{¶ 91} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that the trial court shall consider all relevant 

factors when making custody determinations including: the wishes of the child; the 

child’s interactions and relationships with parents, siblings, and any person who may 

significantly affect the child; the custodial history of the child; and the child’s need for a 

legally secure, permanent placement. 

Analysis

{¶ 92} Father does not challenge the trial court’s R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) finding as it 

relates to him. Therefore, we will not address it. 

{¶ 93} Upon review of the best interest finding, which was challenged by father, 

the evidence in the record reveals the following. The foster home is the only home P.T. 

has ever known. A.T. has lived in the same foster home for her entire life, except for the 

first four months, when she lived with parents under LCCS’s protective supervision. P.T. 

and A.T. are bonded to the foster family, who are interested in adopting the children if 

LCCS is awarded permanent custody. The children are too young to express their 

wishes, but the CASA/GAL recommended permanent custody be award to LCCS, so the 

children can have a legally secure, permanent placement. 

{¶ 94} The evidence also shows the children and father have a bond, although 

father did not visit the children for almost three months. Father resumed visits with the 
28. 

children only after the caseworker contacted him; he did not take any steps to reestablish 

contact or maintain a relationship with the children. This shows a lack of commitment. 

In addition, father did not complete all of the case plan services needed to resolve the 

problems causing the children’s removal, including attending all of the recommended 

therapy appointments. The trial court specified that “[f]ather’s mental health records 

contain evidence of his childhood trauma and other unresolved mental health issues. * * 

*. [F]ather remains in denial about the problems he must address.” 

{¶ 95} The evidence shows that due to domestic violence concerns and/or father’s 

failure to separate himself from mother, who he claims lied about the domestic violence 

incidents, father could not provide the children with a secure, permanent placement. 

{¶ 96} We find the trial court considered all of the relevant best interest factors, 

and determined the factors weighed in favor of granting permanent custody of the 

children to LCCS. We further find that clear and convincing evidence supports the 

court’s decision that it is the children’s best interest to terminate father’s parental rights 

and award permanent custody to LCCS. Accordingly, father’s second assignment of 

error is found not well-taken. 

Mother’s First Assignment of Error

{¶ 97} Mother argues the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that A.T. 

could not be returned to the parents was not clear and convincing since A.T. had only 

been removed from the home approximately seven months before the final hearing. 

Mother notes A.T. was removed from the home in August 2019, and the permanent 
29. 

custody hearing was in March 2020. Mother contends while she and father did not 

completely finish their case plan services, they made progress towards completing the 

services, and no evidence was presented that she would not be able to complete her 

recommended services within the available time remaining on A.T.’s case. 

{¶ 98} Mother submits, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), A.T. had been in 

LCCS’s the temporary custody for approximately eight of twelve months at the time of 

trial, not twelve of twenty-two consecutive months, although LCCS did have protective 

supervision of A.T. for four months prior to the temporary custody. Mother argues over 

one year remained available to the parents to complete their recommended services with 

regard to A.T., therefore the state did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

mother could not complete her services within the time remaining on the case. Mother 

further asserts her and father’s performance in P.T.’s case is not dispositive of their 

ability to complete case plan services in A.T.’s case. 

Analysis 

{¶ 99} Although the main focus of mother’s argument is A.T., we find it necessary 

to include P.T. in our analysis, given the history of the family’s cases with LCCS. 

{¶ 100} The record shows the same concerns which caused LCCS’s original

involvement with the family when P.T. was born, are the same concerns which existed at 

the time of trial. Both parents have issues with substance abuse, domestic violence, 

mental health and housing. While mother claims she and father made progress towards 

completing the case plan services, and there was no evidence she would not be able to 
30. 

complete her services within the time remaining on A.T.’s case, the evidence reveals that 

for more than two years, LCCS tried to work with the parents yet mother and father did 

not resolve the issues which caused the removal of the children. Moreover, the case plan 

allowed mother and father visitation with the children once a week for an hour, but for 

approximately three months, both parents did not visit the children. Mother did not make 

a genuine effort to attend visits and complete services when she had the opportunity. 

There is no evidence in the record that it would be beneficial to the children to allow 

mother to have additional time to try to achieve what she already should have 

accomplished. 

{¶ 101} Upon review, we find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record 

to support the trial court’s determination that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the 

children cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time, despite reasonable 

case planning and diligent efforts by LCCS. We further find there is clear and 

convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that the parents 

have failed to substantially remedy the conditions which caused the children’s removal. 

Accordingly, mother’s first assignment of error is not well-taken. 

Mother’s Second Assignment of Error 

{¶ 102} Mother argues the court’s decision to award permanent custody of A.T. to 

LCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother relies on the reasons set 

forth in her first assignment of error. 

 
31. 

Law

{¶ 103} “Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all 

the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being 

against the manifest weight of the evidence.” C.E. Morris Co., 54 Ohio St.2d at 

paragraph one of the syllabus, 376 N.E.2d 578. 

Analysis

{¶ 104} The record shows P.T. has never lived with parents and A.T. lived with 

parents for four months before she was placed with P.T. in a foster home. Mother and 

father had issues with substance use and domestic violence, and mother had mental health 

concerns and consistently lied. Mother and father consistently visited with P.T. and A.T. 

until November 2019, when both parents stopped visiting for approximately three 

months. Mother and father completed some, but not all, of the case plan services. Mother 

did not have independent, stable housing, and father was being evicted from the house he 

rents. Despite LCCS offering mother and father case plan services over more than a twoyear period, the issues which caused the children to be removed from the home still exist. 

{¶ 105} Based upon these circumstances, we find the juvenile court’s decision to 

grant permanent custody of the children to LCCS is supported by sufficient competent, 

credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, 

mother’s second assignment of error is not well-taken. 
32. 

{¶ 106} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellant, A.T., and appellant, D.S., are 

ordered to split the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

 _______________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.