[Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

IN RE T.A. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 : 

 : Case No. 2012CA00029 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Family Court Division, 

Case No. 2009 JCV 01439 

 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Mother-Appellant: For Appellee: 

 

JENNIFER A. ROBERTS JERRY A. COLEMAN 

122 Central Plaza North, Suite B3 Stark County DJFS 

Canton, OH 44702 221 – 3rd St. SE 

 Canton, OH 44702 

 
[Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]

Delaney, P.J. 

{¶1} Mother-Appellant Jessica Yarnell appeals the January 23, 2012 

judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division to grant 

permanent custody of T.A. to Appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family 

Services (“SCDJFS”). 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} Mother is the mother of T.A., born June 29, 2006, and S.Y., born October 

23, 2008. S.Y. is not part of this action because on June 3, 2011, the child was placed 

in the legal custody of the child’s father. T.A.’s father has not appeared in this action. 

{¶3} On November 9, 2009, SCDJFS filed a complaint requesting T.A. be 

placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. At the time of the filing, the concerns 

were the lack of parental supervision and parental drug use. T.A. was demonstrating 

aggressive behaviors towards S.Y., such as pouring Comet cleanser on the child 

causing chemical burns. The shelter care hearing was held on November 12, 2009 

and T.A. was placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. 

{¶4} On January 29, 2010, the trial court found T.A. to be neglected and 

continued his temporary custody with SCDJFS. The trial court adopted a case plan 

for Mother to complete a parenting evaluation at Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health 

and follow any recommendations; complete a Quest drug assessment; engage in 

counseling; complete Goodwill’s parenting program; and participate in Intensive 

Parent Child Interaction (IPCI) therapy. In addition, Mother was not to permit T.A. to 

be around the maternal grandparents due to their pervasive marijuana use. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 3 

{¶5} SCDJFS was granted two six-month extensions of temporary custody. 

Mother was working on her case plan by completing her parenting evaluation, the 

Goodwill Parenting program, IPCI, and the Quest assessment. Mother was engaged 

in mental health counseling. Mother had appropriate housing for T.A. 

{¶6} On June 14, 2011, SCDJFS attempted reunification of the family by 

placing T.A. on an extended visit with Mother. As part of the extended visit, Mother 

was to take T.A. to protective daycare, continue his counseling with Child and 

Adolescent Behavioral Health, and to abide by the court order prohibiting contact 

between T.A. and his maternal grandparents. Mother was also to remain compliant 

with her services and to refrain from using illegal substances. 

{¶7} During the extended visit, Mother did not take T.A. to his counseling or to 

protective daycare. Mother permitted T.A. to visit with his maternal grandparents. 

Mother also missed her counseling appointments. She was not in counseling in June, 

July, August, and September. 

{¶8} During the extended visit, Mother tested positive for marijuana use. She 

tested positive on July 26, August 1, August 10, and August 23. 

{¶9} SCDJFS removed T.A. from Mother’s care on August 1, 2011 and 

returned him to his foster home. 

{¶10} In September 2011, Mother’s visitation with T.A. was terminated because 

of T.A.’s negative reactions to the visits. T.A. had tantrums, defecated in his pants, 

and hit people after visitation with Mother due to her confusing messages to T.A. 

Mother told T.A. his foster mother was his “fake mom” and T.A. did not have to listen 

to her. With the termination of visitation, T.A.’s outbursts and negative behavior were 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 4 

less dramatic and less frequent. T.A. receives services for his emotional and 

behavioral concerns through Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Northeast Ohio 

Behavioral Health, and Akron Children’s Hospital. T.A. is bonded with his foster 

family. 

{¶11} Dr. Aimee Thomas of Northeast Behavioral Health Services examined 

Mother for her parenting evaluations. During her assessment, Mother admitted to 

smoking marijuana all day, every day when she was parenting her children. Dr. 

Thomas felt Mother’s drug usage directly contributed to Mother’s poor supervision of 

her children. Dr. Thomas recommended that Mother demonstrate nine months of 

sobriety before placing T.A. with Mother. 

{¶12} T.A. has been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS since November 12, 

2009. SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody on September 16, 2011. 

{¶13} The Guardian ad litem recommended that SCDJFS be granted 

permanent custody of T.A. 

{¶14} On January 22, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for 

permanent custody. The trial court granted the motion for permanent custody on 

January 23, 2012. It is from this decision Mother now appeals. 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶15} Mother raises two Assignments of Error: 

{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT 

CUSTODY TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY 

SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 5 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR 

CHILDREN TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY. 

{¶17} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING GROUNDS FOR 

PERMANENT CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

ANALYSIS 

I., II. 

{¶18} We consider Mother’s first and second Assignments of Error together. 

{¶19} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the 

evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there 

is relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base 

his or her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911 

(Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent, credible 

evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction, 54 

Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). Furthermore, it is well established that the 

trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., In 

re Brown, 9th Dist. No. 21004, 2002–Ohio–3405, ¶ 9, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio 

St .2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967).

{¶20} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) reads as follows: “Except as provided in division 

(B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if 

the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 6 

permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent 

custody and that any of the following apply:

{¶21} “(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, 

* * * 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.

{¶22} “* * *

{¶23} “(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 * * *.”

{¶24} In this case, the trial court found T.A. had been in the temporary custody 

of SCDJFS for a period greater than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. 

We find the record supports this conclusion. 

{¶25} The trial court went on to make a determination that T.A. could not be 

placed with either parent within a reasonable time nor should T.A. be placed with 

either parent. 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, a trial 

court is to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414(E), 

including whether or not “[f]ollowing 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 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 7 

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 the purpose of changing parental conduct to 

allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.” See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

{¶26} T.A. was removed from Mother’s care because of her drug dependency, 

which affected her ability to supervise her children and meet T.A.’s needs. Mother 

complied with her case plan and abstained from drug usage when T.A. was 

temporarily removed from Mother’s care. Based on Mother’s compliance, SCDJFS 

reunified Mother and T.A. with the goal of permanent reunification. Within weeks of 

T.A. being in her care, Mother resumed using marijuana and failed to do the things 

necessary to care for T.A. and herself. Mother did complete her case plan, but could 

not maintain her success while caring for T.A. The evidence shows that T.A. requires 

structure and consistency but Mother cannot provide those things while she is drug 

dependent. 

{¶27} The trial court next determined it was in T.A.’s best interests to be placed 

in the permanent custody of SCDJFS. It is well-established that “[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 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 8 

1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000) quoting In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 

424 (1994). 

{¶28} In determining the best interest of a child for purposes of permanent 

custody disposition, the trial court is required to consider the factors contained in R.C. 

2151.414(D). These factors are as follows: 

{¶29} “(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's 

parents, siblings, relatives, foster care givers and out-of-home providers, and any 

other person who may significantly affect the child; 

{¶30} “(2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through 

the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; 

{¶31} “(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether 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 * * *; 

{¶32} “(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and 

whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody 

to the agency; 

{¶33} “(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section 

apply in relation to the parents and child.” 

{¶34} T.A. has a history of oppositional and aggressive behavior. He first 

came to the attention of SCDJFS because he poured Comet cleanser on his younger 

sibling, causing chemical burns. He was removed from two daycare programs 

because of his aggressive behavior. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 9 

{¶35} Mother had visitation with T.A. until September 2011, when Mother told 

him his foster mother was his “fake mom” and he did not have to listen to her. During 

that time, T.A.’s behaviors degenerated into temper tantrums, aggression, and soiling 

his pants. He put a child in his daycare into a chokehold. When the visitation 

terminated, T.A.’s behavior improved. 

{¶36} T.A. is in a foster-to-adopt home. He has resided with the family for two 

years and is bonded with the family. The foster family meets T.A.’s needs and 

provides him the structure he requires. 

{¶37} The Guardian ad litem recommended it would be in T.A.’s best interests 

to be placed in the permanent custody of SCDJFS. 

{¶38} Based on this record, we find no error in the trial court’s determination it 

would be in the best interests for T.A. to be placed in the permanent custody of 

SCDJFS. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 10 

CONCLUSION 

{¶39} Mother’s first and second Assignments of Error are overruled. 

{¶40} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court 

Division, is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, P.J. 

Gwin, J. and 

Hoffman, J. concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

PAD:kgb 

 
[Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 : 

 : 

 : 

IN RE T.A. : 

 : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2012CA00029 

 : 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the 

Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division is affirmed. Costs 

assessed to Appellant. 

 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN