[Cite as In re M.D., 2019-Ohio-1930.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

IN RE: M.D. 

 P.C. 

 

 

C.A. No. 18CA0085-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE Nos. 2015 12 AB 0048 

2015 12 DE 0049 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: May 20, 2019 

 

SCHAFER, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, P.C. (“Father”), appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights and placed his two minor 

children in the permanent custody of Medina County Job and Family Services (“MCJFS”). This 

Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Father is the biological father of M.D., born October 30, 2007; and P.C., born 

May 16, 2016. The children’s mother did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶3} M.D. and P.C. were removed from the custody of their parents during December 

2015 because of prior cases involving the parents and the fact that M.D. came to school with 

bruises on his body, which were determined to be the result of excessive physical discipline by 

Father. Father was later convicted of felony domestic violence. At the time of his conviction, 

Father was on post-release control for a conviction of unlawful sexual contact with a minor. 
2 

 

{¶4} Both children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary custody of 

MCJFS. Because Father had a long history of domestic violence and drug-related convictions, 

the case plan focused primarily on him demonstrating that he could control his anger and 

maintain sobriety. Father failed to cooperate with MCJFS, however, and continued to exhibit 

hostile and intimidating behavior toward caseworkers, the mother of his children, and other 

service providers. Father did not submit to drug testing as required and admitted that he 

continued to use alcohol. Father admitted that he continued to drink alcohol because that was his 

right. 

{¶5} On November 9, 2017, MCJFS moved for permanent custody of both children. 

Shortly afterward, Father was arrested, and later convicted, of operating a vehicle while under 

the influence of alcohol. The final dispositional hearing was continued by agreement of the 

parties so that MCJFS could conduct a home study of a potential kinship placement for the 

children. The matter ultimately proceeded to a hearing during July 2018. 

{¶6} Following a four-day hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights and placed 

both children in the permanent custody of MCJFS. Father appeals and raises one assignment of 

error. 

II. 

Assignment of Error 

The trial court erred and abused its discretion by terminating Father’s 

parental rights and granting permanent custody to [MCJFS]. 

{¶7} Father’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court’s permanent custody 

decision was not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Although he states both an 

abuse of discretion and manifest weight standard of review, the appropriate standard of review to 

address the argument that he has raised is whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of 
3 

 

the evidence. In re T.K., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28720, 2017-Ohio-9135, ¶ 7. To determine 

whether the permanent custody judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this 

Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses 

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its 

way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and 

a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. 

{¶8} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent 

custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both 

prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the 

temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the 

child or another child in a parent’s custody has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent 

on three separate occasions; or the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable 

time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); 

and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based 

on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also

In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996). 

{¶9} The trial court found that MCJFS satisfied the first prong of the permanent 

custody test because, among other reasons, the children had been in the temporary custody of 

MCJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. See R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d). Father does not dispute that finding, which is fully supported by the record. 

{¶10} Instead, Father challenges the trial court’s finding that permanent custody was in 

the best interest of both children. When determining the children’s best interest under R.C. 

2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and 
4 

 

interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial history of the children, the need for 

permanence in their lives, and whether any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) 

apply to the facts of the case. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834 and 

24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11. 

{¶11} Pursuant to the terms of his post-release control stemming from the domestic 

violence conviction, Father was prohibited from having any contact with M.D., the victim of the 

crime, and was permitted to have only supervised contact with P.C. Because Father was 

incarcerated two different times during this case, he had no contact with P.C. during those 

periods. 

{¶12} The children are closely bonded to each other and had lived together in the same 

foster home for more than two years. Several witnesses testified that the children were close to 

the foster family and were doing very well in that home. The foster parents had engaged the 

children in many activities, kept them on a consistent schedule, and worked with their counselors 

and others to assure that their needs were met. Through ongoing counseling and the structure 

and stability of the foster home, the mental health and behavior of each child had improved 

significantly. 

{¶13} The paternal grandmother, who had visited the children during this case, testified 

that the children were doing much better in the foster home and that she believed that they 

should stay there. She recognized that M.D. had not felt safe living with Father. The children’s 

mother also testified that M.D. was afraid of Father and that she believed the children should stay 

with the foster family. She admitted that she and Father had not been good parents and that the 

foster parents were meeting all of her children’s needs. 
5 

 

{¶14} Each child had consistently expressed a desire to stay with the foster family. 

M.D. had said that he feels safe in that home and that his only desire to see Father was for him to 

apologize for harming him. The guardian ad litem also opined that permanent custody was in the 

best interest of the children because the parents had made little progress on the goals of the case 

plan, so reunification was not possible, and the children were thriving in the foster home. 

{¶15} For the first four years of M.D.’s life, Father was incarcerated for manufacturing 

drugs and did not see the child. By the time of the hearing, the custodial history of the children 

in this case had included more than two years living in the temporary custody of MCJFS. In 

other words, M.D. had spent more than six years living outside Father’s custody, with little or no 

contact, and P.C. had spent approximately half of his life living in a temporary placement during 

this case. Both children needed a legally secure permanent placement and MCJFS had found no 

suitable relatives to provide such a placement. Although Father proposed family friends to take 

custody, they did not follow through with visitation or any recommended services until after 

MCJFS moved for permanent custody. 

{¶16} During the lengthy period that this case was pending, Father made little effort to 

work toward reunification and continued to exhibit the same problems that existed when this 

case began. He had not resolved his anger management problems, nor had he achieved sobriety 

and, in fact, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol while this case was pending. 

Notably, Father accepted no responsibility for his children being removed from his custody or 

for his domestic violence conviction. Although he had entered a plea of no contest, he testified 

that he did not believe that he had abused M.D. because he “got a lot worse [discipline] growing 

up.” He further testified that, under the same circumstances, he would probably hit the child 

with a belt again because “[t]hat’s my right as a parent.” 
6 

 

{¶17} The evidence before the trial court supported its conclusion that permanent 

custody was in the best interest of these children. Father’s assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶18} Father’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JULIE A. SCHAFER 

 FOR THE COURT 
7 

 

TEODOSIO, P. J. 

CARR, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

ERIC D. HALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

AMANDA CASALINUOVO, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. 

JEREMY SZUCS, Guardian ad Litem.