[Cite as In re B.M.S. , 2021-Ohio-421.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: B.M.S. : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. : Hon. Crai g R. Baldwin, J. : : Case No. 20-COA-004 : : : : : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 20163059

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 16, 2021

APPEARANCES:

Fo r Appellant Mothe r : Fo r Appellee State of Ohio:

EMILY M. BATES CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL 46 W. Main St. ASHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR Ashland, OH 44805 COLE F. OBERLI 110 Cotta g e St., Third Floo r Ashland, OH 44805Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 2

Delaney, J. {¶1} Appellant Mother appeals from the December 11, 2019 Opinio n and Judgment Entry of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juv enile Division, granting permanent custody of B.M.S. to the Ashland County Depa rtment of Job and Family Services (“Agency”). Appellee is the state of Ohio.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} This case arose on June 5, 2017, when Sgt. Aaron Kline of the Ashland Police Department was contacted by Mother’s adult daughter who complained Mother was intoxicated and walking to an address on Taylor Street. Kl ine encountered Mother walking as she held a baby and Kline noticed red marks and scab s all over the baby’s body. This baby was B.M.S., the subject of the instant case. Kline could smell an odor of an alcoholic beverage about Mother’s person. He photographe d the baby, and Mother said B.M.S. was being treated for eczema but she had recently m issed a doctor’s appointment. Kline testified that Mother admitted consuming fo ur to five beers and smoking weed within the last week. {¶3} At that point Kline arrested Mother and contacted the Agen cy regarding removal of the children. Kline testified that after he placed Mother under arrest, she said

she had consumed 30 to 35 beers and that she smoked crack and s norted cocaine with her father the night before. Mother threatened to kill herself and was transported to a hospital. {¶4} Due to Mother’s arrest and condition, B.M.S. and her other children, L.S.IV and A.S., were removed. The Agency filed complaints alleging t he three children to be dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). Mother later admitted t o the complaints and allAshland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 3

three children were adjudicated dependent. The children were p laced in the temporary custody of the Agency. {¶5} Regarding B.M.S., the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody on January 18, 2019, and the motion was heard by the court on May 25, 2019. {¶6} Supervisor Ashley Starcher testified on behalf of the Agen cy. Starcher oversaw this case from its inception until September 2018. She testified that Mother was convicted of child endangering following the incident with Klin e. {¶7} Starcher testified about Mother’s case plan, which include d all three children. The father of B.M.S was identified as David Colbert, who is deceased. Paternity was never judicially established and notice of all proceedings was served upon any person who might be the unknown father of B.M.S. {¶8} Mother was assigned drug services, mental health services, parenting services, and case management. Mother did participate in paren ting education classes, and was pending completion in December 2018. As part of drug s ervices, Mother was required to provide random drug tests for the Agency. Starcher testified Mother tested positive for cocaine on September 27, October 4, and November 1 7, 2017. Mother wanted to “get her life together” and “make changes” while she was incarcerated in January 2018, but she again tested positive for cocaine on May 25, June 4, June 19, and July 26, 2018. Starcher attributed Mother’s relapse to her fam ily. At one point Mother

checked herself into a rehabilit ation facility but checked hers elf out after two days. {¶9} Mother also lost her housing in July 2018 and had inconsis tent living arrangements.Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 4

{¶10} Caseworker Amber Barone became involved in the case in Se ptember 2018 and also testified on behalf of the Agency. She met with Mother on October 25, 2018, and Mother was transient with no permanent address. {¶11} Also on October 25, 2018, Mother tested positive for coca ine. At that time, Mother told Barone she was not willing to work with the Agency and that she wanted a new caseworker. Barone was unsuccessful in contacting Mother f rom November 2018 until January 2019. In January 2019, Mother initiated contact and said she was living in Akron with friends. Mother agreed to come to the Agency the ne xt Monday to meet with Barone and perform a drug screen. She failed to do so. Mother ’s failure to meet with or cooperate with the Agency meant she was also not visiting with her children. {¶12} Caseworker Diane Chinn also testified on behalf of the Ag ency because

she inherited the case from Barone. Chinn testified that her f irst phone contact with Mother was January 31, 2019. Mother had unsuccessfully attempt ed to receive inpatient drug treatment and still had no permanent address. Mother sche duled to meet with Chinn but then failed to appear. Chinn first met with Mother on Marc h 18, 2019, when Mother visited her children at the Agency; this was Mother’s first vis itation since Chinn was assigned to the case. {¶13} Mother received a mental health and substance abuse asses sment on February 5, 2018, but completed no other counseling services. Mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and cocaine u se disorder, and further counseling was recommended. {¶14} B.M.S. was one month old at the commencement of the proce edings and was age 2 at the time of the permanent custody hearing. He was originally placed in heAshland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 5

same foster home as his brother, L.S. IV, but a separate foster home from their sister, A.S. The foster mother of B.M.S. gave birth to her own child a nd two infants became too

much to care for. B.M.S. was therefore removed to a new foster home, where he has

remained ever since. {¶15} The foster placement of B.M.S. is certified, safe, and ap propriate. B.M.S.’ needs are being met and he is making satisfactory progress. He has a bonded, positive relationship with the other occupants of the foster home, and t he foster home placement has indicated willingness to maintain the children in their res pective placements on a longterm basis if necessary. {¶16} Visits between Mother and the children were permitted thr oughout the history of the cases; for the first nine months, Mother visited regularly. Then she stopped visiting, but recommenced in 2019. {¶17} It is the opinion of the caseworker and the G.A.L. that t he children cannot be returned to Mother or their fathers and an order granting pe rmanent custody of L.S. IV

and B.M.S. is in the children’s best interest. A Planned Perma nent Living Arrangement

is in the best interest of A.S. {¶18} After the hearing, the Juvenile Court found by clear and convincing evidence that L.S. IV and B.M.S. be placed in the permanent cus tody of the Agency. A.S. was placed in a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. {¶19} Mother now appeals from the trial court’s December 11, 20 19 judgment entry.Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 6

{¶20} Mother raises one assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶21} “THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST INTERESTS

OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING OF PERMANENT

CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE

EVIDENCE.”

ANALYSIS {¶22} Mother argues the juvenile court’s decision to grant perm anent custody of B.M.S. to the Agency is against the manifest weight and suffici ency of the evidence. We disagree. {¶23} A trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of a child must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Ohio Supreme Co urt has defined “clear and convincing evidence” as “[t]he measure or degree of proof t hat will produce in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere prepond erance, but not to the extent of such certainty, as required beyond a reasonable doubt , as in criminal

cases.” Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954); In re: Adoption of

Holcomb , 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985). In reviewing whethe r the trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a revie wing court will examine

the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficie nt evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel , 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990); See also, C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). If the trial court's judgment is “supported by some competent, credibleAshland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 7

evidence going to all the essential elements of the case,” a re viewing court may not reverse that judgment. Schiebel , 55 Ohio St.3d at 74. {¶24} Moreover, “an appellate court should not substitute its j udgment for that of the trial court when there exists competent and credible eviden ce supporting the findings

of fact and conclusion of law.” Id. Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. As the court explained

in Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland , 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984): 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 witness es and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observa tions in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony. Moreover, deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is “crucial in a child custody case, where there ma y be much evident in the parties' demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the r ecord well.” Davis v. Flickinger , 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997); see, also, In re: Christian , 4th Dist. Athens No. 04CA10, 2004-Ohio-3146; In re: C.W., 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 20140, 2004-Ohio-2040. {¶25} We set forth a trial court's analysis of a permanent cust ody motion in In the Matters of: A.R., B.R., W.R., 5th Dist. Stark Nos 2018CA00091, 2018CA00097, 2018CA00098, 2019-Ohio-389, paraphrased as follows: When deciding a motion for permanent custody, a trial court must follow the guidelines for are provided in R.C. 2151.414. R .C. 2151.414(A)(1) requires the trial court to schedule a hearing a nd provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custod y of aAshland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 8

child by a public children services agency or private child pla cing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed th e child in long-term foster care. Following a hearing on the motion, 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 cle ar 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: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child canno t be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable t ime 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 ch ild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelv e or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. {¶26} In determining the best interest of the child at a perman ent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: (1) the interaction and interrel ationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and ou t-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (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; (3) the custodia l history of the child;Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 9

and (4) the child's need for a legally secure permanent placeme nt and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of perma nent custody. {¶27} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged ana lysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent cu stody. 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 bef ore proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. {¶28} In the instant case, Mother acknowledges B.M.S. was in th e custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty -two-month period. However, she argues, he has strong relationships with Mother and his siblings, relationships which would be threatened or severed al together by the granting of permanent custody. Appellee counters that Mother w as noncompliant with most of her case plan; she was unable to maintain sobriety or housing for any consistent length of time. She claimed to want a relationship with all of her children, but failed to visit them for long periods of time. {¶29} It is vital that B.M.S. has a stable, safe environment. The record before us indicates his current placement is going well. Mothe r has not remedied any of the circumstances that resulted in the original filing o f the cases and cannot provide a stable home or environment. {¶30} We agree with appellee that Mother’s inability to maintai n sobriety, work, housing, or a consistent relationship with her children o utweighed B.M.S.’s separation from his mother. We conclude the findings of the ju venile court are supported by clear and convincing evidence.Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-004 10

CONCLUSION {¶31} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the ju dgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is aff irmed. By: Delaney, J., Wise, John, P.J. and Baldwin, J., concur.