[Cite as In re T.T., 2022-Ohio-218.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTERS OF: 

T.T. 

and 

J.T. 

 Adjudged Dependent Children 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 

 2021 CA 0019 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,

Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 20203025 and 

20203026 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 28, 2022 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant Mother For Appellee 

FREDERICK A. SEALOVER SARA R. CHISNELL 

P. O. Box 2910 CCJFS 

Zanesville, Ohio 43702-2910 725 Pine Street 

 Coshocton, Ohio 43812 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant-Mother A.G. appeals from the July 8, 2021, Judgment Entry of 

the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody 

of the minor children T.T. and J.T. to Josh Miller, a non-relative kinship provider. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} A.G. ("Appellant-Mother") and R.T. ("Father") are the parents of minor 

children T.T. and J.T. 

{¶3} On March 10, 2020, Coshocton County Job and Family Services ("JFS") 

filed two respective Complaints alleging that T.T. and J.T. were abused, neglected, and 

dependent children, primarily due to Appellant-Mother's substance abuse, domestic 

violence, and lack of adequate care. JFS requested protective supervision of the children 

to JFS, with the children to remain in A.G.’s custody in its pre-dispositional motion. 

{¶4} On April 8, 2020, at the hearing on JFS's motion for pre-dispositional interim 

orders, the trial court placed the children in the emergency temporary custody of 

Appellant-Mother, with emergency protective supervision by the Agency. 

{¶5} On June 4, 2020, an adjudicatory hearing was held. At said hearing, both 

parents made admissions to dependency, and JFS did not pursue its allegations of 

neglect and dependency. The children were placed in the temporary custody of Joshua 

Miller, Appellant-Mother’s boyfriend at that time. 

{¶6} On January 13, 2021, JFS filed a motion for a six-month extension of Mr. 

Miller’s custody. 

{¶7} On February 24, 2021, an annual court review was held wherein the trial 

court granted the request for a six-month extension on the case, requested by JFS 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 3

because Father was coming into compliance with his case plan and wished to pursue 

reunification. Appellant-Mother was not in compliance with her case plan: she had 

provided positive drug screens, was avoiding JFS, refused to engage in Family Drug 

Court, was not employed, and her visitation with her children was suspended. 

{¶8} On March 2, 2021, GAL Jeanette Moll filed a motion for legal custody of the 

children to Mr. Miller. 

{¶9} On April 27, 2021, JFS also filed a motion for legal custody of the children 

to Mr. Miller, with a proposed parenting time plan. The parenting plan was created to 

protect the children in the future while still permitting Mother to have contact. 

{¶10} The trial court held a legal custody hearing on June 10, 2021. 

{¶11} At the legal custody hearing, ongoing JFS Caseworker Deanna Lanham 

testified that Mother's progress on her case plan had been minimal. (T. at 40). 

Caseworker Lanham testified that while Mother had completed a portion of her Coshocton 

Behavioral Health Choices treatment, parenting classes, and the requested parenting 

assessment from Dr. Wolfgang, much of her case plan objectives were lacking. (T. at 12). 

She stated that Mother withdrew from the Family Drug Court program and started a new 

substance abuse treatment program days before the legal custody hearing, after being in 

four previous treatment facilities since February, 2020. (T. at 12-13). Mother had failed to 

address her substance abuse issues and regressed in the months prior to the legal 

custody hearing by falling back into substance abuse and resuming a relationship with a 

prior boyfriend, Cale H., who also had a history of substance abuse and domestic 

violence. (T. at 13). Mother was dishonest and hid the relationship from the case worker 

and the GAL. (T. at 51, 55). Cale H. had been in prison for felony domestic violence in 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 4

which Appellant-Mother was the victim. (T. at 27, 113). The minor children were present 

at the time of the incident. (T. at 113). At the time of the hearing, Appellant-Mother was 

pregnant with Cale H.’s child. (T. at 15, 32, 88). 

{¶12} Caseworker Lanham testified Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamines and amphetamines in February, 2021, and then subsequently 

refused drug screens. (T. at 15). Mother stopped contact and cooperation with the 

agency, had no employment, no reported housing, and no contact with her children for 

nearly 6 months. (T. at 16). Ms. Lanham testified that due to her lack of compliance, failure 

to address issues, and past harm done to the children due to her parenting under the 

influence, any future visitation for Mother would have to be counselor approved and 

supervised to protect the children. (T. at 17). She further testified that there was not 

sufficient time for Mother to complete her case plan even if the court granted a six-month 

extension. (T. at 34-35, 41). 

{¶13} Mother refused to comply with CBHC recommendations or attend any of 

their referred treatment facilities. (T. at 40). 

{¶14} GAL Jeanette Moll testified that Mother has a history of failing to complete 

programs and even when she has, surrounds herself with substance abusers. (T. at 52). 

She testified that “[t]here has never been an extended period of time where [Appellant] 

has been able to be clean and move forward.” (T. at 51). 

{¶15} Nicole White, Mother's Counselor at Riverside Recovery Services, testified 

that the treatment facility Mother had just begun prior to the hearing was not one 

recommended by CBHC, and was not a residential treatment facility as she was required 

to complete. (T. at 76). 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 5

{¶16} Appellant-Mother testified that she had been clean for five months as of the 

date of the hearing; however, there was no corroborating evidence to support that, and 

the Agency treats a refusal to drug screen as a positive. (T. at 81). Mother testified that 

she was not in compliance with any service provider at the time of the legal custody 

hearing. (T. at 110). 

{¶17} By Judgment Entry filed on July 8, 2021, the trial court granted Mr. Miller 

legal custody. The trial court adopted the parenting time plan requested by JFS as part 

of its Entry. 

{¶18} Appellant-Mother now raises the following assignments of error on appeal: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶19} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION 

OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶20} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADOPTING A RESTRICTIVE 

PARENTING TIME SCHEME AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY 

OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

I. 

{¶21} Appellant-Mother herein argues that the trial court’s denial of her motion for 

an additional six-month extension on her case plan was against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶22} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent 

and credible evidence upon which the fact-finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. 

Jeffries, 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-5758, 1982 WL 2911 (February 10, 1982). Accordingly, 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 6

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). 

{¶23} On review for manifest weight, the standard in a civil case is identical to the 

standard in a criminal case: A reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and 

determine “whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or finder of fact] clearly 

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction 

[decision] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 

172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 

380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541; Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio2179, 972 N.E.2d 517. In weighing the evidence, however, we are always mindful of the 

presumption in favor of the trial court's factual findings. Eastley at ¶ 2. 

6-month extension 

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

for abuse of discretion as well. 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. An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error in law or judgment; it implies 

an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable attitude on the part of the trial court. 

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

{¶25} Pursuant to R.C. §2151.415(D)(1), a trial court can extend temporary 

custody for six months only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that such an 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 7

extension is in the best interests of the child, (2) that there has been significant progress 

on the case plan, and (3) that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child will be 

reunified with a parent or otherwise permanently placed within the period of extension.

See, In re McNab, 5th Dist. Nos. 2007 AP 11 0074, 2007 AP 11 0075, 2008–Ohio–1638.

{¶26} Mother's assertion an extension of time would allow her to make continued 

progress on the case plan is belied by Mother's history of non-compliance with her case 

plan, her failed drug screens and failure to maintain sobriety, her failure to engage with 

service providers, her decision to re-engage with a former boyfriend who had previously 

assaulted her and was sentenced to prison for domestic violence, and her failure to have 

any recent visits with her children. 

{¶27} We find Appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court in denying the motion for a six-month extension. As set forth more fully above, 

the evidence before the trial court supports the conclusion that an extension of temporary 

custody was not in the children’s best interests, but, rather, their interests were best 

served by award of legal custody to Mr. Miller. Further, the evidence also supports the 

trial court's conclusion that Appellant-Mother cannot rectify her ability to make good 

decisions for the benefit of her children and promote reunification within the next six 

months. 

{¶28} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in awarding 

legal custody of T.T. and J.T. to Mr. Miller or by denying Appellant-Mother's motion for 

six-month extension of temporary custody. 

 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 8

II. 

{¶29} In her second assignment of error, Appellant-Mother argues that the trial 

court’s adoption of the parenting time order was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. We disagree. 

{¶30} Specifically, Appellant-Mother argues that the parenting time order is both 

restrictive and too vague. 

{¶31} The Proposed Parenting Time plan adopted by the trial court provides: 

The Mother's advancement to parenting time is conditioned upon: 1. 

The Mother following the recommendations of Coshocton Behavioral Health 

Choices (CBHC) to receive and successfully complete residential

treatment; 2. The Mother remain clean and sober; 3. The Mother have no 

criminal activity; and 4. The Mother not permitting the Children to have 

contact with individuals with criminal conduct. 

Legal Custodian, Josh Miller, shall no[t] permit contact --directly or 

indirectly- or parenting time with Mother, [A.G.], until these requirements are 

met. 

Phase One: 

Mother may have contact with the minor children in family counseling 

as recommended by the Children's counselor. Telephone calls with both 

Parents per the discretion of the Legal Custodian ... 

{¶32} (Guardian Ad Litem Report, May 25, 2021; July 8, 2021, Judgment Entry, 

Attachment 1). 

{¶33} Phase Two then provides that Appellant-Mother "may have parenting time 

two (2) hours per week, supervised by the Coshocton Family PACT Center" with the 

consent of the Children's counselor. (Guardian Ad Litem Report, May 25, 2021; July 8, 

2021 Judgment Entry, Attachment 1). 

{¶34} Upon review we find that the Parenting Time plan is neither vague nor too 

restrictive. We find that the plan is conditioned upon Appellant-Mother’s behavior. If she 
Coshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 9

follows the requirements for residential treatment, maintains sobriety and stable housing, 

refrains from criminal activity and protects her children by not having them in the presence 

of criminals, she can petition the court to alter and amend the parenting time plan. 

{¶35} Mother herself testified that parenting time for her should “start kind of 

gradual.” (T. at 92). 

{¶36} We further note that Mother has not lost custody of her children and 

reunification with mother is still a possibility. The trial court retains jurisdiction over all 

parenting issues and rights. 

{¶37} Upon review, based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, we 

cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the parenting time order in this 

case. 

{¶38} Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division, Coshocton County, Ohio, granting legal custody to Mr. Miller is affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

 

JWW/kw 0126