[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 fr om 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 43812Coshocton 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 E ntry 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-relat ive kinship provider. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} A.G. ("Appellant-Mother") and R.T. ("Father") are the parents o f minor children T.T. and J.T. {¶3} On March 10, 2020, Coshocton County Job and Family Services ("J FS") filed two respective Complaints alleging that T.T. and J.T. wer e abused, neglected, and dependent children, primarily due to Appellant-Mother's substan ce abuse, domestic violence, and lack of adequate care. JFS requested protective s upervision of the children to JFS, with the children to rem ain in A.G.’s custody in its pr e-dispositional motion. {¶4} On April 8, 2020, at the hearing on JFS's motion for pre-dispos itional interim orders, the trial court placed the children in the emergency te mporary custody of Appellant-Mother, with emergency protective supervision by the Agency. {¶5} On June 4, 2020, an adjudicatory hearing was held. At said hear ing, both parents made admissions to dependency, and JFS did not pursue i ts allegations of neglect and dependency. The children were placed in the tempora ry custody of Joshua Miller, Appellant-Mother’ s boyfriend at that time. {¶6} On January 13, 2021, JFS filed a motion for a six-month extensi on of Mr. Miller’s custody. {¶7} On February 24, 2021, an annual court review was held wherein t he trial court granted the request for a six-month extension on the case , requested by JFSCoshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 3
because Father was coming into compliance with his case plan an d 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 en gage in Family Drug Court, was not employed, and her v isitation with her children w as suspended. {¶8} On March 2, 2021, GAL Jeanette Moll filed a motion for legal cu stody of the children to Mr. Miller. {¶9} On April 27, 2021, JFS also filed a motion for legal custody o f the children to Mr. Miller, with a proposed parenting time plan. The parenti ng plan was created to protect the children in the future while still permitting Mothe r 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 Lan ham testified that Mother's progress on her case plan had been mini mal. (T. at 40). Caseworker Lanham testified that while Mother had completed a p ortion 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 prog ram and started a new substance abuse treatment program days before the legal custody hearing, after being in four previous treatment facilit ies 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 resumi ng a relationship with a prior boyfriend, Cale H., who also had a history of substance a buse and domestic violence. (T. at 13). Mother was dishonest and hid the relation ship from the case worker and the GAL. (T. at 51, 55). Cale H. had been in prison for fel ony domestic violence inCoshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 4 which Appellant-Mother was the victim. (T. at 27, 113). The mi nor children were present at the time of the incident. (T. at 113). At the time of the he aring, 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 s ubsequently refused drug screens. (T. at 15). Mother stopped contact and co operation 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 h er lack of compliance, failure to address issues, and past harm done to the children due to he r parenting under the influence, any future visitation for Mother would have to be co unselor approved and supervised to protect the children. (T. at 17). She further tes tified that there was not sufficient time for Mother to complete her case plan even if th e court granted a six-month extension. (T. at 34-35, 41). {¶13} Mother refused to comply with CBHC recommendations or attend an y of their referred treatment fa cilities. (T. at 40). {¶14} GAL Jeanette Moll testified that Mother has a history of failin g to complete programs and even when she has, surrounds herself with substanc e abusers. (T. at 52). She testified that “[t]here has never been an extended period o f 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 facili ty 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 mon ths as of the date of the hearing; however, there was no corroborating eviden ce to support that, and the Agency treats a refusal to drug screen as a positive. (T. a t 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 grante d 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 EVIDENC E. {¶20} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADOPTING A RESTRICTIVE PARENTING TIME SCHEME AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIEN CY 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 th e entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable infe rences, consider the credibilit y 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 decisio n of a motion to extend tempo rary 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 la w or judgment; it implies an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable attitude on the p art 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 temp orary custody for six months only if it finds, by clear and convincin g evidence, (1) that such anCoshocton 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 bel ieve 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–163 8

. {¶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 boyf riend who had previously assaulted her and was sentenced to prison for domestic violence , and her failure to have any recent visits wit h her children. {¶27} We find Appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discret ion 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 tha t 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 ev idence also supports the trial court's conclusion that Appellant-Mother cannot rectify h er ability to make good decisions for the benefit of her children and promote reunifica tion within the next six months. {¶28} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not er r in awarding legal custody of T.T. and J.T. t o Mr. Miller or by denying Appe llant-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 ma nifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. {¶30} Specifically, Appellant-Mother argues that the parenting time o rder is both restrictive and too vague. {¶31} The Proposed Parenting Time plan adopted by the trial court pro vides: The Mother's advancement to parenting time is conditioned upon: 1. The Mother following the recommendations of Coshocton Behaviora l 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 Childre n to have contact with individuals with criminal conduct. Legal Custodian, Josh Miller, shall no[t] permit contact --dire ctly 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 couns eling as recommended by the Children's counselor. Telephone calls wit h 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 parenti ng 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 vag ue nor too restrictive. We find that the plan is conditioned upon Appellan t-Mother’s behavior. If sheCoshocton County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0018 and 2021 CA 0019 9
follows the requirements for residential treatment, maintains s obriety and stable housing, refrains from criminal activity and protects her children by no t having them in the presence of criminals, she can petition th e court to alter and amend the parenting time plan. {¶35} Mother herself testified that parenting time for her should “st art kind of gradual.” (T. at 92). {¶36} We further note that Mother has not lost custody of her childre n and reunification with mother is st ill a possibility. The trial cou rt retains jurisdiction over all parenting issues and rights. {¶37} Upon review, based upon a preponderance of the evidence present ed, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in adopting th e parenting time order in this

case. {¶38} Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juveni le 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