[Cite as In re D.P. , 2020-Ohio-17.]

COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: D.P. DEPENDENT CHILD JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 2019CA0008 O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 21730035

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 6, 2020

APPEARANCES: For Appellee CCJFS For Appellant-Mother CHRISTIE M.L. THORNSLEY E. MARIE SEIBER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 6525 Walkers Lane SE 318 Chestnut Street Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683 Coshocton, Ohio 43812Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 2
Wise, J. {¶1} Appellant Stephanie S. appeals the decision of the Coshocton Co unty Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted permanent cus tody of her minor son, D.P., to Appellee Coshocton County Job and Family Services. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. {¶2} On June 29, 2017, Appellee CCJFS filed a complaint in the trial court alleging that D.P., born in 2015, was a dependent and neglected child. CCJFS alleged inter alia that there were concerns of parental drug abuse, unstable and unsafe home conditions, mental health issues, and domestic violence in the home. Following a shelter care hearing, D.P was placed in the temporary custody of CCJFS. {¶3} On September 20, 2017, appellant stipulated to a dependency fin ding. A case plan was presented to the trial court, and, as to disposit ion, D.P. was ordered to be maintained in the temporary custody of CCJFS. {¶4} On September 6, 2018, CCJFS filed a motion for permanent custod y. {¶5} An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2018. How ever, on November 1, 2018, about six weeks before the hearing, one of D.P.’s maternal aunts, Jolene B., contacted the agency caseworker and requested a home study for placement and potential legal custody of the child. Tr. 183, 239. 1 {¶6} According to the record before us, CCJFS generally contracts fo r home studies with an outside specialist, Marcia Schmitt. However, up on receipt of Jolene B.’s November 1, 2018 request, the assigned CCJFS caseworker, Erin H eard, decided not to

1 By that time, the agency had already considered and rejected two other relatives for potential placement and/or legal custody. We presently find it unnecessary to recite the details of these investigations by the agency.Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 3 make a referral to Schmitt; instead, she essentially reviewed t he aunt’s extensive prior Ohio children services involvement in Ohio via the Statewide Au tomated Child Welfare Information System (“SACWIS”). Tr. at 238. Based on this review , the agency did not pursue Jolene B. as a potential person for placement or eventua l legal custody. Caseworker Heard also found out later that appellant and Jolene B. were living in the same home. Heard later testified that had she known of this arr angement, Jolene’s request would have been automatically denied. Tr. at 239. {¶7} The permanent custody motion was heard by the trial court on De cember 14, 2018 and January 12, 2019. The trial court issued a 21-page decision granting permanent custody to the agency on March 21, 2019, approximatel y five months after the aforesaid request by the aunt, Jolene B., for a home study. {¶8} On April 22, 2019, appellant-mother filed a notice of appeal. S he herein raises the following two Assignments of Error: {¶9} “I. THE COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY PROCEEDING TO A BEST INTEREST ANALYSIS WITHOUT FIRST FINDING THAT THERE HAD B EEN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §5101:2-42 ET SEQ. REGARDING RELATIVE PLACEMENT BY COSHOCTON COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES WITH MATERNAL AUNT, JOLENE B. {¶10} “II. II. THE FINDING BY THE COURT THAT JFS HAD PROPERLY FINALIZED A PERMANENCY PLAN WAS AG AINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DUE TO JFS'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A HOME SAFETY AUDIT AN D HOME STUDY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE C ODE §5101:2-42 ET SEQ. FOR MATERNAL AUNT JOLENE B.”Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 4

I. {¶11} In her First Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to determine whether the agency had substantially compl ied with OAC 5101:2-42 et seq . regarding D.P.s maternal aunt, prior to the court granting pe rmanent custody of D.P. to CCJFS. We disagree. {¶12} OAC 5101:2-42 sets forth the regulations applicable to public c hildren services agencies' authority to place a child in a substitute h ome. In re A.F. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-005, 2019-Ohio-4627, ¶ 61. In particular, OAC 5101:2-42-05(A) states: “When a child cannot remain in his or her own home, the public children services agency (PCSA) or private child placing agency (PCPA) shall expl ore both maternal and paternal relatives including a non-custodial parent regarding t heir willingness and ability to assume temporary custody or guardianship of the child. Unles s it is not in the child's best interest, the PCSA or PCPA shall explore the non-custodial parent before considering other relatives.” {¶13} R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) provides, in pertinent part: “If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child, the court may make any o f the following orders of disposition: * * * Award legal custody of the child to either p arent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion request ing legal custody of the child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint o r motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings. * * *.” See , also , Matter of C.C. , 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0085, 2018-Ohio-2686, ¶ 16. If perma nent custody to an agency is in a child’s best interests, “legal custody to [a rel ative] necessarily is not.” In re V.C. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102903, 103061, and 103367, 2015-Ohio -4991, ¶ 61. ButCoshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 5 it has also been aptly recognized that, as a general rule, “a p arent has no standing to assert that the court abused its discretion by failing to give [a third party] legal custody; rather, the challenge is limited to whether the court's decisio n to terminate parental rights was proper.” In re S.C. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106701, 2018-Ohio-2523, 115 N.E.3d 813, ¶ 16 (citations and internal quotations omitted). {¶14} The trial court’s grounds for granting permanent custody in the case sub judice were primarily based on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). See Judgment Entry at 15, 17. The focus of this statutory subsection is whether there is clea r and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency and that “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.” In determining this question of whether a child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents withi n a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents, a trial court is mandat ed to consider all relevant evidence in light of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E), including the catch-all “any other factor the court considers relevant.” {¶15} However, appellant herein provides no clear authority for her p roposition that substantial compliance with the regulations for substitute care and relative placements in OAC 5101:2-42 functions as a mandatory hurdle to be cleared before a trial court may grant permanent custody to an agency. Indeed, “ *** OAC Section 5101 pertains to [an agency’s] obligations and its determination reg arding substitute-care placement, rather than a trial court's permanent custody determ ination.” In re S.C. , supra , at ¶ 62, citing In re J.F. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105504, 2018-Ohio-96, 102 N.E.3d 1264, ¶ 36.Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 6

{¶16} In the case sub judice , appellant states that for purposes of this appeal, her unfitness as a parent “is admitted.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. Up on review, we find the trial court, relying inter alia on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), 2151.414(D)(1), and 2151.414(E), dul y heard the evidence and rendered a detailed and lawful decision accordingly. We conclude the grant of permanent custody of D.P. to CCJFS was made in the consideration of the child's best interests and did not constitute reversible error. {¶17} Appellant's First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled. II. {¶18} In her Second Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in concluding that CCJFS had properly finalized a permanency pl an, alleging that the home study concerning the aunt, J olene B., was not done in subs tantial compliance with OAC 5101:2-42, et seq. We disagree. {¶19} R.C. 2151.412(A) states as follows: (A) Each public children services agency and private child pla cing agency shall prepare and maintain a case plan for any child to whom the agency is providing services and to whom any of the following a pplies: (1) The agency filed a complaint pursuant to section 2151.27 o f the Revised Code alleging that the child is an abused, neglected, o r dependent child; (2) The agency has temporary or permanent custody of the child ; (3) The child is living at home subject to an order for protec tive supervision;Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 7 (4) The child is in a planned permanent living arrangement. {¶20} Generally, the case plan serves as the permanency plan for the child. See In re S.R. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27209, 2014-Ohio-2749, ¶ 41. {¶21} Appellant, in similar fashion to her argument in the first assi gned error, fails to present any clear authority that substantial compliance with the regulations for substitute care and relative placements in OAC 5101:2-42 is a p rerequisite to the trial court accepting an agency’s permanency plan for a dependent chi ld subject to the court’s jurisdiction in a permanent custody matter. 2 {¶22} Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is therefore overruled. {¶23} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Coshocton County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, J. Hoffman, P. J., and Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/d 1219

2 Furthermore, although not discussed in the briefs, case plannin g is specifically addressed in another regulatory chapter, OAC 5101:2-38.