[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 43812 
Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Stephanie S. appeals the decision of the Coshocton County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted permanent custody 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 finding. A 

case plan was presented to the trial court, and, as to disposition, D.P. was ordered to be 

maintained in the temporary custody of CCJFS. 

{¶4} On September 6, 2018, CCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody. 

{¶5} An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2018. However, 

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 for home 

studies with an outside specialist, Marcia Schmitt. However, upon receipt of Jolene B.’s 

November 1, 2018 request, the assigned CCJFS caseworker, Erin Heard, 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 the aunt’s extensive prior 

Ohio children services involvement in Ohio via the Statewide Automated 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 eventual 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 arrangement, Jolene’s 

request would have been automatically denied. Tr. at 239. 

{¶7} The permanent custody motion was heard by the trial court on December 

14, 2018 and January 12, 2019. The trial court issued a 21-page decision granting 

permanent custody to the agency on March 21, 2019, approximately 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. She 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 BEEN 

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 AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE DUE TO JFS'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A HOME SAFETY AUDIT AND 

HOME STUDY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 

§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 complied with OAC 5101:2-42 

et seq. regarding D.P.s maternal aunt, prior to the court granting permanent custody of 

D.P. to CCJFS. We disagree. 

{¶12} OAC 5101:2-42 sets forth the regulations applicable to public children 

services agencies' authority to place a child in a substitute home. 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 explore both maternal and 

paternal relatives including a non-custodial parent regarding their willingness and ability 

to assume temporary custody or guardianship of the child. Unless 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 of the following orders of 

disposition: * * * Award legal custody of the child to either parent or to any other person 

who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the child 

or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or 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 permanent custody to an 

agency is in a child’s best interests, “legal custody to [a relative] necessarily is not.” In re 

V.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102903, 103061, and 103367, 2015-Ohio-4991, ¶ 61. But 
Coshocton County, Case No. 2019CA0008 5

it has also been aptly recognized that, as a general rule, “a parent 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 decision 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 clear 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 within a reasonable time or should 

not be placed with the child's parents, a trial court is mandated 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 proposition 

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 regarding substitute-care 

placement, rather than a trial court's permanent custody determination.” 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. Upon 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), duly 

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 plan, alleging that the 

home study concerning the aunt, Jolene B., was not done in substantial 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 placing 

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 applies: 

 (1) The agency filed a complaint pursuant to section 2151.27 of the 

Revised Code alleging that the child is an abused, neglected, or 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 protective 

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 assigned 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 prerequisite to the trial 

court accepting an agency’s permanency plan for a dependent child 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 planning is specifically 

addressed in another regulatory chapter, OAC 5101:2-38.