[Cite as In re A.H. , 2021-Ohio-4008.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. A.H. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. R.H. : : Case Nos. 21 CA 29 A.H. : 21 CA 30 : 21 CA 31 : : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2019 DEP 00197, 2019 DEP 00198, 2019 DEP 00199

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 9, 2021

APPEARANCES: For Appellant-Mother For Appellee-Agency JAMES L. BLUNT II CHRISTOPHER ZUERCHER 3954 Industrial Parkway Drive TIFFANY BIRD Shelby, OH 44875 731 Scholl Road Mansfield, OH 44907Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 2

Wise, Earle, J. {¶ 1} Appellant-mother, M.S., appeals the March 31, 2021 judgme nt entries of the Court of Common Pleas of Ric hland County, Ohio, Juvenile Di vision, terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of her three chi ldren to appellee, Richland County Children Services Board.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} On October 3, 2019, appellee filed complaints alleging th ree children to be neglected and/or dependent: A.H. born October 2016 (Case No. 20 19DEP00197), A.H. born October 2015 (Case No. 2019DEP00198), and R.H. born Decemb er 2014 (Case No. 2019DEP00199). Mother is appellant herein; father is D.H. D.H. is the half-brother of mother. They share a father. Appellee sought temporary cus tody of the children. {¶ 3} An adjudicatory and dispositional hearing was held before a magistrate on December 12, 2019, wherein appellant and D.H. agreed the childr en were dependent children. The children were placed in appellee's temporary cus tody that day. Father filed objections. By judgment entries filed April 2, 2020, the trial court overruled the objections, and approved and adopted the magistrate's decision. {¶ 4} On June 24, 2020, appellee filed motions for permanent cu stody of the children. A hearing before a magistrate was held on September 28, 2020. By decisions filed October 8, 2020, the magistrate terminated the parental r ights of appellant and D.H. and granted appellee permanent custody of the children. Appell ant filed objections. By judgment entries filed March 31, 2021, the trial court overrule d the objections, and approved and adopted the magistrate's decisions.Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 3 {¶ 5} Appellant filed appeals, one for each child, and this mat ter is now before this court for consideration. Father has not filed any appeals . Assignments of error are identical and are as follows: I {¶ 6} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT E RRED BY FINDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO [MAKE] SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THE CASE PLAN TO AMELIORATE THE ISSUES WHICH CAUSED THE CHILDREN TO BE REMOVED." II {¶ 7} "WHETHER RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES ENGAGED REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE THE CHILDREN WITH A PARENT." III {¶ 8} "WHETHER THE TRIAL CO URT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE CHILDREN CANNOT BE PLACED WITH EITHER PARENT WITHIN A REASONABL E PERIOD OF TIME." I, II, III {¶ 9} In her first assignment of error, appellant claims the tr ial court erred in finding she failed to make significant progress on her case pla n. {¶ 10} In her second assignment of error, appellant claims appe llee did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite the children with a parent. {¶ 11} In her third assignment of error, appellant claims the t rial court erred in finding the children could not be placed with either parent wit hin a reasonable period of time. {¶ 12} We disagree with appellant's arguments.Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 4 {¶ 13} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states permanent custody may be gran ted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child and:

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned * * * and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonabl e time 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 ch ild who are able to take permanent custody. (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies fo r twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *. (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudica ted an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasio ns by any court in this state or another state.

{¶ 14} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which wi ll provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to th e facts sought to be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of th e syllabus. See In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985). "Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, aRichland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 5
reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether th e trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree o f proof." Cross at 477. A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of th e trial court where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judg ment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993). {¶ 15} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determ ining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable p eriod of time or should not be placed with the parents. Said section states in pertinent p art the following:

(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) o f this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either paren t within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the pare nts, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's ho me and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the childRichland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 6
to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuous ly and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the pa rents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatr ic, psychological, and other s ocial and rehabilitative services and materi al resources that were made a vailable to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to all ow them to resume and maintain parental duties. (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate wi th the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child; (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

{¶ 16} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court shall consider in determining the best interest of a child:

(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 7 (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) 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; (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the c hild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children se rvices agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more m onths of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *; (d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement a nd whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of t his section apply in relation to the parents and child.

{¶ 17} During the September 28, 2020 hearing, the magistrate he ard from a psychology assistant who performed a parenting evaluation of ap pellant, a counselor who conducted two assessments of appellant, a counselor who met wit h appellant one time, a counselor who counseled with the two oldest children, a thera pist who conducted a brain mapping assessment of the middle child, two family suppor t specialists who supervised the visitations, the foster parents of the children, the ongoing family caseworker, the guardian ad litem for the children, and appella nt. The magistrate alsoRichland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 8 had a report from the guardian ad litem. As explained by our b rethren from the Second District in In re A.J.S. & R.S., 2d Dist. Miami No. 2007CA2, 2007-Ohio-3433, ¶ 22:

Accordingly, issues relating to the credibility of witnesses an d the weight to be given the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. In this regard, "[t]he underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is be st able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice in flections, and use these observations in we ighing the credibility of the p roffered testimony." Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273. Finally, an appellate court must adhere t o every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's judgment a nd findings of fact. In re Brodbeck, 97 Ohio App.3d 652, 659, 647 N.E.2d 240, citing Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 1994-Ohio-432, 638 N.E.2d 533.

{¶ 18} Further, " 'the discretion which the juvenile court enjo ys in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest o f a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives of the parties con cerned.' " In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073, *2 (Nov. 13, 2000), quoting In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist.1994).Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 9 {¶ 19} In its decisions filed October 8, 2020, the magistrate f ound appellant's issues "included lack of follow through for medical needs, conc erns of domestic violence and mental health issues." Pursuant to the case plans, appella nt was to "obtain parenting education, address her mental health issues, provide for the ch ild's medical and special needs, provide for the child's basic needs through stable and i ndepend ent hous ing and employment, and to arrange for protective day-care as necessary ." The magistrate found appellant "has not successfully completed any" of the objective s in the case plans, and goes into great detail for some twelve to thirteen paragraphs i n the decisions respective to each child. {¶ 20} These findings are amply supported in the record. T. at 11, 12-18, 19-24, 30-33, 38-39, 41, 77-80, 87-89, 143, 145-146, 147-158, 160-161, 170, 173, 177, 184-186, 192-193, 194-195, 204-205, 216, 221-223, 227-228. {¶ 21} In her appellate brief at 2, appellant argues appellee f ailed to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification because the agency file d for permanent custody seventy-six days after receiving temporary custody. Appellee r eceived temporary custody of the children on December 12, 2019, and filed motions for permanent custody on June 24, 2020, some one hundred and ninety-five days after r eceiving temporary custody. The guardian ad litem report filed September 21, 2020 , indicates the agency first received a report regarding appellant in 2014 after the b irth of her oldest child due to her status as a minor child and the fact that the father of the child was D.H., her halfbrother. The agency received a neglect report in 2015 regardin g bedbugs. The caseworker explained the agency voluntarily opened a case in 20 16 to ensure that R.H. was receiving necessary medical care. T. at 184-185. The agen cy formally becameRichland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 10 involved with appellant in August of 2018 and implemented case plans to provide her services. T. at 141. At times, agency workers picked up appel lant and transported her to appointments and to obtain prescriptions. T. at 149-151. T he magistrate found reasonable efforts were unsuccessful due to:

the chronic nature of Ms. [S.]'s mental health issues and paren ting deficiencies, her abject disregard for appropriate and healthy sexual boundaries, her intractable lack of insight on the adverse impa ct these factors have had and will continue to have on the [children's] past and future development, and her refusal to acknowledge the continued and o ngoing impact her past trauma has had and will continue to have upon h er own circumstances.

{¶ 22} The magistrate went on to note appellant:

presents as having normalized highly dysfunctional experiences in her life, ranging from incidents of harrowing domestic violence between h er and the child's father, the incestuous relationship between her and the child's father resulting in the conception of this child and her siblings, the death of her son at 7 months of age, her attempt at suicide, and having regularl y relinquished the primary care of her children to others throughout the entir ety of the within child's young life.Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 11 {¶ 23} The magistrate concluded "[a]t present, and despite the aforementioned longstanding involvement of Children Services, Ms. [S.] has fai led to take any steps to change or improve her circumstances. She is in the same positi on now as when Children Services first endeavored to assist." The caseworker testified "[w]e are literally sitting at the same point we were in August of 2018, when this case opened ." T. at 170. {¶ 24} We find there is competent and credible evidence to conf irm that appellee made reasonable efforts to assist appellant. {¶ 25} As for best interests, the magistrate found the children were doing well in their current foster placement. The foster parents are attenti ve and nurturing. They attend to the children's emotional, medical, and educational ne eds. The children appear "happy and comfortable," and are "integrated into the home." T he current placement has enabled the children to become more closely bonded with each ot her and with the foster parents and the other children in the household. The foster pa rents are interested in adopting the three children. T. at 110, 129. The magistrate a nalyzed each factor as to best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D). {¶ 26} Both the ongoing caseworker and the guardian ad litem re commended granting permanent custody of the three children to appellee wh ich was in their best interests. T. at 170, 192. {¶ 27} Again, the trial court's findings are amply supported in the record. T. at 63- 65, 106-109, 116-123, 164-165, 192. {¶ 28} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evi dence to support the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of t he children. {¶ 29} Assignments of Error I, II, and III are denied.Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 12

{¶ 30} The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland C ounty, Ohio, Juvenile Division, are affirmed. By Wise, Earle, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Wise, John, J. concur.

EEW/db