[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 44907 
Richland 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 judgment entries of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, Juvenile Division, terminating her 

parental rights and granting permanent custody of her three children to appellee, Richland 

County Children Services Board. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On October 3, 2019, appellee filed complaints alleging three children to be 

neglected and/or dependent: A.H. born October 2016 (Case No. 2019DEP00197), A.H. 

born October 2015 (Case No. 2019DEP00198), and R.H. born December 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 custody 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 children were dependent 

children. The children were placed in appellee's temporary custody 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 custody 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 rights of appellant and D.H. 

and granted appellee permanent custody of the children. Appellant filed objections. By 

judgment entries filed March 31, 2021, the trial court overruled 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 matter 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 ERRED 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 COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE 

CHILDREN CANNOT BE PLACED WITH EITHER PARENT WITHIN A REASONABLE 

PERIOD OF TIME." 

I, II, III 

{¶ 9} In her first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in 

finding she failed to make significant progress on her case plan. 

{¶ 10} In her second assignment of error, appellant claims appellee did not engage 

in reasonable efforts to reunite the children with a parent. 

{¶ 11} In her third assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in 

finding the children could not be placed with either parent within 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 granted 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 reasonable 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 child 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 for 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 adjudicated an 

abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any 

court in this state or another state. 

{¶ 14} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will provide in the 

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." 

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the 

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, a 
Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 5 

reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had 

sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof." Cross at 477. A 

reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there 

exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judgment 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 determining whether a 

child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not 

be placed with the parents. Said section states in pertinent part the following: 

(E) In determining 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 whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a 

reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, 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 home and 

notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency 

to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child 
Richland County, Case Nos. 21 CA 29, 21 CA 30, 21 CA 31 6 

to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and 

repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be 

placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have 

substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental 

utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and 

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to 

the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow 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 with 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 child has 

been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services 

agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a 

consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *; 

(d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and 

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 this section 

apply in relation to the parents and child. 

{¶ 17} During the September 28, 2020 hearing, the magistrate heard from a 

psychology assistant who performed a parenting evaluation of appellant, a counselor who 

conducted two assessments of appellant, a counselor who met with appellant one time, 

a counselor who counseled with the two oldest children, a therapist who conducted a 

brain mapping assessment of the middle child, two family support specialists who 

supervised the visitations, the foster parents of the children, the ongoing family 

caseworker, the guardian ad litem for the children, and appellant. The magistrate also 
Richland 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 brethren 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 and 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 best able to view 

the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, 

and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered 

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 to every 

reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's judgment and 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 enjoys in determining 

whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of 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 concerned.' " 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 found appellant's 

issues "included lack of follow through for medical needs, concerns of domestic violence 

and mental health issues." Pursuant to the case plans, appellant was to "obtain parenting 

education, address her mental health issues, provide for the child's medical and special 

needs, provide for the child's basic needs through stable and independent housing and 

employment, and to arrange for protective day-care as necessary." The magistrate found 

appellant "has not successfully completed any" of the objectives in the case plans, and 

goes into great detail for some twelve to thirteen paragraphs in 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 failed to provide 

reasonable efforts toward reunification because the agency filed for permanent custody 

seventy-six days after receiving temporary custody. Appellee received 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 receiving temporary 

custody. The guardian ad litem report filed September 21, 2020, indicates the agency 

first received a report regarding appellant in 2014 after the birth 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 regarding bedbugs. The 

caseworker explained the agency voluntarily opened a case in 2016 to ensure that R.H. 

was receiving necessary medical care. T. at 184-185. The agency formally became 
Richland 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 appellant and transported her 

to appointments and to obtain prescriptions. T. at 149-151. The magistrate found 

reasonable efforts were unsuccessful due to: 

the chronic nature of Ms. [S.]'s mental health issues and parenting 

deficiencies, her abject disregard for appropriate and healthy sexual 

boundaries, her intractable lack of insight on the adverse impact 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 ongoing 

impact her past trauma has had and will continue to have upon her 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 her 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 regularly relinquished 

the primary care of her children to others throughout the entirety 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 failed to take any steps to 

change or improve her circumstances. She is in the same position 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 confirm 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 attentive and nurturing. They 

attend to the children's emotional, medical, and educational needs. The children appear 

"happy and comfortable," and are "integrated into the home." The current placement has 

enabled the children to become more closely bonded with each other and with the foster 

parents and the other children in the household. The foster parents are interested in 

adopting the three children. T. at 110, 129. The magistrate analyzed each factor as to 

best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D). 

{¶ 26} Both the ongoing caseworker and the guardian ad litem recommended 

granting permanent custody of the three children to appellee which 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 evidence to support the 

trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of the 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 County, Ohio, 

Juvenile Division, are affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, John, J. concur. 

EEW/db