[Cite as In re S.L., 2018-Ohio-900.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SHELBY COUNTY 

 

IN RE: 

 CASE NO. 17-17-17 

 S.L., 

ADJUDGED NEGLECTED 

AND DEPENDENT CHILD. O P I N I O N 

[DUSTANY FOREMAN - APPELLANT] 

 

IN RE: 

 CASE NO. 17-17-18 

 Su.L., 

ADJUDGED NEGLECTED 

AND DEPENDENT CHILD. O P I N I O N 

[DUSTANY FOREMAN - APPELLANT] 

 

IN RE: 

 CASE NO. 17-17-19 

 Sm.L., 

ADJUDGED NEGLECTED 

AND DEPENDENT CHILD. O P I N I O N 

[DUSTANY FOREMAN - APPELLANT] 

 

Appeals from Shelby County Common Pleas Court 

Juvenile Division 

Trial Court Nos. 2016-NEG-0044, 2016-NEG-0045 and 2016-NEG-0046 

Judgments Affirmed 

Date of Decision: March 12, 2018 

 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-2- 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Jeremy M. Tomb for Appellant 

Anne K. Bauer for Appellee 

 

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant Dustany Foreman (“Foreman”) brings this appeal from the 

judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby County, Juvenile Division, 

terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of the children to 

the Shelby County Department of Job and Family Services, Children Services 

Division (“the Agency”). Foreman claims that the judgments are not supported by 

the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments are affirmed. 

{¶2} In January of 2005, S.L (“Child 1”) was born to Foreman and Jerrid 

Lhamon (“Lhamon”). Su.L (“Child 2”) was born to the couple in August of 2007. 

Sm.L (“Child 3”) was then born in July of 2011. In September of 2012, the Children 

Services Department of Logan County became involved with the family when 

allegations of neglect surfaced. The children were removed from Foreman’s home 

in October of 2012, and placed in the care of Foreman’s mother (“Karean”). The 

children remained in Karean’s care until April of 2013, when they were placed into 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-3- 

a foster home.1

 In May of 2013, the children were placed in a kinship placement. 

This placement lasted until November 22, 2013, when the children were once again 

placed in foster care. On June 6, 2014, custody was granted to Lhamon. That case 

was then closed in October 2014. On November 24, 2013, Karean filed an 

application for emergency custody of the children which was granted. The children 

then remained in the custody of Karean until the current case. Tr. 85-88. 

{¶3} On August 8, 2016, the Agency received a report that the children were 

being neglected by Karean. 1Doc. 2, 2Doc 2, and 3Doc 2.2

 While attempting to 

work with Karean, she made it clear that she would not be cooperating with the 

Agency. Id. On November 1, 2016, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that the 

children were neglected and dependent, but did not request the removal of the 

children from the home. 1Doc. 1, 2Doc. 1, and 3Doc. 1. An initial hearing was 

held on November 17, 2016. 1Doc. 42, 2Doc. 39, and 3Doc. 40. Foreman did not 

attend that hearing. Id. At that time, Karean indicated that she was not willing to 

cooperate with the Agency or to follow the court orders in order to protect the 

children. Id. The trial court, as a result of Karean’s statements, ordered the children 

to be placed in the temporary custody of the Agency. Id. The Agency then filed an 

initial case plan for the children. 1Doc. 46, 2Doc. 43, and 3Doc. 44. The case plan 

indicated that Child 1 was placed in a group home due to her unruly behavior, poor 

 

1

 The details of the placement of this case were not included in the record in this case as that case was in 

Logan County and the current case is in Shelby County. 

2

 Child 1’s docket will be identified as 1Doc. Child 2’s docket will be identified as 2Doc. Child 3’s docket 

will be identified as 3Doc. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-4- 

grades, and the fact that she was on probation. Id. Child 2 and Child 3 were placed 

in a foster home. Id. 

{¶4} On December 22, 2016, an adjudicatory hearing was held. 1Doc. 64, 

2Doc. 61, and 3Doc 62. Foreman was present for the hearing. Id. Foreman 

stipulated to a finding of neglect and dependency of the children. Id. The trial court 

then found that the children were neglected and dependent and ordered that they 

remain in the temporary custody of the Agency. Id. Following the adjudicatory 

hearing, Heather Fogt (“Fogt”), the guardian ad litem, gave her card to Foreman and 

asked her to contact her to set up a home visit. 1Doc. 66, 2Doc. 63, and 3Doc. 64. 

Fogt wrote a report for the dispositional hearing that indicated that Foreman had not 

contacted her as of January 19, 2017. Id. Fogt recommended that the children 

remain in the temporary custody of the Agency in her initial report. Id. 

{¶5} The dispositional hearing was held on January 27, 2017. 1Doc. 69, 

2Doc. 66, and 3Doc. 67. Foreman attended the meeting as did Karean. Id. The 

Agency requested that Karean be removed from the case plan due to her refusal to 

cooperate and the effect her visits were having on the children. Id. The trial court 

then ordered Karean to submit to a drug screen before considering returning the 

children to her. Id. The screen was positive for methamphetamines, opiates, PCP, 

and oxycodone. Id. As a result, Karean was removed from the case plan. Id. Due 

to her refusal to provide the court with an address despite claiming she had a 

residence, the trial court also refused to allow Foreman to participate in the case 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-5- 

plan until an address was provided. Id. The temporary custody of the Agency was 

continued. Id. 

{¶6} On February 7, 2017, Child 2 and Child 3 were placed in a second foster 

home. 1Doc. 73, 2Doc 70, and 3Doc.71. Child 3 had engaged in behavior which 

required police intervention and the original foster parents could no longer provide 

the necessary supervision for the children. Id. On February 20, 2017, a new case 

plan was filed. Id. This plan did not include any services for Foreman. Id. 

{¶7} On February 14, 2017, the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody 

of the children. 1Doc. 79, 2Doc. 75, and 3Doc. 76. The motion indicated that 

Lhamon had informed the Agency on December 19, 2016 that he did not wish to 

reunify with his children as he did not feel it would be in their best interest. Id. 

The motion also indicated that Foreman had not provided an address to the court 

and stated that “she had no objection to her non-inclusion in the case plan.” Id. 

Since there were no adults in the case plan, the Agency indicated that the children 

could not be placed in the legal custody of either parent or any other custodian 

within a reasonable amount of time. Id. A new case plan with the permanency goal 

of adoption for the children was filed on February 22, 2017. 1Doc. 89, 2Doc. 85, 

and 3Doc. 86. 

{¶8} On March 30, 2017, a review hearing was held and Foreman attended. 

1Doc. 96, 2Doc.92, and 3Doc. 93. The trial court noted that Foreman had changed 

her mind, indicated that she would cooperate with the case plan, and provided an 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-6- 

address. Id. The trial court then ordered that Foreman be added to the case plan as 

a participant. Id. The Agency then filed a new case plan on April 3, 2017, with the 

permanency goal of reunification with Foreman. 1Doc. 95, 2Doc. 91, and 3Doc. 

92. The case plan required Foreman to 1) seek a substance abuse assessment within 

seven days; 2) seek a mental health assessment within seven days; 3) attend at least 

three Narcotics Anonymous meetings per week and provide proof of her attendance; 

4) cooperate with all requested drug screens; 5) seek and obtain employment; 6) 

seek and maintain safe and appropriate housing; 7) notify the Agency of the identity 

of any persons who reside with her and get approval from the Agency; 8) sign 

releases of requested information; 9) comply with all professional 

recommendations; and 10) attend all team meetings unless otherwise excused. Id. 

No visitation with the children was scheduled for Foreman in the case plan at that 

time. Id. Soon afterwards, the case plan was again amended to reflect that Child 1 

had been placed with a foster family after completing the program at the group 

home. 1Doc. 97, 2Doc. 93, and 3Doc. 94. 

{¶9} On April 18, 2017, a case plan review was completed. 1Doc. 98, 2Doc. 

94, and 3Doc. 95. The review indicated that Foreman had made insufficient 

progress on the case plan goals. Id. at 3. Foreman had not started any counseling. 

Id. Although Foreman had two negative drug screens, they were at appointments. 

Id. The only truly random screen was positive for cocaine, heroin, and morphine. 

Id. At the time of the review, Foreman had no job and was living with her boyfriend 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-7- 

and his mother. Id. Foreman had not attended any team meetings and had not 

appeared for scheduled appointments for the professional assessments. Id. The only 

task Foreman had completed was that she had signed the requested release forms. 

Id. The summary indicated that four appointments had been scheduled for Foreman 

to complete her background check without success. Id. at 5. The caseworker noted 

that Foreman appeared to lack motivation to complete the case plan. Id. The review 

of the plan was heard by the trial court and the continued plan was approved on May 

18, 2017. 1Doc. 101, 2Doc. 96, and 3Doc. 97. A hearing date of July 21, 2017, 

was set for the motion for permanent custody. Id. 

{¶10} On July 14, 2017, Fogt filed a written report. 1Doc. 116, 2Doc. 112, 

and 3Doc. 113. She indicated that since the March 30, 2017, hearing, she had 

contact with Foreman through emails, a phone call and one in person contact. Id. at 

2. On April 5, 2017, Fogt received an email indicating that Foreman had not 

contacted her because she had been ill. Id. Fogt told her she would call to set up a 

home visit, but when she called, Foreman did not respond. Id. On June 20, 2017, 

Foreman met with Fogt to bring a stuffed animal that Child 1 had left at Karean’s 

and Child 1 wished to have. Id. At that meeting Foreman asked for visitation with 

the children, but was told that it would not be recommended until she had begun 

working the case plan. Id. On July 11, 2017, Foreman indicated to Fogt that she 

wished to schedule a home visit and wanted to get her children returned to her. Id. 

Fogt indicated in her report that “[i]nstead of working on the case plan that the court 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-8- 

ordered her to follow [Foreman] has disappeared for months at a time only to 

resurface at court hearings.” Id. at 4. Based upon her contact with the parties, 

including the children, and the service providers, Fogt recommended that permanent 

custody by granted to the Agency. Id. 

{¶11} On July 21, 2017, the permanent custody hearing began. 1Doc. 123, 

2Doc. 118, and 3Doc. 119. However, due to a surgery, Foreman was unable to 

attend. Id. Counsel for Foreman requested a continuance and the trial court granted 

it. Id. The trial court then rescheduled the hearing for August 29, 2017. On the 

second date, the hearing was held. 1Doc. 135, 2Doc. 130, and 3Doc. 131. At the 

hearing the following testimony was provided. 

{¶12} Ginger Huecker (“Huecker”) testified that she was the elementary 

principal at Jackson Center Schools. Tr. 7. In the 2016-2017 school year, Child 2 

and Child 3 attended her school. Tr. 9. Huecker kept an eye on the children because 

they were frequently tardy or absent, arrived exhausted, did not complete 

homework, wore clothing that did not fit, were dirty, and arrived having eaten 

nothing with no idea whether they would be eating in the evening. Tr. 10-11. 

Huecker testified that she had no interactions with Foreman at all. Tr. 12. After the 

children were removed from Karean’s home, they were different children. Tr. 13. 

They arrived at school on time, were clean, well-rested, and fed. Tr. 13. The girls 

were much happier and their academics improved dramatically very quickly. Tr. 

14. Huecker also testified that although Child 1 was not enrolled in the elementary, 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-9- 

she knew of her. Tr. 15. Child 1, while living with Karean, had issues with authority 

and wore clothing that was too revealing and against the school dress code. Tr. 15. 

{¶13} McKenzie Lotz (“Lotz”) testified that she was a probation officer for 

the Shelby County Juvenile Court. Tr. 18. Lotz began working with Child 1 after 

Child 1 was placed on probation for assaulting another juvenile. Tr. 19. Child 1 

was already in the custody of the Agency by the time Lotz met Child 1, so her goal 

was to help Child 1 stay out of trouble. Tr. 20. Lotz described Child 1 as generally 

pleasant, but defensive. Tr. 20. While on probation, Child 1 showed positive 

growth as her appearance improved, her grades improved, and her behavior 

improved. Tr. 21-23. 

{¶14} Jodi Knouff (“Knouff”) was the counselor for the children. Tr. 26. 

Knouff testified that Child 1 had behavioral issues, specifically inappropriate 

sexualized behaviors, acting out, defiance of authority, and poor school 

performance. Tr.28. This included reports by Child 1 of multiple sexual encounters 

with adult men while she was 11 years of age. Tr. 37-38. Child 1 also exhibited 

cutting behavior to cope with the stress in her life. Tr. 39. Child 1 changed 

dramatically in the care of the Agency. Tr. 30. Child 1 no longer viewed herself as 

a sexual object with low self-esteem. Tr. 30. Knouff testified that Child 1 appeared 

to have hope for the future. Tr. 30. Knouff also testified that Child 2 and Child 3 

have made progress in their placements. Tr. 32. Knouff’s recommendation was 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-10- 

that permanent custody should be granted due to Foreman’s lack of participation in 

the case plan. Tr. 34-36. 

{¶15} Amy Simindinger (“Simindinger”) was the liaison between the trial 

court and the school. Tr. 43. She was assigned to work with Child 1 once she 

entered the court system for her behavior. Tr. 44. Child 1 had issues with not 

attending school, which caused her to have poor grades. Tr. 45. Child 1 had also 

been suspended for school for bring cigarettes to school and was also disrespectful 

to the teachers. Tr. 45. Simindinger also testified that there were issues with Child 

1’s hygiene and mental attitude. Tr. 46. Her clothes were not clean or appropriate 

for school. Tr. 46. Her clothing was short, tight, and not typical of what a child her 

age would be wearing. Tr. 46. Child 1’s attitude was defensive and defiant. Tr. 46. 

After Child 1 was placed in the group home, her behavior and attitude greatly 

improved. Tr. 47-48. Simindinger also testified that she had attended the majority 

of the case meetings for Child 1, but Foreman was not present. Tr. 49. 

{¶16} Chuck Wirick (“Wirick”) testified that he was the interim chief of 

police for the Jackson Center Police Department. Tr. 51. During 2016, Wirick 

responded to approximately a dozen calls involving Child 1. Tr. 51. The reason for 

the calls ranged from disorderly conduct, unruliness, up to reports of Child 1 being 

involved in sexual conduct with adults. Tr. 52. Many of the calls were placed by 

Karean who indicated she could not control Child 1. Tr. 52. When he would go to 

the home, he noted there was minimal furniture and the children were not present. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-11- 

Tr. 52. After Child 1 was removed by the Agency, he had no additional contact 

with child 1. Tr. 52. 

{¶17} Amy Swaney (“Swaney”) testified that she was responsible for 

supervising the visits the children attended. Tr. 59. Swaney indicated that during 

the visits with Karean, she frequently had to warn Karean not to whisper false 

promises to the children. Tr. 61. The visits with Karean were terminated once she 

was removed from the case plan. Tr. 62. Swaney attended the case meetings, but 

did not see Foreman at any of them. Tr. 62. Swaney also supervised the one visit 

that Foreman had with the children. Tr. 64. The visit confused the children and 

later they became angry when the promises Foreman made to them were not 

fulfilled. Tr. 64. Swaney indicated that the visit amongst the siblings started out 

rough, but became positive over time. Tr. 64-65. 

{¶18} Robin Woods (“Woods”) testified that she was the current foster 

mother for Child 2 and Child 3. Tr. 75. When they arrived in February of 2017, 

Child 3 was very combative and threw temper tantrums that lasted for two to three 

hours. Tr. 75. During these episodes, Child 3 would hit, kick, and scream. Tr. 75. 

These tantrums occurred several times a week. Tr. 75. Since then, Child 3 has 

learned other coping methods. Tr. 76. Child 3 now responds to time outs and is 

generally cooperative. Tr. 76. Child 3 had just begun kindergarten and was going 

to be tested for ADHD in September. Tr. 76. Child 2 was quiet and reserved at 

first, but her behavior became more argumentative. Tr. 76. Over time, this has 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-12- 

improved and Child 2 has become a good student who loves school and is happy. 

Tr. 77. After the visit with Foreman, the children were combative and told Woods 

that they were not staying there, that they were going home. Tr. 78. The children 

did not want to listen for a while after that visit. Tr. 78. 

{¶19} Alyssa Barlage (“Barlage”) testified that she was assigned as the ongoing caseworker for the children in November of 2016. Tr. 85. Barlage testified 

to the history of the family with various courts and children’s’ services departments. 

Tr. 85-88. According to Barlage, the children were originally removed from 

Foreman’s care in 2012 due to her drug use. Tr. 86. The children were not supposed 

to have contact with Foreman. Tr. 89. When this case was opened on August 16, 

2016, Foreman had contact with the Agency, but had no more contact until 

December 22, 2016, at the adjudicatory hearing. Tr. 89. The children were removed 

from Karean’s care because she refused to keep Foreman away from them despite 

the court order to do so and because she saw no issues with how the children were 

living. Tr. 89-90. Barlage testified that Lhamon had initially indicated that he 

wished to surrender his rights, but did not come into the office to do so. Tr. 96. 

Although Foreman knew of the case in August, she chose not to participate until 

December of 2016. Tr. 97. Barlage testified that of the case plan requirements there 

was little to no compliance. Tr. 99. Ten team meetings were held and Foreman 

attended none of them despite the order to do so. Tr. 99. Foreman repeatedly told 

Barlage that she was working on the case plan, but never provided any evidence of 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-13- 

doing so. Foreman told Barlage that she was applying for jobs, but the list was 

always the same and she had not found employment. Tr. 101. She claimed she was 

looking for housing, but was still living with her fiancé and his mother. Tr. 102. 

Her fiancé had not been cooperative in allowing a background check. Tr. 104. 

Foreman had signed the releases, but had not completed any assessments or 

counseling. Tr. 105. She repeatedly told Barlage that the appointment was in 

September but provided no specifics. Tr. 105. No parent training had been 

completed. Tr. 106. A May 4, 2017, drug screen came back positive for cocaine. 

Tr. 107. Foreman had a negative drug screen on July 28, 2017, but had then refused 

an August 10, 2017 request for a random test. Tr. 108. Barlage testified that as of 

the time of the hearing, Foreman had taken no proactive steps to complete the case 

plan and had made no progress. Tr. 109. 

{¶20} Barlage also testified as to how the children were progressing. She 

testified that she had seen significant changes in all of the children, but specifically 

in Child 1. Tr. 110. She indicated that Child 1 had not had a cutting incident since 

May of 2017. Tr. 111. Child 1 told Barlage that she did not wish to live with 

Foreman, but wanted to be adopted. Tr. 111. All of the children indicated to Barlage 

that they were now happy. Tr. 113. 

{¶21} Fogt testified that she was appointed as the guardian ad litem on 

November 17, 2016. Tr. 130. Fogt has observed the children together and indicated 

they have a typical sibling relationship. Tr. 131. Child 1 has started putting forth 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-14- 

an effort to set a good example for Child 2 and Child 3. Tr. 132. Since the children 

have been placed in the temporary custody of the Agency, their behavior has 

improved and they are starting to act appropriately for their ages. Tr. 133. Fogt 

testified that she has met with Foreman two times and received five emails since she 

was appointed. Tr. 137. From what Fogt has seen, Foreman has not completed 

anything on the case plan, but she does not have access to all of the information 

because Foreman did not sign the releases. Tr. 138-39. Fogt testified that she would 

be concerned with returning the children to Foreman because they had not lived 

with Foreman in over five years, Foreman had not utilized any of the services 

offered to her, Foreman lacks housing and employment, and Foreman has ongoing 

issues with drugs. Tr. 139-42. After consideration of all of the information known 

to her, Fogt recommended that the Agency’s motion for permanent custody be 

granted so that the children could have permanency. Tr. 134-36. 

{¶22} Foreman testified on her own behalf. She testified that she had not 

attended the counseling because she could not afford it. Tr. 145. She indicated that 

she had an appointment on September 11, 2017, but did not know the name of the 

psychiatrist. Tr. 145, 150. Foreman also testified that she had applied online for 15 

jobs since April, but brought nothing to prove that she was doing so. Tr. 146, 151. 

Foreman admitted that she had not been to the jobs center. Tr. 151. Foreman 

testified that she was unable to attend the monthly meetings because they were 

scheduled in the mornings, but she did not have transportation until in the afternoon. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-15- 

Tr. 147. On cross-examination, Foreman admitted that she had not told anyone at 

the Agency that she needed the team meetings to be later in the day rather than in 

the morning. Tr. 151. As for her medical condition, Foreman testified that she was 

in and out of the hospital with a cyst on her ovaries. Tr. 148. She was admitted to 

the hospital on July 13, 2017, and underwent surgery the next day to have the ovary 

removed. Tr. 148. She was released from the hospital on July 15, 2017. Tr. 148. 

Foreman testified that she was unable to supply the Agency with medical records 

because she lacked the funds to pay for copies. Tr. 149. In regards to her drug 

addiction, Foreman admitted that she used cocaine in May, but claimed it was a bad 

choice and that she would not use drugs if she was around her children. Tr. 153. 

However, she also stated that she had not sought any drug counseling since 2012 

and had not been to NA in “quite a few months”. Tr. 154-55, 161. Foreman 

admitted that when things got difficult, she turned to drugs. Tr. 162. Foreman also 

admitted that she had not completed anything on the case plan. Tr. 157. 

{¶23} The trial court filed its judgments on September 25, 2017. 1Doc. 135, 

2Doc. 130, and 3Doc. 131. The trial court granted the Agency’s motion for 

permanent custody and terminated the parental rights of Lhamon and Foreman. Id. 

On September 29, 2017, Foreman filed her notices of appeal. 1Doc. 138, 2Doc. 

133, and 3Doc. 134. Foreman raised the following assignment of error on appeal. 

The trial court erred in granting permanent custody to [the 

Agency] because [the Agency] did not show by clear and 

convincing evidence that the children could not be placed with 

[Foreman] within a reasonable time. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-16- 

{¶24} The sole assignment of error argues that the Agency did not prove by 

clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to Foreman 

within a reasonable time. The right to parent one's own child is a basic and essential 

civil right. In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990). “Parents have 

a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of their 

children.” In re Leveck, 3d Dist. No. 5–02–52, 5–02–53, 5–02–54, 2003–Ohio–

1269, ¶ 6. These rights may be terminated, however, under appropriate 

circumstances and when all due process safeguards have been followed. Id. When 

considering a motion to terminate parental rights, the trial court must comply with 

the statutory requirements set forth in R.C. 2151.414. These requirements include, 

in pertinent part, as follows. 

(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the 

court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the 

court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of 

this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best 

interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the 

agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any 

of the following apply: 

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not 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, or has not 

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 if, as 

described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised 

Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an 

equivalent agency in another state, 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. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-17- 

* * * 

 (2) With respect to a motion made pursuant to [R.C. 

2151.413(D)(1)], the court shall grant permanent custody of the 

child to the movant if the court determines in accordance with 

division (E) of this section that the child cannot be placed with one 

of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be 

placed with either parent and determines in accordance with 

division (D) of this section that permanent custody is in the child’s 

best interest. 

(C) In making the determination required by this section * * *, a 

court shall not consider the effect the granting of permanent 

custody to the agency would have upon any parent of the child. A 

written report of the guardian ad litem of the child shall be 

submitted to the court prior to or at the time of the hearing held 

pursuant to division (A) of this section * * * but shall not be 

submitted under oath. 

R.C. 2151.414. A court’s decision to terminate parental rights will not be 

overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record contains 

competent, credible evidence by which a court can determine by clear and 

convincing evidence that the essential statutory elements for a termination of 

parental rights have been established. See In re B.G.W., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

08AP-181, 2008-Ohio-3693 and In re Nevaeh J., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1093, 

2006-Ohio-6628, ¶ 17 (citing In re Forrest S., 102 Ohio App.3d 338, 657 N.E.2d 

307 (6th Dist. 1995)). 

{¶25} The determination whether to grant a motion for permanent custody 

requires a two-step approach. In re G.B., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP–1024, 

2005–Ohio–3141, ¶ 13. The first step is to determine whether any of the factors set 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-18- 

forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) apply. Id. If one of those circumstances applies, then 

the trial court must consider whether granting the motion is in the best interest of 

the child by considering the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D). Id. 

{¶26} A review of the record in this case shows that the children had not been 

in the custody of the Agency for 12 out of the prior 22 consecutive months at the 

time the motion for permanent custody was filed as was admitted by Barlage during 

her testimony. Tr. 115. Thus, the trial court had to determine whether the children 

could be placed with Foreman within a reasonable period of time. The trial court 

determined that the children could not be placed with Foreman within a reasonable 

time based upon making a determination that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applied in this 

case. 

 (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of 

this section * * * 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 * * * 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 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 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-19- 

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. 

R.C. 2151.414. 

{¶27} The evidence in this case was that the children were originally 

removed from Foreman’s home in August of 2012. Since that time, Foreman had 

not taken any steps to remedy the reasons for the removal. When notified of the 

August 2016 report, Foreman chose not to become involved instead choosing to let 

her mother handle the issues. The record shows that Foreman took no steps to even 

be listed on the case plan until after the Agency had filed the motion for permanent 

custody. When granted the opportunity to work the case plan and be reunified with 

her children, Foreman took no proactive steps and admitted that she had not 

completed any aspect of the case plan. In addition, she had a positive drug test for 

cocaine in May 2017, and refused to take the requested drug screen in August 2017. 

Based upon this evidence, the trial court determined that Foreman had “wholly 

failed to comply with or complete, in any meaningful manner, the requirements of 

the case plan or substantially remedy the conditions causing each of the children to 

be place [sic] outside the child’s home within the applicable time frame.” 1Doc. 

135 at 12, 2Doc. 130 at 12, and 3Doc. 131 at 12. The same finding was made as to 

Lhamon. Given the evidence before it, this finding of the trial court was supported 

by clear and convincing evidence. Having made those findings pursuant to R.C. 
Case Nos. 17-17-17, 17-17-18 and 17-17-19 

-20- 

2151.414(E)(1), the trial court was required to find that the children could not be 

placed with Foreman within a reasonable time. 

{¶28} The trial court then went on to consider the best interests of the 

children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D). 1Doc. 135, 2Doc. 130, and 3Doc. 131. The 

trial court indicated that it considered not only the evidence presented at the hearing, 

but the wishes of the children as expressed during in camera interviews. Child 1 

indicated that she wished to remain in the custody of the Agency rather than go back 

to Foreman. Id. Based upon all of the evidence, the trial court determined that it 

would be in the best interests of the children to grant the motion for permanent 

custody. This conclusion is supported by competent credible evidence from which 

the trial court could determine by clear and convincing evidence that the essential 

statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been met. Thus, the 

assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶29} Having found no error prejudicial to Appellant in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby 

County, Juvenile Division, are affirmed. 

Judgments Affirmed 

SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur. 

/hls