[Cite as In re R.M.S., 2019-Ohio-4281.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: R.M.S., J.L.B., AND N.A.B. 

 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NOS. C-190378 

 C-190386 

 C-190405 

TRIAL NO. F10-1569X 

 O P I N I O N.

 

Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in C-190378 and C-190405; Appeal 

Dismissed in C-190386 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 18, 2019 

Cynthia S. Daugherty, for Appellant R.B., father of N.A.B., 

Jon R. Sinclair, for Appellant R.S., father of R.M.S., 

Roger W. Kirk, for Appellant Mother, 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jacqueline O’Hara, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job 

and Family Services, 

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Elizabeth Stringer, 

Assistant Public Defender, Appellee Guardian ad Litem for R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

MYERS, Judge. 

{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, mother and the fathers of two of her 

children each appeal from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting 

permanent custody of R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B. to the Hamilton County 

Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) and denying motions for legal 

custody of the children filed by various family members. Finding no error in the 

grant of permanent custody, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

1. Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶2} On October 28, 2015, HCJFS filed a complaint for temporary custody 

of R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B., alleging that they were neglected, abused, and 

dependent. HCJFS was granted an interim order of custody of the children, and they 

were placed together in a foster home. In March of 2016, a juvenile court magistrate 

adjudicated the children dependent and committed them to the temporary custody 

of HCJFS. R.M.S. was also adjudicated abused, but the allegations of abuse 

regarding J.L.B. and N.A.B. and the allegations of neglect were dismissed. The 

adjudications were based on the following facts, as stipulated by the parties: R.S. is 

the legal father of R.M.S.; A.S. is the alleged father of J.L.B.; R.B., who was 

incarcerated, is the legal father of N.A.B.; HCJFS had received an allegation of 

physical abuse to R.M.S. in October of 2015 after R.M.S. went to school with bloody 

scabs on his head and reported that his mother had whipped him with a belt; and 

HCJFS had an open case with mother on a medical-neglect allegation concerning her 

failure to take the children to their medical appointments. 

{¶3} The magistrate granted HCJFS’s motions to extend temporary custody 

in both September of 2016 and March of 2017 while the parties worked towards 

reunification. In January 2017, all of mother’s visits with R.M.S. were suspended 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3 

due to concerns from R.M.S.’s psychiatrist that the visits played a major role in 

R.M.S.’s deteriorating behavior. R.M.S. was admitted to Children’s Hospital on 

January 29, 2017, after being violent towards his siblings as well as harming himself. 

R.M.S. remained hospitalized for approximately six months, and was placed in a 

different foster home upon his discharge. 

{¶4} In September of 2017, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary 

custody to permanent custody for all three children. Petitions for legal custody of 

R.M.S. were filed by his paternal grandmother, paternal uncle, and paternal great 

aunt. Paternal grandmother filed a petition for legal custody of N.A.B.1 And 

maternal grandmother filed a petition for legal custody of all three children. 

{¶5} A trial was held over the course of nine days between April and 

October of 2018 on HCJFS’s motion to modify and the various motions for legal 

custody. Mother, and fathers R.S. and R.B., actively participated in the trial. R.B. 

was incarcerated throughout the entire course of the proceedings, but he participated 

via video teleconference. A.S., the alleged father of J.L.B., never made an 

appearance. 

{¶6} Extensive testimony was presented about the services that had been 

offered to the parents and their compliance with these services. Anthony 

Niederhelman, the HCJFS caseworker for the children, testified that mother first 

completed a diagnostic assessment in January of 2016. The assessment diagnosed 

mother with mild cannabis use disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety 

and depression, and recommended that mother participate in individual therapy and 

drug screens. Niederhelman testified that mother completed a parenting class, but 

did not otherwise satisfactorily comply with either of the assessment’s 

recommendations. Mother failed to appear for approximately five drug screens. She 

did comply with one scheduled drug screen, and that screen was negative. Mother 

 

1 A family friend also filed a petition for legal custody of N.A.B., but withdrew that petition while 

the case was pending. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

4

likewise failed to participate in individual therapy and was released from the Talbert 

House program for nonattendance. 

{¶7} Mother completed a second diagnostic assessment in September 2017, 

and that assessment did not recommend any necessary services. However, the 

behavioral health therapist that had conducted the assessment testified that she had 

not received a referral from HCJFS, and consequently had not received any collateral 

information from the agency regarding its concerns. She testified that she had 

reviewed mother’s 2016 diagnostic assessment. The results of the 2017 assessment 

were based entirely on information reported by mother. Mother reported that her 

marijuana use had decreased and that she was drug tested at work. Niederhelman 

testified that HCJFS considered the second assessment to be invalid. 

{¶8} R.S. participated in a diagnostic assessment, which returned 

recommendations that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation and participate in 

individual therapy and drug screens. R.S. told Niederhelman that he would not 

engage in services. Because R.B. was incarcerated, he was unable to participate in 

services. He did testify that he completed multiple classes while incarcerated, 

including Life Skills, Thinking for a Change, and a parenting class. 

{¶9} Mother initially visited with the children through supervised visitation 

at the Family Nurturing Center (“FNC”), but her attendance was not consistent and 

she missed many scheduled visits. As discussed above, in January 2017, visitation 

with R.M.S. was suspended following a therapeutic recommendation, and R.M.S. has 

had no contact with mother, father, or any other custody petitioner since that time. 

In response to the magistrate’s questions about why visitation was never resumed, 

Niederhelman explained that HCJFS had trouble maintaining a consistent 

psychiatrist for R.M.S. and had not received a therapeutic recommendation to 

reinitiate visits. 

{¶10} Due to mother’s lack of attendance at visitation, visits with J.L.B. and 

N.A.B. were moved from the FNC to facilitated visits at mother’s home. Mother’s 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

5

attendance improved once the visits were moved to her home, and Niederhelman 

had no concerns regarding mother’s interaction with J.L.B. and N.A.B. during 

visitation. 

{¶11} R.S. only visited with R.M.S. one time before visits with him were 

suspended in January 2017, but he called Niederhelman at least a once a month 

while the case was pending to ask about R.M.S. 

{¶12} All of the children suffer mental-health and behavioral issues. 

Visitation was suspended for R.M.S. due to concerns that the visits triggered his 

behavioral issues. He continued to suffer extreme behavioral issues after the visits 

were suspended, and was hospitalized for six months due to a “complete 

breakdown.” Following his release from the hospital, R.M.S. began participating in 

therapy with Megan Stone, a psychologist at Children’s Hospital. Stone testified that 

R.M.S. suffers from a mild intellectual disability, disruptive mood dysregulation 

disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Stone engaged with R.M.S. in 

behavioral therapy to address his frequent tantrums, verbal and physical aggression, 

irritability, food hoarding, and pattern of stealing. Stone testified that R.M.S.’s 

behavior has improved with therapy, and that he needs a structured environment 

with clear expectations of his behavior and consistent responses. 

{¶13} Both R.M.S. and J.L.B. exhibit sexualized behaviors and have 

inappropriate sexualized knowledge for their age. J.L.B. suffers from a trauma and 

stress related disorder, and exhibits many behavioral issues, including aggression 

and cursing. He participates in therapy through St. Joseph’s Orphanage to work on 

anger management and peer relations. The therapy has helped J.L.B. regulate his 

moods and he no longer needs to be removed from his classroom because of his 

behavior. J.L.B.’s counselor testified that he needs structure and consistency in his 

life. 

{¶14} N.A.B. was diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder. She attends 

the Therapy Interagency Preschool at Children’s Hospital. She participates in the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

6

Head Start Program and receives weekly mental-health and occupational therapy to 

address her fine motor and emotional-regulation skills. N.A.B.’s therapist Melissa 

Moore testified that N.A.B. becomes aggressive at times and has difficulty with peer 

interactions and following directions. Moore felt that N.A.B.’s behavioral issues had 

increased over the past few months. N.A.B.’s counselor Jennifer Wells-Mahaney 

testified that she needs an environment that has limits and boundaries, as well as a 

loving caregiver. 

{¶15} Niederhelman testified that the parents had not remedied the 

conditions that first brought the children into the agency’s care. He was concerned 

with what he described as mother’s ongoing substance-abuse issues, her mentalhealth issues, and her lack of involvement with and knowledge about the children’s 

medical needs and behavioral issues. He conceded that he had not invited mother to 

attend all medical appointments for the children, but explained that he did not feel 

that mother should participate in the children’s treatment until she addressed her 

own issues, which she failed to do. Niederhelman had no concerns about mother’s 

income and found her housing to be appropriate, but he was concerned that mother’s 

live-in boyfriend had previous allegations of abuse towards one of the children. He 

testified that the abuse allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of contact with the 

family, but he remained concerned that mother or her boyfriend would continue to 

use physical discipline. 

{¶16} Elizabeth Stringer, the children’s guardian ad litem, testified that she 

believed a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. Stringer 

had no concerns with mother’s housing, but did have concerns about mother’s live-in 

boyfriend. She was also concerned about mother’s lack of attendance at the 

children’s medical appointments, but acknowledged that mother had not been 

invited to participate in all the appointments due to her failure to progress in her 

case plan. In addition to missing medical appointments, mother failed to attend 

educational appointments for the children that Stringer had informed her about. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

7

Stringer also was troubled by R.S.’s failure to participate in services and the fact that 

he only visited with R.M.S. one time before visits were suspended. Stringer testified 

that the foster parent of J.L.B. and N.A.B. was open to the idea of adoption. 

{¶17} Mother testified that she had a stable job and stable housing, and that 

if she were to be awarded custody of the children, she would relocate from her 

current two-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment. Mother explained 

that she had attempted to participate in therapy at the Talbert House, but had been 

told that they did not see a reason to treat her. She testified that maternal 

grandmother would help her with the children when she needed assistance. Mother 

admitted that she was unaware of the children’s various mental-health diagnoses and 

the therapy that they were involved in. 

{¶18} Laura Rudolph-Young, an HCJFS kinship coordinator, was assigned to 

conduct home studies on all custody petitioners. She was unable to complete home 

studies on R.M.S.’s paternal uncle and N.A.B.’s paternal grandmother, as they never 

responded to her attempted contact. Rudolph-Young did not approve any of the 

remaining custody petitioners as legal custodians following the home studies. She 

explained that she did not approve R.M.S.’s paternal grandmother because she had 

failed to visit with R.M.S., had limited contact with the caseworker, had a long 

history of substance abuse, and had a past history with Children’s Services. She did 

not approve the children’s maternal grandmother because she also had a substantial 

Children’s Services history, including a loss of custody of her own children for a 

period of time, a history of substance abuse, and a history of violent behavior that 

was documented in her criminal record. And while maternal grandmother had 

visited with J.L.B. and N.A.B., she did not have a relationship with R.M.S. RudolphYoung further testified that she had not approved R.M.S.’s paternal great aunt 

because she had had no contact with R.M.S. during the case and because she had a 

Children’s Services history for physical abuse allegations. Paternal great aunt’s home 

study indicated that she needed to make a concentrated effort to become involved in 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

8 

R.M.S.’s life and to demonstrate an understanding of his diagnosis, behavioral 

issues, and therapeutic needs in order to be considered for custody. She never did. 

{¶19} Both N.A.B.’s paternal grandmother and R.M.S.’s paternal great aunt 

testified and presented witnesses in support of their custody petitions. Maternal 

grandmother and R.M.S.’s paternal grandmother also testified. 

{¶20} The magistrate issued an entry granting HCJFS’s motion for 

permanent custody and denying all petitions for legal custody. Mother, R.S., and 

R.B. filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court issued an entry 

overruling all objections. The entry specifically found that a grant of permanent 

custody was in the children’s best interest, that the children had been in the custody 

of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, and that the 

children could not or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. In 

its entry, the trial court accepted and approved the magistrate’s decision as its own, 

and entered judgment granting permanent custody of the children to HCJFS and 

denying the various petitions for legal custody. 

2. Legal Analysis 

{¶21} Mother, R.S., and R.B. have all appealed, raising several assignments 

of error for our review. 

A. Standing 

{¶22} In a single assignment of error, R.S. argues that the trial court erred in 

denying the petition for legal custody of R.M.S. filed by paternal great aunt. He 

argues that a grant of legal custody to paternal great aunt was in R.M.S.’s best 

interest, and that his residual parenting rights were affected by the trial court’s 

decision because he would have the ability to visit with R.M.S. if custody were 

granted to paternal great aunt. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

9

{¶23} Paternal great aunt did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision 

granting permanent custody of R.M.S. to HCJFS and she has not filed an appeal in 

this case. 

{¶24} It is the law of this court that “a parent has no standing to appeal an 

award of permanent custody and a denial of a relative’s custody petition where the 

parent does not challenge the termination of her parental rights and the relative did 

not appeal the denial of her custody petition.” In re K.C., 2017-Ohio-8383, 99 

N.E.3d 1061, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.); In re T.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130080, 2013-

Ohio-1754, ¶ 9. R.S.’s assertion of an effect on his residual parenting rights does not 

confer standing, as “the assertion of injury to a parent’s residual parenting rights 

cannot be redressed where the requested relief is to award custody to a relative who 

did not appeal the denial of her or his custody petition.” In re K.C. at ¶ 12. 

{¶25} R.S.’s appeal is therefore dismissed. 

B. Sufficiency and Weight 

{¶26} Both mother and R.B. have raised a single assignment of error 

contending that the trial court erred in granting HCJFS’s motion to modify 

temporary custody to permanent custody. They argue that the grant of permanent 

custody was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. 

{¶27} We review the juvenile court’s judgment to determine whether it is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.W. and H.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton 

No. C-190189, 2019-Ohio-2730, ¶ 13. An examination into the sufficiency of the 

evidence requires this court to determine whether the juvenile court had sufficient 

evidence before it to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard. Id. But when 

examining the manifest weight of the evidence, we review the record to determine if 

the juvenile court lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice in 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

10

resolving conflicts in the evidence that its judgment must be reversed. Id.; In re 

T/R/E/M, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180703, 2019-Ohio-1427, ¶ 11. 

{¶28} R.C. 2151.414(B) provides that a trial court may grant permanent 

custody of a child to a children-services agency if it finds that a grant of permanent 

custody is in the child’s best interest pursuant to the factors contained in R.C. 

2151.414(D), and that one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) 

through (e) apply. Here, the trial court found that a grant of permanent custody was 

in the children’s best interest, and that the following two conditions in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1) were applicable: that the children had been in the temporary custody 

of a children-services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month 

period, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), and that the children could not or should 

not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, pursuant to R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a). 

i. Best Interest 

{¶29} Following our review of the record, we find that the trial court’s 

determination that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest 

was supported by both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. 

{¶30} Mother has been consistent in weekly visitation with J.L.B. and N.A.B. 

The caseworker had no concerns with mother’s behavior and interaction with the 

children during the visitation, but mother never progressed beyond facilitated 

visitation. R.M.S. has not seen any family member since visits with him were 

suspended in January of 2017. Prior to visitation being suspended, R.S. only visited 

R.M.S. one time while he was in agency custody. J.L.B.’s father made no appearance 

in this case, and R.B. was incarcerated throughout the entire course of the 

proceedings. J.L.B. and N.A.B. continue to reside together in the same foster home, 

and that foster parent is open to the idea of adoption. R.M.S. resides in a separate 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

11

foster home, where he was placed after being released from the hospital following his 

breakdown that involved violence towards his siblings. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). 

{¶31} The children have not expressed their own desires regarding custody, 

but their guardian ad litem advocated for a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS. 

See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b). The children have been in the custody of HCJFS since 

October of 2015. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c). 

{¶32} All three children are in need of a legally secure placement that can 

only be achieved with a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS. See R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(d). All suffer from extreme behavioral issues, particularly R.M.S. 

And all are in need of a structured and consistent environment and a caregiver that 

will set clear limits. Mother has not been involved in the children’s medical or 

therapeutic appointments and is not fully aware of their mental-health issues. And 

she failed to comply with the recommendations in her first diagnostic assessment 

that she participate in individual therapy and submit to drug screens. While mother 

has stable housing and income, she resides with her boyfriend who is alleged to have 

abused one of the children. 

{¶33} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), which requires the trial court to 

consider whether any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply, the 

magistrate found that all fathers had abandoned the children. The record supported 

this finding. R.B. contends that the magistrate failed to consider R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(e) as it applies to mother. We disagree. While the trial court is not 

required to enumerate each of the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors in its decision, the record 

must reflect that the trial court considered all required factors. In re K.T.1, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton Nos. C-170667, C-170687, C-170701, C-170702 and C-170707, 2018-Ohio1381, ¶ 14. The magistrate stated in her entry that she had considered this factor, 

and she made a specific finding under it with respect to the children’s fathers. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

12

ii. 12-of-22 Condition 

{¶34} Clear and convincing evidence also supports the trial court’s 

determination that the children had been in the custody of HCJFS for 12 or more 

months of a consecutive 22-month period. 

{¶35} A child is considered to have entered the temporary custody of an 

agency on the earlier of the date that the child is adjudicated or the date that is 60 

days after the child’s removal from the home. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); In re J.G.S., 1st 

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180611 and C-180619, 2019-Ohio-802, ¶ 37. Here, HCJFS 

was granted an ex parte emergency order for custody of the children on October 27, 

2015, and they were adjudicated dependent (and R.M.S. additionally adjudicated 

abused) on March 18, 2016. The children are thus considered to have entered agency 

custody in this case 60 days after their removal from the home, which was December 

26, 2015. HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody 

on September 27, 2017. At that time, the children had been in agency custody for 21 

months. 

{¶36} R.B. additionally challenges the trial court’s determination that the 

children could not or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. 

We do not address the merits of this argument. A trial court is only required to find 

the applicability of one factor under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). In re J.R., 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-190342, 2019-Ohio-3500, ¶ 26. Because clear and convincing 

evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the children had been in 

agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period pursuant to 

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), we need not consider any challenges to the trial court’s 

findings that the children could not or should not be placed with a parent within a 

reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), as any error with respect to that 

determination would be harmless. Id. at ¶ 29. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

13

{¶37} Mother also argues in her assignment of error that if the children were 

not returned to her care, it was in their best interest to be placed in the legal custody 

of a family member, particularly paternal great aunt. But no family members who 

had petitioned for legal custody of the children objected to the magistrate’s decision 

granting permanent custody of them to HCJFS or filed an appeal in this court. For 

the reasons discussed in response to R.S.’s assignment of error, mother lacks 

standing to raise this argument. 

{¶38} The trial court did not err in granting HCJFS’s motion to modify 

temporary custody to permanent custody, and mother and R.B.’s assignments of 

error are overruled. 

3. Conclusion 

{¶39} The sufficiency and weight of the evidence supported the trial court’s 

grant of permanent custody of R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B. to HCJFS, and that 

judgment is affirmed. R.S.’s appeal challenging the denial of legal custody to a 

custody petitioner who did not appeal the denial of her custody petition is dismissed 

for lack of standing. 

Judgment accordingly. 

MOCK, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.