[Cite as In re S.P., 2014-Ohio-1211.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: S.P. 

 L.P. 

 E.P. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 27138 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE Nos. DN 11-08-0595 

DN 11-08-0596 

DN 11-08-0597 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 26, 2014 

 

 MOORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Sheila W. (“Grandmother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her three minor grandchildren in 

the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Grandmother is the maternal grandmother of the three minor children at issue in 

this case: S.P., born February 12, 2005; L.P., born December 11, 2002; and E.P., born March 4, 

2006. The children’s parents are not parties to this appeal. 

{¶3} At the time this case began, the children were living in the legal custody of 

Grandmother because both of their parents were incarcerated. On August 30, 2011, they were 

removed from Grandmother’s home pursuant to Juv.R. 6 because the living conditions in the 

home were deplorable and Grandmother had not been meeting their basic or special needs. In 
2 

 

addition to excessive clutter and filth in every room, the children were dirty, had lice, and had 

behavioral problems that were not being addressed. Although Grandmother’s own nine-year-old 

child, N.M., was also removed from her home at that time, N.M. was later placed in the legal 

custody of her father and is not a party to this appeal. 

{¶4} On November 2, 2011, S.P., L.P., and E.P. were adjudicated neglected and 

dependent children. The goal of the initial case plan was for the children to be reunified with 

Grandmother, their former legal custodian and a party to the action. Because CSB believed that 

the cluttered and unclean condition of Grandmother’s home and her behavior of “hoarding” her 

possessions was likely the result of mental health problems, Grandmother was required to obtain 

a mental health assessment and follow all resulting treatment recommendations. During the first 

several months of this case, Grandmother made little progress cleaning her home and making it 

more habitable for the children. Although she engaged in counseling, her counselor became 

concerned that Grandmother had more serious mental health problems that the counselor was not 

qualified to diagnose. Consequently, Grandmother was then required to obtain additional 

evaluations by a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist, but she never did. In fact, she stopped 

engaging in mental health treatment altogether. Grandmother’s unstable mental health remained 

a concern to CSB throughout the case. 

{¶5} Shortly after the children came into agency custody, their mother completed her 

term of incarceration. Because the mother began working on a case plan and the children 

expressed more interest in reunification with her than with Grandmother, CSB shifted its 

reunification focus to the mother. Eventually, however, the mother violated the conditions of her 

probation and was sentenced to another term of incarceration. 
3 

 

{¶6} On February 21, 2013, CSB moved for permanent custody of the children. As a 

party to this action, Grandmother received timely service of the permanent custody motion as 

well as notice of each of the scheduled hearing dates. The permanent custody hearing was 

initially set to commence on June 20, 2013, but was continued because the children’s mother was 

not transported from jail because of a miscommunication between the court and the jail. On June 

28, 2013, the trial court rescheduled the permanent custody hearing for August 28 and 29, 2013. 

{¶7} On August 12, 2013, although she had not been working on the goals of the case 

plan and had not visited the children for several months, Grandmother moved for legal custody 

of them. Following a hearing at which Grandmother appeared with counsel and had the 

opportunity to present evidence to support her alternate dispositional motion, the trial court 

found that the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than 12 of the prior 

22 months and that permanent custody was in their best interests. Consequently, it terminated 

parental rights and placed the children in the permanent custody of CSB. Grandmother appeals 

and raises one assignment of error. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING 

[CSB’S] MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY AND TERMINATING 

THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF [GRANDMOTHER] AND FAILING TO 

GRANT HER LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. 

{¶8} Grandmother’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred by placing the 

children in the permanent custody of CSB rather than in her legal custody. Before a juvenile 

court may terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of 

a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test 

that: (1) the children are abandoned, orphaned, have been in the temporary custody of the agency 
4 

 

for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the children cannot be placed with either 

parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis 

under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best 

interest of the children, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) 

and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996). 

{¶9} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was 

satisfied because all three children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than 12 

of the prior 22 months. Grandmother does not dispute that finding but challenges only the trial 

court’s finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. She argues that it was 

in the children’s best interest to be placed in her legal custody rather than in the permanent 

custody of CSB. 

{¶10} Because the trial court’s decision whether to place the children in the legal 

custody of Grandmother was also based on the best interest of the children, “this Court typically 

conducts a single ‘best interest’ review of the trial court’s decision to place the child[ren] in the 

permanent custody of the agency rather than in the legal custody to a relative.” In re I.A., 9th 

Dist. Summit No. 26642, 2013-Ohio-360, ¶ 10, quoting In re T-G.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 

25858, 2011-Ohio-3940, ¶ 13. If permanent custody is in the children’s best interest, legal 

custody to Grandmother necessarily is not. “‘Consequently, this Court will review the factors set 

forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in reviewing the [best interest] decision of the trial court * * *.’” Id. 

{¶11} When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the children’s best 

interests, the juvenile court must consider the following factors: 

(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; 
5 

 

(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-twomonth 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 * * *. 

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(d).1 

{¶12} At the beginning of this case, Grandmother was allowed to have weekly visitation 

with the children at the same time they visited their mother. The children enjoyed visiting their 

mother but began to express their opposition to visiting Grandmother. Moreover, the mother and 

Grandmother often argued during the joint visits, which tended to create a chaotic atmosphere. 

After approximately six months, because the mother had become the focus of the agency’s 

reunification efforts and the joint visits had become too chaotic, Grandmother’s visits were 

decreased to once a month. 

{¶13} The guardian ad litem later observed that Grandmother was upsetting the children 

during visits and the oldest child told her that he did not want to visit Grandmother anymore. 

Consequently, the guardian raised the issue with the trial court and the children were given 

discretion to determine when they would visit with Grandmother. Their last visit with 

Grandmother was for S.P.’s birthday in February 2013, six months before the permanent custody 

hearing. 

{¶14} Grandmother argues on appeal that the children should not have been given the 

discretion to determine when they would visit her. Although Grandmother was notified by the 

 

1

 The factor set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) does not apply to the facts of this case. 
6 

 

trial court about the changes to her visitation, she raised no objection when her visits with the 

children were decreased from weekly to monthly or when the children were given the discretion 

to choose not to visit. By that time, CSB was no longer considering Grandmother as a potential 

custodian for the children because she had not substantially complied with the reunification goals 

of the case plan. Moreover, she did not show a serious interest in legal custody of the children 

until she filed her motion two months after the first permanent custody hearing date was 

rescheduled. 

{¶15} The children’s lack of interaction with Grandmother during the six months before 

the permanent custody hearing was based on their expressed wishes, which overlaps with the 

second best interest factor. The three children had consistently told their counselors, the 

caseworker, and the guardian ad litem that they did not want to visit Grandmother and did not 

want to return to her home. On appeal, Grandmother attempts to discredit the opinions of the 

children and others that she was “mean” to them, suggesting that she was nothing worse than a 

stern disciplinarian. The evidence presented at the hearing, however, gave the trial court many 

more reasons to question Grandmother’s ability to care for these children than the manner in 

which she disciplined them. 

{¶16} The opinion of the guardian ad litem was that the children had no real bond with 

Grandmother, despite the fact that they had lived in her home for approximately three years. 

After their removal from Grandmother’s home, none of the children ever stated that they missed 

Grandmother. In fact, L.P. told one of his counselors that he hated living in Grandmother’s 

home and that he and his siblings were not cared for but were left to fend for themselves. L.P. 

had assumed the role of parent and would attempt to care for his younger siblings and keep them 

safe. 
7 

 

{¶17} At the time the children were removed from Grandmother’s home, they were 

living in a crowded and filthy two-bedroom trailer with Grandmother, her nine-year-old child, 

and, until her recent death, their terminally ill great-grandmother. The only beds for the three 

children, then ages five, six, and almost nine years old, were a crib and a toddler bed. The trailer 

was so crowded that it was impossible to move through the rooms without moving and/or 

stepping over things. In fact, because it was difficult to get from their beds to the bathroom, and 

the bathroom was cluttered with items on the floor and in the sink, the oldest child had developed 

a problem soiling himself during the night. As noted by the guardian ad litem in one of her 

reports, it is not clear why the children lived under those conditions for so long before they were 

removed from Grandmother’s home. 

{¶18} The children’s custodial history included approximately two years during this 

case living in the temporary custody of CSB. During that time, the children had been involved in 

ongoing counseling to address their behavioral problems and their academic delays were being 

addressed. Although they were removed from their first foster home because of continuing 

behavioral problems, those problems subsided over time through continued counseling and the 

love, consistency, and structure in their second foster home. 

{¶19} By the time of the hearing, the children had assimilated into the second foster 

family and were comfortable and relaxed in that home. L.P. was learning to act like a child and 

trusted the foster parents to provide care for him and his siblings. One of the children’s 

counselors testified that, for the first time in their lives, the children felt safe. Each child wanted 

to remain in that foster home and the foster parents had expressed a desire to adopt all three 

children if CSB received permanent custody. 
8 

 

{¶20} During that same period of time, however, Grandmother had not made significant 

progress on the reunification goals of the case plan. She did engage in counseling for 

approximately six months with a licensed clinical counselor but the counselor observed that 

Grandmother began to experience “thought disturbances” which she described as thoughts that 

were not realistic or logical. The counselor gave several examples of statements made by 

Grandmother that were incredible and which the counselor verified were not based in fact. 

Based on her opinion that Grandmother was experiencing unrealistic thoughts, the counselor 

believed that Grandmother might have more serious mental health problems than she had 

diagnosed. The counselor informed CSB that Grandmother was in need of a more 

comprehensive psychological evaluation, which the counselor was not qualified to perform, as 

well as a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Grandmother could benefit from 

psychiatric medication. Consequently, those requirements were added to the case plan, but 

Grandmother never obtained the additional evaluations and stopped going to counseling 

altogether because she did not believe that she needed treatment. 

{¶21} Because the children had spent most of their lives living in temporary placements 

and were in a safe and stable home for the first time in their lives, they were in need of a legally 

secure permanent placement. Because there were no suitable relatives who were willing and 

able to provide them with such a home, the trial court reasonably concluded that a legally secure 

permanent placement would only be achieved by terminating parental rights and placing the 

children for adoption. 

{¶22} There was ample evidence before the trial court to support its conclusion that 

permanent custody was in the best interests of S.P., L.P., and E.P. and that legal custody to 

Grandmother was not. Grandmother’s assignment of error is overruled. 
9 

 

III. 

{¶23} Grandmother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the 

Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

BELFANCE, P. J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.
10 

 

APPEARANCES:

PAUL M. GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. 

RUSSELL BUZZELLI, Attorney at Law, for Mother. 

NOWAR KATIRJI, Attorney at Law, for Father. 

LINDA BENNETT, Guardian ad litem.