[Cite as In re J.B., 2012-Ohio-3087.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97995

IN RE: J.B. 

A Minor Child

[Appeal by Mother]

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. AD 10900016 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Blackmon, A.J., and Keough, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 5, 2012 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

David K. Greer 

1150 Morse Road 

Suite 230 

Columbus, OH 43229-6327 

Cynthia Morgan 

2968 Meadowbrook 

Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Pamela Hawkins 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Cuyahoga County Department of 

Children and Family Services 

3955 Euclid Avenue 

Cleveland, OH 44115 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant, mother, appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that granted permanent custody of her child, J.B., to 

appellee, Cuyahoga County Department of Children of Family Services (“CCDCFS”). 

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

{¶2} J.B. was born on December 29, 2009. On January 4, 2010, CCDCFS filed a 

complaint for neglect and temporary custody, based primarily upon mother’s alleged drug 

abuse and her lack of stable housing and income. J.B. was committed to the emergency 

temporary custody of CCDCFS on the same date. On February 9, 2010, the case was 

reassigned to the court’s family drug court judge. 

{¶3} The guardian ad litem’s report and recommendation, filed on March 23, 

2010, reflected that J.B. was born “medically fragile,” had been hospitalized twice since 

his birth, and has several medical problems requiring specialized medical care. 

{¶4} At a hearing held on March 24, 2010, mother, through counsel, admitted to 

the allegations of the amended complaint. The uncontested facts in the complaint are as 

follows: 

(1) Mother has a substance abuse problem, specifically cocaine, which 

interferes with her ability to provide a safe and stable home for the 

child. Mother used during her pregnancy and continues to use 

cocaine. Mother last used cocaine on 12/23/09. 

(2) Mother has two other children who were adjudicated and placed into 

the legal custody of relatives due to the mother’s continued drug use. 
 See case no. AD05901282-83. 

(3) Mother has been offered treatment in the past, but has relapsed. 

(4) Mother lacks stable housing and income to provide for the basic 

needs of the child. 

(5) Alleged father, [A.C.], has failed to establish paternity and has failed 

to support, visit or communicate with the child since birth. 

(6) Alleged father, John Doe, has failed to establish paternity and has 

failed to support, visit or communicate with the child since birth. 

{¶5} At the conclusion of the hearing, J.B. was adjudged to be neglected and was 

committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS. The court also approved and 

journalized the case plan, which was later amended. The case plan required mother to 

complete a drug and alcohol assessment, follow recommendations, attend and 

successfully complete substance-abuse treatment, and provide random urine screens when 

requested. The case plan also required her to engage in services to address her 

substance-abuse issues, refrain from any drug or alcohol use, attend a parenting program, 

learn and demonstrate parenting proficiency, become involved in a job-readiness 

program, and become self-sufficient by becoming gainfully employed and able to 

maintain her own residence for herself and J.B. 

{¶6} On December 22, 2010, CCDCFS filed a motion for permanent custody. A 

hearing was held on February 7, 2012. 

{¶7} The evidence and testimony presented at the hearing reflected that although 

mother continued in the course of her drug treatment, she was unsuccessfully discharged 
from three of the six treatment programs to which she was referred. During the course of 

the case, she failed to maintain her sobriety. She submitted a positive drug screen in 

June and July 2010 and in June 2011, and she failed to appear for drug screens in late July 

and August 2011. She did not consistently submit drug screens until January and 

February 2012, at which point she submitted negative drug screens. She also had been 

attending AA meetings. 

{¶8} Mother did complete and benefit from parenting classes, interacted 

appropriately with J.B., and had a bond with J.B. Though she was not consistent with 

visitation at the beginning of the case, she had been consistent for three or four months 

prior to the hearing. However, mother remained unemployed. At the time of the 

hearing, she was residing in transitional housing at the Hitchcock Center, where she could 

remain for up to two years. The Hitchcock Center provides transportation assistance for 

medical appointments, offers life-skills education classes, has a job-readiness program, 

and offers other services. Mother was participating in a variety of these programs; she 

had completed her treatment; she had been maintaining her sobriety; and she was 

attending relapse prevention classes for recovery support. 

{¶9} J.B. wears leg braces, has bowel and intestinal problems, has acid reflux, and 

lacks socialization skills. He requires physical therapy on a weekly basis, receives 

occupational therapy, attends a specialized toddler day-care program, and takes 

medication. There was testimony that mother did not attend any of J.B.’s medical 

appointments and minimized his specialized needs. 
{¶10} J.B. initially was placed with a maternal cousin, but he had to be removed 

from that home. J.B. was then placed in a foster home, where he had been for two years 

at the time of the hearing. He was doing well in his foster home, was bonded to his 

foster family, and his foster parents are willing to provide for his special needs. 

{¶11} The social worker testified that mother had not demonstrated the ability to 

stay sober outside of a treatment setting, had no source of income to support a child, had 

no means to provide for J.B.’s special needs, had not remedied the conditions that led to 

J.B.’s initial removal from her care, and could not provide a safe, stable, permanent home 

in which J.B. could reside. Though efforts were made to locate the alleged father, no 

contact was had with him during the course of proceedings. Further, no other relative 

had expressed interest in placement or custody of J.B. The social worker opined that 

permanent custody was in J.B.’s best interest because all of his needs were being met in 

the foster home, he was bonded with his foster family, and he was in a stable 

environment. The guardian ad litem for the child also recommended permanent custody 

for CCDCFS. 

{¶12} After the hearing, the juvenile court granted permanent custody of J.B. to 

CCDCFS. Mother timely filed this appeal. She raises two assignments of error for our 

review. Her first assignment of error claims the trial court’s findings were not supported 

by clear and convincing evidence. Her second assignment of error argues that the 

judgment entry is deficient. 

{¶13} In accordance with R.C. 2151.414, a trial court may terminate parental 
rights and grant permanent custody of a child to a children’s services agency if the court 

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d) applies and that an award of permanent custody is in the child’s 

best interest. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 23. 

“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that “will produce in the mind of the trier of 

facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.” Cross v. 

Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). 

{¶14} Where clear and convincing proof is required, a reviewing court will 

examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it 

to satisfy the requisite degree of proof. State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 

N.E.2d 54 (1990). Judgments supported by competent, credible evidence going to all the 

essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. Id. 

{¶15} In this case, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B), the juvenile court determined by 

clear and convincing evidence that J.B. 

is not abandoned or orphaned or has not been in temporary custody of a 

public children services agency or private child placing agency * * * for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period 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.1

 

The court noted that J.B. had been removed from mother’s care at birth and had been in 

 1

 We note that at the time CCDCFS filed its motion for permanent custody, J.B. had not 

been in the custody of the agency for a twenty-two-month period. However, by the time of the 

hearing, J.B. had been in the custody of the agency for just over two years.
the custody of CCDCFS continuously since that time. Consistent with R.C. 2151.414(E), 

the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that several factors were present to 

support the determination that the child could not be placed with one of the child’s 

parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. Specifically, 

the court found: 

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. 

The chronic chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it 

makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the 

child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year. 

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. The mother has failed to educate 

herself about the child’s special needs. 

{¶16} In determining the best interest of the child, the court indicated that it had 

considered the relevant factors pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Those factors include 

the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with others; (2) the 

wishes of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the child’s need for a legally 

secure placement and whether such a placement can be achieved without permanent 

custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply. R.C. 
2151.414(D)(1). The court noted the guardian ad litem’s recommendation that 

“permanent custody be granted as it is in the child’s best interest.” 

{¶17} Further, the court found that permanent custody was in the best interest of 

the child because all of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) applied. R.C. 

2151.414(D)(2) provides as follows: 

If all of the following apply, permanent custody is in the best interest of the 

child and the court shall commit the child to the permanent custody of a 

public children services agency or private child placing agency: 

(a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or 

more of the factors in division (E) of this section exist and the child cannot 

be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should 

not be placed with either parent. 

(b) The child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and 

no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of 

section 2151.415 of the Revised Code. 

(c) The child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent 

living arrangement pursuant to division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of the 

Revised Code. 

(d) Prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person 

has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of the child. 

{¶18} Mother claims that at the time of trial, she had completed her treatment, she 

was maintaining her sobriety, she had just begun a two-year transitional housing program 

that was equipped to assist her with J.B.’s medical issues, she was in a job-readiness 

program, she was taking steps toward becoming self-sufficient, she had obtained and 

demonstrated parenting skills, and she had positive interactions with J.B. 

{¶19} Our review of the record reflects that although mother was taking many 
positive steps, many of the goals of the case plan were not substantially adhered to or met. 

 Mother failed to maintain her sobriety during the course of the case. She attempted six 

drug treatment programs during the two years the action was pending, she was 

unsuccessfully discharged from three of the programs, she relapsed after the successful 

completion of two programs, she only demonstrated consistent negative drug screens in 

the months leading to the permanent custody hearing, and she had not demonstrated an 

ability to maintain her sobriety outside of a treatment setting. Further, mother had not yet 

become self-sufficient, she was still unemployed, and she had only recently been admitted 

to the transitional housing program. While she had obtained parenting skills and had 

become consistent in visiting with J.B., she was not consistent through the course of the 

case and had not made an effort to attend his medical appointments. 

{¶20} Additionally, there was evidence that J.B. had been with the same foster 

family for two years, he was bonded with them, and his basic needs were being met. The 

guardian ad litem recommended granting permanent custody. 

{¶21} Insofar as mother argues that the juvenile court did not set forth an adequate 

factual analysis in its judgment, we find no merit to her argument. This court has 

previously recognized that the statute does not require the court to specifically discuss 

each factor it found applicable before making its determination that the child cannot be 

placed with either parent or that permanent custody is in that child’s best interest. In re 

S.B., 8th Dist. No. 85560, 2005-Ohio-3163, ¶ 22. As long as the record affirmatively 

reflects that the trial court considered the factors and the record supports the trial court’s 
decision, we will find no reversible error. Id. Moreover, if a party desires that the court 

articulate its finding in relation to each factor, it is incumbent upon a party to request 

findings of facts and conclusions of law. Id.

{¶22} It is evident from our review that the juvenile court properly considered all 

relevant factors under R.C. 2151.414(D) and (E). The juvenile court specifically stated 

in its judgment entry that it had considered the relevant factors pursuant to R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1) and also found all of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) applied to the 

case.

2

 Furthermore, the judgment entry reflects that the juvenile court considered the 

evidence in relation to these factors and the court articulated several findings to support 

its determination. 

{¶23} We find sufficient evidence was presented for the juvenile court to find 

under a clear and convincing standard that it was in J.B.’s best interest to be placed in the 

permanent custody of CCDCFS, and that he could not be placed with either parent in a 

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. Because there is competent, 

credible evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s determination to award 

permanent custody to CCDCFS, we overrule the first assignment of error. Further, 

because we find the juvenile court properly considered the applicable factors under R.C. 

 2

 We note that R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) specifically provides that if all of the factors thereunder 

are present, then “permanent custody is in the best interest of the child and the court shall commit the 

child to the permanent custody” of the agency. This section has been found to provide an alternative 

basis for awarding permanent custody from R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). In re M.K., 10th Dist. Nos. 

09AP–1141 and 09AP–1142, 2010-Ohio-2194, ¶ 22; In re K.H., 2d Dist. No. 2009–CA–80, 

2010-Ohio-1609, ¶ 56. Regardless, it is apparent that the juvenile court considered each of these 

provisions in reaching its determination in this matter.
2151.414(D) and (E), we overrule the second assignment of error. 

{¶24} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR