[Cite as In re J.H. , 2021-Ohio-4283.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

IN RE: J. H. C.A. No. 29970

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DN 20 02 0116

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 8, 2021

SUTTON, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, K.L. (“Mother”) appeals from a judgment of the Summi t County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Divisi on, that terminated her parenta l rights to her minor child and placed the child in the permanent custody of Summit County Chil dren Services Board (“CSB”).

This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} Mother is the biological mother of J.H., born September 1, 2006 . CSB has been unable to identify the child’s b iological father. Mother also has adult children who are not parties to this appeal. {¶3} On February 6, 2020, CSB filed a complaint, alleging that J.H. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child because the agency had received several reports about then 13- year-old J.H.’s behavioral problems and Mother’s inability or u nwillingness to supervise the child. During the previous two months, CSB had received at lea st four intake referrals involving2

this child. On one occasion, Mother had reported to the police that J.H. was missing and, when the police found J.H., they could not locate Mother. On anothe r occasion, Mother informed CSB personnel that she could not cont rol the child’s behavior and w anted nothing to do with him. {¶4} CSB would later learn that, duri ng the past several years, Moth er often left J.H.

with other adults for extende d periods of time or at home alone and that J.H. often ran away from home. Although CSB had not filed a ny prior juvenile court case s pertaining to J.H., it had received approximately 40 intake referrals pertaining to him an d his older siblings, who are now adults. During 2018 and 2019, J.H. was removed from Mother’s h ome multiple times pursuant

to Juv.R. 6. {¶5} The juvenile court adjudicated J .H. a dependent child and later placed him in the temporary custody of CSB. The cas e plan focused primarily on m ental health treatment for both J.H. and Mother. J.H. engaged in individual counseling and psy chiatric treatment throughout this case and his behavior, emo tional state, and school perform ance significantly improved. Mother, however, engaged in counseling only sporadically and fa iled to work with her counselor on how to improve her relationship with J.H. Throughout this c ase, Mother blamed J.H.’s removal from her custody on the child’s behavioral problems and did not gain any insight into how she may have contributed to the child’s removal from the ho me. Mother insisted that she did not need any case plan services. {¶6} On October 20, 2020, CSB moved to suspend Mother’s visits with J.H., alleging

that: Mother had missed more tha n half of her scheduled visits with J.H.; Mother and J.H. did not communicate much during the visits; after CSB increased the len gth of the visits from one hour to two hours, Mother asked that the visits be reduced to one ho ur; J.H. had repeatedly voiced his3

opposition to visiting Mother; and the child’s counselor and th e guardian ad litem believed that suspending visits was in the best interest of J.H. Visitation was suspended shortly afterward. {¶7} CSB later moved for permanent custody of J.H., alleging that J. H. could not be returned to Mother’s custody within a reasonable time or should not be returned to her and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. R.C. 2151. 414(B)(1)(a). Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court te rminated parental rights and p laced J.H. in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother appeals and rais es two assignments of error, wh ich will be addressed together because they are closely related.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OR ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT TERMINATED THE PARENTS’ RIGHTS AND PLACED THE CHILD IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF [CSB] WHEN THE AGENCY DID NOT COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND PROVIDE REASONABLE REUNIFICATION[] EFFORTS BY PROVIDING A REFERRAL FOR FAMILY COUNSELING.

ASSIGNMENT OR ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION, [AS ITS JUDGMENT WAS] AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶8} Mother’s assignments of error challenge the merits of the trial court’s permanent custody decision. Before a juven ile court may terminate parent al rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency, it must find clea r and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is aba ndoned; orphaned; has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a con secutive 22-month period; the child or another child of the same parent has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent4

three times; or that the child cannot be placed with either par ent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C . 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S ., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-99 (1996). C lear and convincing evidence is that which will “pr oduce in the mind of the trier o f facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” (Internal quotations o mitted.) In re Adoption of Holcomb , 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), quoting Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶9} The trial court found that J.H. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her because Mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused J.H. to be placed outside the home a nd, alternatively, that Mother

demonstrated a lack of commitment to J.H. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a); 2151.414(E)(1); and 2151.414(E)(4). The court also found that permanent custody wa s in the best interest of J.H. Mother does not directly dispute the evidence supporting the tr ial court’s findings, as it was not disputed at the hearing that the parent-child relationship betw een Mother and J.H. had deteriorated to the point that J.H. no longer wanted to live wi th Mother or even see or speak to

her. {¶10} Mother’s defense to the permanent custody motion at the hearing and again on appeal is that, although she atte mpted to work toward reunifica tion with J.H., she was prevented from doing so by circumstances that were beyond her control. S pecifically, she asserts that she

was unable to visit J.H. or work toward repairing her relations hip with him because of (1) health restrictions caused by the Covi d-19 pandemic; and (2) CSB’s fai lure to comply with a specific5

requirement of the case plan and a subsequent court order that CSB arrange for her to have family counseling with J.H. {¶11} Although Mother purports to base the second part of her argumen t on whether CSB made “reasonable efforts” to reunify her with J.H., her arg ument is not actually an argument about the reasonableness of the agency’s reunification efforts. “Reasonable efforts” is a broad term used throughout R.C. Chapter 2151, but is not defi ned by statute. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that the term “reasonable efforts” broadly refers to “[t]he state’s efforts to resolve the threat to the child before removing the child or to permit the child to return home after the threat is removed[.]’” In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 28, quoting Crossley, Defining Reasonable Efforts: Demystifying the State’ s Burden Under Federal Child Protection Legislation , 12 B.U.Pub.Int.L.J. 259, 260 (2003). {¶12} Mother does not challenge the age ncy’s overall efforts to assis t her in working toward reunification. Instead, sh e asserts that CSB deliberate ly impeded her reunification efforts by disregarding an explicit order of the court. According to M other, CSB failed to comply with an order of the trial court that it provide Mother and J.H. wit h family counseling. We will address each of Mother’s defenses separately.

Covid-19 Health Restrictions {¶13} Mother begins by arguing that she was prevented from having con tact with J.H. for several months during this case because Covid-19 health res trictions precluded in-person visits with J.H. and she did not have the capability to partici pate in Zoom video calls. Mother

asserts in her brief that Covid- 19 restrictions prevented in-pe rson visits for nearly four months. The only evidence presented at t he hearing, however, was that M other was unable to visit J.H. in person for approximately two months at the beginning of the pan demic. In-person visits6

resumed during June 2020. Moreover, when Mother was permitted to see J.H. in person, she

attended less th an half of the schedule d visits and she and J.H . had only “minimal” interaction. {¶14} As noted above, CSB later increased Mother’s weekly visits from one hour to two hours, but Mother asked that the visits be decreased again to o ne hour per week. Mother offered no explanation for the change. Mother’s visits were eventually suspended because of Mother’s lack of attendance and active participation in the visits, the child’s expressed wishes, and the recommendations of the child’s counselor and the guardian ad li tem. The evidence demonstrated that Mother’s lack of interaction with J.H. was primarily the r esult of her own lack of effort to see him, not the health restr ictions caused by the Covid-19 pan demic. Family Counseling with J.H. {¶15} Next, Mother argues that she was prevented from working toward reunification with J.H. because she was never able to engage in family counse ling with him to work through their differences. She maintains that CSB violated the case pl an and a court order by failing to provide them with family counse ling. Although Mother asserts t hat family counseling was mandated in this case, the record reveals that any requirement for family counseling was left to

the discretion of the counse lors for Mother and J.H. {¶16} The case plan, which became binding upon all parties when it wa s adopted, required that Mother obtain a mental health assessment and foll ow all treatment recommendations, “including, but not limited to, individual, fa mily, and/or group counseling[.]”

See R.C. 2151.412(F)(1). A subsequent o rder of the trial court re quired CSB to arrange for Mother and J.H. to have family counseling “depending upon the r ecommendations of their

counselors.” The evidence at t he hearing was clear, however, t hat neither counselor had recommended family counseling.7

{¶17} Mother’s counselor testified that Mother did not begin counseli ng until several months after the case plan was adopted. Moreover, the counselo r had recommended that Mother engage in counseling for one to two hours per week, but Mother attended sessions only sporadically and rarely participated for a full one to two hour s. Mother never spoke to her

counselor about her involvement w ith CSB or her problems commun icating with J.H. Mother’s counselor explained that Mother’s participation was “so inconsi stent” that she and Mother had to reacquaint themselves and estab lish a rapport every time they h ad a session. According to Mother’s counselor, it was esse ntially like starting over again each time they met. {¶18} When the counselor spoke to Mother about her lack of participat ion, Mother responded that she would engage i n counseling more consistently when she felt like opening up.

Because Mother attended counseli ng sessions infrequently, she h ad not made much progress and would likely be terminated by the agency for lack of participat ion. The counselor testified that she did not recommend family couns eling because of Mother’s lac k of participation. {¶19} The child’s counselor testified that Mother never reached out t o him to discuss family counseling with J.H. He also had not spoken to Mother’s counselor because Mother refused to sign a release. The child’s counselor had not recom mended family counseling

because J.H. did not want to talk about Mother or have counseli ng with her. Because neither counselor recommended family couns eling between Mother and J.H. , CSB had no obligation to arrange it. {¶20} Mother has failed to demonstrate any merit to her defenses to t he permanent custody motion. Consequently, her first and second assignments of error are overruled.8

III. {¶21} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of t he Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juve nile Division, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State o f 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 consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Cour t 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 pa rties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket , pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

B ETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.9

APPEARANCES: ANGELINA GINGO, Attorney a t Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTI NO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. MICHAEL GOEBL, Guardian ad Litem.