[Cite as In re K.H., 2020-Ohio-776.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: K.H. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 29555 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. DN-17-04-0262 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: March 4, 2020 

 

CARR, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, C.C. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights and placed her 

minor child in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This 

Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of K.H., born April 14, 2017. The child’s father 

did not participate in the trial court proceedings and did not appeal from the judgment. 

{¶3} On April 17, 2017, CSB filed a complaint to allege that K.H. was a dependent 

child because Mother’s three older children had been placed in the legal custody of other adults 

and she continued to suffer from the same parenting problems. CSB’s greatest concern was the 

instability in Mother’s life and her tendency to rely on abusive men and other adults who take 

advantage of her and put her children in harm’s way. One of Mother’s older children was 
2 

 

removed because Mother failed to protect the child from severe physical abuse in the home. 

K.H. was later adjudicated a dependent child and placed in the temporary custody of CSB. 

{¶4} During this case, Mother engaged in counseling to help her develop insight and 

set boundaries to protect herself and her children from inappropriate adults. She also worked on 

improving her problem-solving skills. Although Mother complied with many of the 

requirements of the case plan for more than one year, she failed to demonstrate the ability to 

implement much of what she had learned. Mother continued to need the assistance of service 

providers to redirect her behavior and help her care for K.H. during visits. Mother also 

continued her unhealthy relationship with an abusive man. 

{¶5} On March 26, 2019, CSB moved for permanent custody of K.H. Mother 

alternatively moved for legal custody of the child, as did a nonrelative who has legal custody of 

one of the K.H.’s older half-siblings. Following a hearing on the competing dispositional 

motions, the trial court found that K.H. had been in the temporary custody of CSB for at least 12 

months of a consecutive 22-month period and that permanent custody was in the child’s best 

interest. Mother appeals and raises two assignments of error. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR IN 

GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY UNDER R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(D) 

WHEN [CSB] HAD NOT HAD AGENCY INVOLVEMENT WITH K.H. FOR 

AT LEAST TWENTY-TWO CONSECUTIVE MONTHS. 

{¶6} Through her first assignment of error, Mother challenges the trial court’s finding 

that the “12 of 22” prong of the permanent custody test was satisfied under R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) provides that an agency establishes the first prong of 

the permanent custody test if it proves that “[t]he child has been in the temporary custody of one 
3 

 

or more public children services agencies * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive 

twenty-two-month period[.]” 

{¶7} Mother makes a legal argument, that this Court has previously rejected, that the 

“12 of 22” provision is satisfied only if the child has been in temporary custody of a children 

services agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period of agency involvement. 

This Court explicitly rejected this legal interpretation of the language of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) 

in In re J.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28865, 2018-Ohio-2555, ¶ 10-13. This legal issue is also 

currently pending before the Ohio Supreme Court on a certified conflict in In re N.M.P., 

Supreme Court Case No. 2018-1842. 

{¶8} Even if this Court were to accept Mother’s interpretation of R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d), she has failed to demonstrate any potential error under the undisputed facts 

of this case. At the time CSB moved for permanent custody, K.H. had been in its temporary 

custody for 21 months and the agency had been involved with the family for 23 consecutive 

months since it filed the complaint and assumed emergency temporary custody of the child. 

Because Mother cannot demonstrate reversible error in the trial court’s “12 of 22” finding, her 

first assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR IN 

PLACING K.H. IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF CSB AS THE 

DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE. 

{¶9} Mother’s second assignment of error is that the trial court’s decision was against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. In considering whether the juvenile court's judgment is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable 
4 

 

inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in 

the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of 

justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal quotations 

and citations omitted.) Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When 

weighing the evidence, this Court “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the 

finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21. 

{¶10} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent 

custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both 

prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the 

temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the 

child or another child in a parent’s custody has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent 

on three separate occasions; or the child 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) 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). 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). 

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

satisfied because K.H. had been in the temporary custody of CSB for at least 12 months of a 

consecutive 22-month period. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). As explained in this Court’s 

disposition of Mother’s first assignment of error, that finding was fully supported by the 

evidence in the record. 

{¶12} Next, the trial court found that permanent custody was in the best interest of K.H. 

Mother’s best interest argument focuses primarily on evidence that she had made progress on the 
5 

 

reunification goals of the case plan. Although a parent’s case plan compliance may be relevant 

to the child’s best interest, it is not dispositive. In re G.L.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28874, 2018-

Ohio-1606, ¶ 20, citing In re G.A., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28664, 28665, 2017-Ohio-8561, ¶ 13. 

{¶13} Moreover, although Mother had made some progress on the case plan goals, 

several witnesses expressed concern that Mother could not provide an appropriate home for K.H. 

Mother had a history of relying on violent men and allowing them to control her life and put her 

children at risk. Despite engaging in counseling to develop insight into how these relationship 

patterns affected the safety of herself and her children, Mother continued her romantic 

relationship with the alleged father of K.H., whom she admitted was a drug abuser who was also 

physically violent with her. Moreover, K.H.’s alleged father had never established paternity of 

K.H. and refused to cooperate with CSB or have any involvement in this case. 

{¶14} When determining the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D), the juvenile 

court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and interrelationships of the 

child, the child’s wishes, the custodial history of the child, the need for permanence in the child’s 

life, and whether any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply to the facts of 

the case. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834, 24850, 2009-Ohio6284, ¶ 11. None of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply to the facts of the case. 

{¶15} Mother’s interaction with K.H. was initially limited to supervised visits. Mother’s 

visits briefly expanded to unsupervised visits in her home, but the visits were later relocated and 

supervised by CSB due to concerns that Mother was not appropriately feeding or caring for K.H. 

K.H. has a swallowing disorder that requires her to eat thickened foods and she also exhibits 

several developmental delays. Although Mother attended most of K.H.’s medical appointments, 

she did not demonstrate the ability to properly feed the child or to address her other special 
6 

 

needs. The caseworker testified that she had to repeatedly redirect Mother’s behavior during 

supervised visits. 

{¶16} Because K.H. was only two years old at the time of the hearing, the guardian ad 

litem spoke on her behalf. She opined that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest 

because Mother continued to lack insight into her problems as a parent and had never accepted 

responsibility for the removal of K.H. from her custody. The guardian also expressed concern 

that Mother had not been honest about her continuing relationship with the alleged father of K.H. 

{¶17} K.H. has spent her entire life outside of Mother’s custody. She was released from 

the hospital after her birth and placed in the emergency temporary custody of CSB and then its 

temporary custody. She remained in the agency’s custody throughout this case and has resided 

with two different foster families. 

{¶18} Because K.H. had spent her entire two-year life living in temporary placements, 

she needed a legally secure permanent placement. Mother was not prepared to provide her with 

a stable home and CSB had been unable to find any suitable relatives who were willing and able 

to do so. Although the legal custodians of one of Mother’s older children filed a motion for 

legal custody near the end of this case, they had not established a relationship with K.H. but had 

met her only a few times. 

{¶19} Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court lost its way in concluding that 

permanent custody was in the best interest of K.H. Mother’s second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

III. 

{¶20} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 
7 

 

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. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

HENSAL, J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE CORGAN, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. 

CHRISTINA BOLLMAN, Guardian ad Litem.