[Cite as In re J.C., 2013-Ohio-3117.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: 

 : 

 J.C. : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2013CA00056 & 

 : 2013CA00061 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark Court of 

Common Pleas, Family Court 

Division, Case No. 2011JCV00094 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 15, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant M.S. 

JERRY COLEMAN AARON KOVALCHIK 

Legal Counsel 116 Cleveland Ave. N.W. 

Stark County JFS Suite 808 

221 Third Street SE Canton, OH 44702 

Canton, OH 44702 

 For Defendant-Appellant S.C. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 2 

 DAVID L. SMITH 

 245 33rd St. N.W. 

 Canton, OH 44709 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 3 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellants S.C. and M.S. appeal from the February 27, 2013 Judgment 

Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, terminating 

their parental rights and granting permanent custody of J.C. to Stark County 

Department of Job and Family Services. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} Appellant S.C. and appellant M.S. are the parents of J.C. (DOB 1/10/11). 

On January 19, 2011, Stark County Department of Job and Family Services (SCDJFS) 

filed a complaint alleging that J.C. was a dependent and neglected child. The complaint 

alleged that appellant M.S., the mother, had previously had a child adjudicated abused 

in Case No. 2007 JCV 00872 and that such child had been placed in the permanent 

custody of the agency. The complaint further alleged that appellant S.C., the father, had 

past involvement with the agency in a case and that the two children in such case were 

currently in the temporary custody of the agency. J.C. was placed in the temporary 

custody of SCDJFS. An adjudication/disposition hearing was scheduled for February 

16, 2011. 

{¶3} At the February 16, 2011, hearing, the parties stipulated to a finding of 

dependency and the allegations of neglect were deleted. As memorialized in a 

Magistrate’s Decision that was filed on February 18, 2011 and approved by the trial 

court, J.C. remained in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. 

{¶4} Subsequently, on December 20, 2012, SCDJFS filed a motion seeking 

permanent custody of J.C. A hearing on the motion was held on February 19, 2013. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 4 

{¶5} At the hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that she was employed by 

SCDJFS and was the family caseworker. Pounds testified that the agency became 

involved with J.C. shortly after his birth over concerns that he was a premature baby 

and appellant M.S. previously had lost custody of another child while appellant S.C. was 

involved with the agency with two other children. Pounds testified that on February 16, 

2011, J.C. was placed in the temporary custody of the agency and that he had 

remained in the agency’s temporary custody since such time. 

{¶6} According to Pounds, the parties’ case plan and subsequent amendments 

to the same required them to complete psychological parenting assessments at 

Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health, to participate in individual counseling, to have 

assessments for medications and to participate in the Goodwill Parenting Program. The 

plan also required appellant S.C. to receive a drug and alcohol evaluation at Quest and 

to follow all recommendations. Pounds testified that there were concerns about 

depression and anxiety issues with respect to both appellants. In addition, appellant 

S.C.’s plan required him to attend at least 3 twelve step meetings a week. Pounds 

further testified that appellant S.C. had two other children who were the subject of 

agency involvement and that, in that case, the children were placed in the legal custody 

of appellant S.C.’s mother. She indicated that appellant S.C., in such case, had a 

chance to work on a case plan and that it was her understanding that he did not. 

{¶7} Appellant S.C. obtained the Quest assessment as required by his case 

plan and followed recommendations that he participate in Quest services. Pounds 

testified that appellant S.C., who had past problems with substance abuse, submitted to 

random drug screens and that there were no concerns about current drug use. She 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 5 

further testified that appellant S.C. had obtained a medication assessment and was 

currently on medication, although she did not know the name of the medication. 

{¶8} Pounds also testified that appellant M.S. was on medication and was 

going regularly to a therapist. Both parents attended Goodwill Parenting. While 

appellant M.S. got a certificate of participation, Goodwill noted that they had to provide 

constant supervision to her and that they had “grave concerns about her ability to 

problem solve and to spontaneously respond to the special needs of [J.C.].” Transcript 

at 10. She testified that he had a condition that affects his lymphatic system and causes 

painful swelling. J.C. also has a respiratory condition and requires breathing treatments 

and could have an asthma attack very easily. Appellant M.S., according to evaluations, 

has the cognitive ability of an eight year old. Pounds testified that when J.C. paid too 

much attention to someone else, appellant M.S. would pout and get upset. She 

indicated that she had concerns over appellant M.S’s ability to meet J.C.’s day to day 

needs because J.C. was very active and appellant M.S. was easily distracted. Pound 

also testified that J.C. requires daily massages and she was unsure if appellant M.S. 

was really aware of what that entailed. 

{¶9} While appellant M.S. was actively involved in J.C.’s medical appointments, 

appellant S.C. was not and attended sporadically due to his work schedule. Pounds 

testified that they were never able to obtain verification of appellant S.C.’s work and 

that, in her opinion, he did not recognize appellant M.C.’s limitations and became 

frustrated with her. Appellants were very short with each other and Pounds testified that 

because of J.C.’s medical issues, appellants had to work together. When asked, she 

testified that appellants had attended what their case plan required them to, but had not 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 6 

done well because they did not retain information. She further testified that while 

appellant M.S. consistently attended family visits, appellant S.C. had not and had 

missed a majority prior to his participation in the Northeast Ohio Parenting Program. 

Since attending the program, he had done better, but had missed a couple of visits. 

Pounds, when asked if the risks that were present at the beginning of the case had 

been reduced, stated that they had not. She testified that she had made sure that 

appellants had bus passes and offered to give them rides to places to help them 

complete their case plan and that she had rearranged visits to accommodate them. She 

further testified that in July of 2012, appellant S.C. was charged with menacing and she 

was concerned with his anger issues. 

{¶10} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that appellant M.S. had completed 

Goodwill Parenting and had retained an average amount of information and that she 

had completed the parenting assessment. Pounds testified that the majority of her 

concerns were not related to appellant M.S.’s completion of case plan services, but 

rather with outside issues such as her relationship with appellant S.C. She indicated 

that no one believed that appellant M.S. could do it on her own, but that there was no 

concern that she could not provide food, shelter or clothing to J.C. or get him to medical 

appointments. Pounds agreed that there was never a referral made to MRDD to help 

appellant M.S. with case plan services. Pounds further testified that appellants currently 

lived together. Pounds stated that appellant M.S. did not have the cognitive ability to 

parent J.C. even though appellant M.S. paid her own rent, attended appointments, went 

grocery shopping and prepared meals, and completed training in CPR. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 7 

{¶11} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that appellant S.C. did fairly well 

at Goodwill and that the only recommendation was individual counseling, which he 

continued attending. She further testified that appellant S.C. was working during the 

day under the table for a construction company and that because he was then working 

the afternoon shift, he was able to attend more medical appointments for J.C. She 

agreed that there had always been concern about the stability of the relationship 

between appellants. On redirect, Pounds testified that the Intensive Parent Child 

Interaction program therapist did not recommend that J.C. be returned home and did 

not recommend a move to unsupervised visitation. 

{¶12} Dr. Amy Thomas of Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health testified that 

appellant M.S. completed a parenting evaluation with her. She testified that she had 

concerns about the agency’s’ previous involvement with appellant M.S. and the 

circumstances of the same. She testified that appellant M.S. had tolerated abuse in a 

previous relationship and lied in such case when she told law enforcement that she had 

injured her 6 week old child when she had not. Dr. Thomas questioned appellant M.S.’s 

processing and judgment and noted that appellant M.S. remained with the perpetrator of 

the abuse for another six months. The child in such case had a number of broken 

bones. Appellant M.S. was convicted of obstruction. 

{¶13} Dr. Thomas also testified that appellant M.S. indicated that she was 

concerned with appellant S.C.’s addiction to marijuana and his fixation with playing 

video games and was concerned that he would not help her financially. She testified 

that appellant M.S.’s full scale IQ was 63 and that she was functioning at the level of an 

eight year old in terms of verbal and non-verbal skills. Dr. Thomas stated that she was 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 8 

concerned about her ability to understand medical directives and her limitations in 

judgment, reasoning and processing information. She opined that appellant M.S.’s 

parenting difficulties would increase as J.C. became older and required more 

assistance. She did not believe that appellant S.C. was a strong support system for 

appellant M.S. 

{¶14} Dr. Thomas diagnosed appellant M.S. with dependent personality disorder 

and indicated that this meant that she was going to tolerate dysfunctional unhealthy 

relationships. She voiced concerns over appellant M.S.’s stubbornness and ability to 

accept feedback. Appellant M.S. also was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 

irritability and mood swings. She also has anger management issues with yelling and 

screaming. Dr. Thomas indicated that appellant’s diagnoses would affect every aspect 

of her parenting ability and that depression would negatively affect her cognitive ability. 

Appellant M.S., according to her, was unable to address more complicated issues. 

When asked her recommendations, Dr. Thomas testified that she did not believe that 

appellant M.S. could independently parent J.C. She had strong reservations about 

offering recommendations for services due to appellant M.S.’s low intellectual 

functioning and lack of a strong support system. 

{¶15} Dr. Thomas also was questioned about appellant S.C. She testified he 

completed a parenting evaluation with her and that his previous involvement with the 

agency caused her concern. She noted that appellant S.C., in his previous case, was 

not actively involved in maintaining contact with his children and that his level of 

involvement with them was lacking. She testified that appellant S.C. had no sense of 

appellant M.S.’s limitations, but that he was forthcoming about his past substance 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 9 

abuse. Appellant S.C. reported that he had abused alcohol in the past and reported that 

his use of marijuana was very problematic. According to him, appellant M.S. did not 

support him in maintaining his sobriety, appeared to sabotage him and was jealous that 

he might meet someone at a twelve step meeting. Dr. Thomas testified that appellant 

S.C. was functioning in the below average range of intellectual ability and that use of 

marijuana would compromise him intellectually. He did not understand that appellant 

M.S. was unable to independently parent J.C. 

{¶16} Appellant S.C. reported that he had one or two domestic violence charges 

and that he was addicted to playing video games. Dr. Thomas testified that this playing 

impacted his relationship with appellant M.S. and that as a result of his game playing, 

he did not visit with J.C. as often as he could have. She voiced concerns that he would 

not be able to attend to J.C.’s needs due to his obsession with video games. Dr. 

Thomas diagnosed appellant S.C. with major depressive disorder and features of 

borderline personality disorder and testified that he had very poor coping skills and had 

engaged in superficial cutting. According to her, he was immature, lazy and 

unmotivated. She opined that the her prognosis for his ability to care for J.C. was 

“guarded at best.” Transcript at 53. 

{¶17} The next witness to testify was Amy Humrighouse, a parenting instructor 

at Goodwill Parenting. She testified that appellant M.S. received a certificate of 

completion and had perfect attendance, but that there were concerns about visitation. 

Appellant M.S. according to her, did not appear comfortable dealing with J.C.’s medical 

issues and would panic when his heart monitor went off. She also needed assistance 

with changing diapers. Humrighouse voiced concerns over appellant M.S.’s ability to 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 10 

care for J.C. for the long term because he was fragile and had medical and 

developmental issues. Humrighouse also voiced concerns that appellant M.S. did not 

make changes in her relationships and did not establish independent housing, but had 

stayed with friends. She indicated that she had concerns with her ability to 

independently parent J.C. and would not feel comfortable making any recommendations 

for unsupervised contact. 

{¶18} Jen Fire, also a parenting instructor at Goodwill Parenting, testified that 

appellant S.C. attended the program and received a certificate of participation. She 

testified that there were still concerns with appellant S.C. Fire noted that although he 

was told that there would be a home inspection, there were safety concerns with 

appellant S.C.’s home. She also testified that she was concerned about issues 

between appellants who were in an off and on chaotic relationship. Fire testified that 

appellant S.C. was insistent that appellant M.S. would watch J.C. while he was at work, 

despite being advised of her limitations. 

{¶19} On cross-examination Fire testified that appellant S.C. had a good bond 

with J.C. and was attentive to him. She testified that he acted appropriately during 

visits, which were supervised, and that if the monitors on J.C. went off, he would handle 

the matter. Fire indicated that she believed that appellant S.C. had anger issues that he 

needed to address. 

{¶20} Becky Crookston, a therapist with Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health, 

testified that she does the IPCI (Intensive Parent Child Interaction) program and that 

both appellants had come to her program the previous summer. She indicated 

significant concerns existed about the parties’ relationship because appellant S.C. was 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 11 

very dominant and was demanding. She indicated that she was concerned that 

appellant S.C. might be able to see J.C.’s needs, but be unable to meet the same and 

then expect appellant M.S. to do so. According to Crookston, appellant M.S. 

personalized the child’s interactions and responded in the manner of an immature child. 

She testified that she was concerned that appellant M.S. might put her own needs or 

those of appellant S.C. over J.C.’s needs. Crookston also was worried that appellants 

did not present a unified front and were forgetting J.C’.s needs even when others were 

around. Crookston also testified that she was concerned that appellant S.C. had anger 

issues as evidenced by his report of taking a baseball bat to his employer’s home or 

building. She believed that he did not have the ability to cope with problems. 

Appellants did not successfully complete the program because they were too focused 

on their own individual problems. She indicated that she was concerned that appellants 

did not have the ability to care for J.C. because of appellant S.C.’s violent tendencies, 

the conflict in their relationship, and because appellant S.C. was demanding and 

appellant M.S. shut down. She could not recommend that the parents be unsupervised 

with any baby. 

{¶21} At the best interest hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that J.C. was two 

years old and was born two months premature. She testified that he suffered from 

Milroy’s disease and that such disease causes a lot of swelling in his body. As a result, 

J.C. requires a diet low in salt and also has to be massaged every morning after his 

bath to “help things get moving.” Transcript at 98. She testified that he is involved with 

physical and speech therapy. Pounds further testified that J.C. is in foster care and is in 

a foster home that specialized in receiving children with special needs. The foster 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 12 

parents have adopted special needs children in the past and have been trained to deal 

with medical devices. There are three other adopted children in the home and the family 

has a daughter with special needs who is in independent living. Pounds testified that 

J.C. got along well with the other children, that he was bonded with the family, and that 

the foster family was interested in adoption. Pounds further testified that there was a 

bond between appellants and J.C., but that she believed that permanent custody was in 

his best interest because appellants did not completely understand his needs and were 

not completely able to attend to them. She testified that J.C. needed permanency and 

that she did not believe that any more time would make a difference. 

{¶22} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that she never asked appellants 

about relative placements and that appellant S.C.’s mother never contacted her. On 

redirect, she testified that she was confident that alternative relative placement had 

been addressed. 

{¶23} Appellant M.S. testified at the hearing and described Milroy‘s disease and 

how massage helped J.C. She testified that he saw a total of six doctors including an 

eye doctor and that she had been to all of his medical appointments. Appellant M.S. 

testified that she was certified in CPR and that she could handle an emergency 

situation. On cross-examination, she testified that J.C. has asthma, that both appellants 

smoked and that there was a dog in the home. She indicated that they smoked outside. 

Appellant M.S. also testified that her home was ready for J.C. 

{¶24} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on February 27, 2013, the trial court 

terminated appellants’ parental rights and granted permanent custody of J.C. to 

SCDJFS. The trial court, in its Judgment Entry, found that J.C. could not be placed with 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 13 

either parent at the present time or within a reasonable time and should not be placed 

with either parent and that he had been in the custody of SCDJFS for 12 or more 

months in a consecutive 22 month period. The trial court also found that appellant M.S. 

had previously had her parental rights divested with respect to another child. Moreover, 

the trial court found that it was in his best interest for permanent custody to be granted 

to the agency. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed the same day. 

{¶25} Appellant M.S. appealed from the trial court’s February 27, 2013 

Judgment Entry, raising the following assignments of error on appeal: 

{¶26} THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE MINOR CHILD 

CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH APPELLANT WITHIN A 

REASONABLE TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY 

OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶27} THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST INTERESTS 

OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING OF PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶28} Her case has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00056. 

{¶29} Appellant S.C. also appealed from the trial court’s February 27, 2013 

Judgment Entry, raising the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶30} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY 

TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND FAMILY SERVICES AS ITS 

FINDING THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WERE SERVED BY SUCH 

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶31} His case has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00061. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 14 

{¶32} For purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the two cases 

together. 

Assignments of Error in Case No. 2013 CA 00056 and Assignment of Error 

in Case No. 2013 CA 00061 

{¶33} Appellant M.S., in her first assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 

00056, argues that the trial court’s finding that J.C. could not and should not be placed 

with her within a reasonable time was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the 

evidence. Appellant M.S., in her second assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 

00056, and appellant S.C., in his sole assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 00061, 

argue that the trial court’s finding that J.C.’s best interest would be served by the 

granting of permanent custody was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the 

evidence. 

{¶34} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the 

evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is 

relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or 

her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911 (Feb. 10, 

1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some 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. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction, 54 Ohio St.2d 

279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). 

{¶35} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to 

the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 

77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is 

“crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties' 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 15 

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 

Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997-Ohio-260, 674 N.E.2d 1159. 

{¶36} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when 

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court 

schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody 

of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has 

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care. 

{¶37} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to 

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court 

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to 

grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child 

is not abandoned or orphaned, 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; (b) the 

child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who 

are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody 

of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for 

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

{¶38} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody 

hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the 

child with the parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and 

any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child as 

expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 16 

for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) 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. 

{¶39} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial 

court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, a trial 

court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding 

the best interest of the child. 

{¶40} In the case sub judice, the trial court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that the child had been in the temporary custody of a public children services 

agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period pursuant 

to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Appellants do not challenge the trial court's finding. This 

finding alone, in conjunction with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant 

of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. No.2008CA00118, 2008–Ohio–5458, ¶ 

45. 

{¶41} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the 

child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should 

not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all 

relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter 

such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the 

factors enumerated in R .C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of 

the child's parents. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 17 

{¶42} The trial court determined that the child could not be placed with 

appellants within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), which requires the 

following findings: 

“(1) 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. In determining whether the parents 

have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider 

parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social 

and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made 

available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to 

allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.” 

{¶43} A review of the record supports the trial court's decision that the child 

could not and should not be placed with appellants within a reasonable time. As noted 

by the trial court, appellant M.S., who functions at the level of an eight year old, had 

previously lost another child to the permanent custody of SCDJFS and appellant S.C. 

had been involved with the agency in a case in which two of his children were placed in 

the custody of a relative. In addition, at the hearing, testimony was adduced that 

appellant M.S. lacked judgment, reasoning and the ability to make good choices and 

was not able to independently care for J.C. Appellant M.S. was functioning at the level 

of an eight year old and lacked a strong support system. She was unable to parent 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 18 

J.C. without supervision. In addition, testimony was adduced that appellant S.C. was 

addicted to marijuana and fixated on video games. Testimony was adduced that he did 

not understand appellant M.S.’s limitations and that appellant M.S. did not support him 

in his attempts to abstain from drug use. Both appellants were terminated from the 

Intensive Parent Child Interaction Program because of their inability to make progress in 

the curriculum due, in part, to their conflict-filled relationship. Both appellants were 

diagnosed with mental health disorders. 

{¶44} We further find that the trial court did not err in finding that it was in J.C.’s 

best interest for permanent custody to be granted to the agency. At the best interest 

hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that J.C. was placed in a foster home that was versed 

in children with special needs and was doing well. The foster family has three other 

children of their own currently in their home and expressed an interest in adopting J.C. 

Pounds testified that J.C. was bonded with his foster family and that she believed that 

permanent custody was in his best interest because appellants did not completely 

understand his needs and were not completely able to attend to them. She testified that 

J.C. needed permanency and that she did not believe that any more time would make a 

difference. 

{¶45} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s finding that J.C.’s best 

interest would be served by the granting of permanent custody was not against the 

manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶46} Appellant M.S.’s two assignments of error and appellant S.C. sole 

assignment of error are, therefore, overruled. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 19 

{¶47} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, 

Family Court Division, terminating appellants’ parental rights and granting permanent 

custody of J.C. to Stark County Department of Job and Family Services is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P J. and 

Farmer, J. concur. 

 

 

 

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

CRB/dr
[Cite as In re J.C., 2013-Ohio-3117.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

 J.C. : 

 : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : CASE NO. 2013CA00061 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is 

affirmed. Cost assessed to appellants. 

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER