[Cite as In re D.B., 2019-Ohio-4514.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WARREN COUNTY 

IN RE: 

 D.B., et al. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NOS. CA2019-06-065 

CA2019-06-066 

CA2019-06-067 

O P I N I O N 

11/4/2019 

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 118-D000018 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice 

Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036 for appellee 

Sean Brinkman, 10 West Monument Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45402, for appellant 

 S. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, the mother of D.B., V.B., and M.B. ("Mother"), appeals the decision 

of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent 

custody of her three children to appellee, Warren County Children Services ("WCCS"). For 

the reasons outlined below, we affirm. 

{¶ 2} On April 25, 2018, Mother's first two children, D.B. born on April 5, 2013 and 

V.B. born on February 23, 2017, were adjudicated dependent children. Approximately three 
Warren CA2019-06-065 thru -067 

 - 2 - 

months later, on July 19, 2018, Mother's third child, M.B., born on May 27, 2018, was also 

adjudicated a dependent child. The three children were adjudicated dependent based 

primarily on concerns regarding Mother's untreated mental health and substance abuse 

issues, as well as several reports of domestic violence in the home. This includes Mother's 

purported daily use of methamphetamines in front of the children, as well intermittent use 

of marijuana and amphetamines. The same basic allegations were levied against the 

children's father. The father, however, is not a party to this appeal. 

{¶ 3} On February 14, 2019, after not having had any contact with Mother for 

approximately five months, WCCS moved for permanent custody of the children. The 

juvenile court held a one-day hearing on WCCS' motion on May 13, 2019. The juvenile 

court heard testimony from one witness during this hearing; the ongoing caseworker 

assigned to the case. Although provided with notice of the hearing, Mother did not make 

an appearance at the permanent custody hearing. Neither did the children's father. 

{¶ 4} At the permanent custody hearing, the caseworker testified that neither she 

nor the children had had any contact with Mother for several months. The caseworker also 

testified that Mother had not completed any of the case plan services deemed necessary 

for her reunification with the children. This includes mental health and substance abuse 

treatment, parenting classes, and a domestic violence intervention program, among others. 

The caseworker further testified that Mother had not provided her with any verifiable 

information that she had obtained gainful employment or suitable housing for herself and 

the children. 

{¶ 5} On May 17, 2019, the juvenile court issued a decision granting WCCS' motion 

for permanent custody. In so holding, the juvenile court found Mother had not completed 

any of the required case plan services set forth in her case plan "notwithstanding 

reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by [WCCS]." This includes, as noted above, 
Warren CA2019-06-065 thru -067 

 - 3 - 

mental health and substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and a domestic violence 

intervention program. The juvenile court also found that Mother had tested positive for 

several illegal substances throughout the pendency of the case and that Mother had 

effectively abandoned the children by not having any contact with the children for over six 

months. Mother now appeals the juvenile court's decision granting WCCS' motion for 

permanent custody, raising the following single assignment of error for review. 

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY 

BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT FIND CHILDREN SERVICES MADE 

REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE CONTINUED REMOVAL OF THE CHILD 

FROM THE CHILD'S HOME OR TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CHILD TO RETURN 

HOME SAFELY. 

{¶ 7} In her single assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred by 

granting permanent custody of her three children to WCCS since WCCS failed to make 

"reasonable efforts" to prevent the removal of the children from her home. Mother also 

argues that WCCS failed to make "reasonable efforts" to make it possible for the children 

to return safely to her home. We disagree. 

{¶ 8} Mother initially argues that the juvenile court erred by granting WCCS' motion 

for permanent custody since the juvenile court failed to make a "reasonable efforts" finding 

as part of its decision granting WCCS' motion. "Generally, a juvenile court does not have 

to make a reasonable efforts determination pursuant to R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) in a permanent 

custody hearing." In re J.H., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2015-07-014 and CA2015-07-015, 

2016-Ohio-640, ¶ 29, citing In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 41. However, 

even if it did have to make that finding, the juvenile court clearly did make that finding as 

part of its decision to grant WCCS' motion. The juvenile court in fact specifically stated that 

it had found WCCS had engaged in "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" in hopes 
Warren CA2019-06-065 thru -067 

 - 4 - 

that Mother would turn her life around so that she could be reunified with her children. 

Therefore, considering the record properly before this court, Mother's claim that the juvenile 

court did not make a "reasonable efforts" finding as part of its decision granting WCCS' 

motion for permanent custody lacks merit. 

{¶ 9} Mother also argues that the juvenile court erred by granting WCCS' motion 

for permanent custody since WCCS (1) waited several months to refer her for case plan 

services after the children were removed from her care, (2) suspended her visitation time 

with the children, and (3) later removed her from the case plan altogether. But, despite 

Mother's claims, the record indicates that WCCS acted expeditiously in referring Mother for 

case plan services given her general lack of involvement in the plan. This includes, as 

noted above, mental health and substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and a 

domestic violence intervention program. Mother, however, either failed to attend those 

required case plan services or was unsuccessfully discharged from those services. 

{¶ 10} The record also indicates that Mother's visitation time with the children was 

not suspended by WCCS without cause. The record instead indicates Mother's visitation 

time was suspended due to her sporadic attendance and general lack of engagement with 

the children. This ultimately resulted in Mother being removed from the case plan altogether 

due to her disregard and apparent indifference towards meeting the requirements set forth 

in her case plan. Therefore, while Mother would like to place the blame for her failings on 

WCCS, the record indicates those failings were the fault of Mother, and Mother alone. 

{¶ 11} The key concern in a permanent custody proceeding is "whether the parent 

has substantially remedied the concerns that caused the child's removal from the parent's 

custody." (Emphasis omitted.) In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-

Ohio-2318, ¶ 24. The record in this case firmly establishes that Mother did not remedy the 

concerns that led to the children's removal from her care, let alone substantially remedy 
Warren CA2019-06-065 thru -067 

 - 5 - 

those concerns. Mother in fact failed to take even the slightest steps towards remedying 

many, if not all, of those concerns even after WCCS moved for permanent custody. This 

most notably includes Mother's untreated mental health and substance abuse issues, the 

two main reasons that the children were removed from Mother's care. Therefore, when the 

focus is on best interests of the children, the juvenile court's decision granting permanent 

custody to WCCS was proper. Accordingly, finding no error in the juvenile court's decision 

granting WCCS' motion for permanent custody, Mother's single assignment of error lacks 

merit and is overruled. 

{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed. 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.