[Cite as In re J.F. , 2021-Ohio-2301.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

In re J.F. Court of Appeals No. L-21-1004 L-21-1013

Trial Court No. JC 19274734

DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: July 6, 2021

* * * * * Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant. David T. Rudebock, for appellee.

* * * * * DUHART, J. {¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal from the December 23, 2020 judgme nt of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which te rminated appellants’ parental rights, and granted permanent custody of J.F., the chi ld, to appellee, Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS” or “agency”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.2. {¶ 2} Appellants set forth two assignments of error:

I. The trial court abused its discretion when it terminated mo ther’s parental rights, when she had rebutted the presumption against termination of rights pursuant to RC 2151.414(E)(11) by becoming and remain ing complaint [sic] with her case plan services, and when time rema ined on the

case. II. The evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the minor

child here could not be returned to her father was not clear an d convincing with [sic] he was compliant with his mental health services; wa s employed and had stable housing; when no concerns for his parenting were expressed at trial; and when time remained on the case. Background {¶ 3} Appellant, T.F., is the biological mother (“mother”) of six chi ldren, fathered by different men. The youngest of mother’s children is J.F., w ho was born in May 2019, and is the subject of the permanent custody award in this appea l. Appellant, Ja.F., is the biological father (“father”) of only J.F. {¶ 4} In June 2018, LCCS became involved with mother and three of her children (“the children”), as they were homeless. Following an investig ation, LCCS learned the

children: did not have medical care due to mother’s failure to follow up; were not regularly attending school; and had been physically abused on a daily basis by mother. {¶ 5} In July 2018, mother and father were married.3. {¶ 6} On September 26, 2018, LCCS filed a complaint and request for e mergency shelter care in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Di vision, case No. JC18270763, and interim temporary custody of the children was a warded to LCCS. In December 2018, an adjudication hearing was held, after which tw o children were found to be dependent and neglected and the third child was found to be dependent, neglected and abused. Case plan services were offered including housing, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence classes and parent ing classes. Mother mostly had supervised, Level 1, visits with the children before her visits were suspended, in late October 2019, due to concerns with mother: slapping one child; behaving inappropriately with the children; and attempting to manipulate the children’s disclosures. After visits were suspended, the children’s behav iors greatly improved, and the children all indicated they did not wish to visit with moth er. {¶ 7} In July 2020, LCCS filed a motion for permanent custody of the children. In October 2020, a trial was held, and on November 6, 2020, the co urt issued its judgment entry awarding permanent custody of the children to LCCS. The court found, inter alia: mother attempted to comply with the case plan requirements, but failed to take advantage of the services available to her; mother struggled to accept an y responsibility for her actions and the negative impact her actions had on the children ; mother did not acknowledge the role she played in the children’s removal; moth er failed to recognize the trauma she inflicted on the children; the children have thrived in substitute care; the4. children’s wishes were to remain out of mother’s care; mother f ailed to remedy the problems that caused the children to be placed outside of the h ome; mother suffers from a

chronic mental or emotional illness so severe that she is unabl e to parent the children; mother demonstrated a lack of commitment to the children by her unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home; and the children were aband oned by their fathers. Mother appealed; the judgment was affirmed. See In re S.W., R.W., J.W. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1204, 2021-Ohio-2065. {¶ 8} While in the midst of the case with the children, mother gave b irth to J.F., in May 2019. LCCS filed a complaint in dependency and motion for shelter care hearing in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, case No. JC19274734. A hearing was held, and interim temporary custody of J.F. was awa rded to LCCS. {¶ 9} On July 15, 2019, mother and father were ordered to pay child s upport of $80.00 per month for J.F. On January 16, 2020, mother filed a motion to terminate her child support, as she claimed she is actively engaged in case p lan service and is unable to

work. {¶ 10} On May 20, 2020, mother filed a motion for legal custody of J.F . and to determine support and visitation, and father filed a motion to change disposition and for legal custody of J.F. On August 12, 2020, a hearing was held a nd LCCS was granted an extension of its temporary custody of J.F. {¶ 11} On September 23, 2020, LCCS filed a motion for permanent custod y of J.F. On December 2 and 7, 2020, the dispositional hearing was held, on December 10,5. 2020, the court announced its decision, finding LCCS’s motion f or permanent custody well-taken. On December 23, 2020, the court issued its judgmen t entry. Mother and father appealed. The Dispositional Hearing {¶ 12} LCCS called several witnesses to testify, including caseworkers and the guardian ad litem (“GAL”). Stipulated exhibits were admitted. Mother and father testified and called two witnesses. The testimony relevant to the appeal is summarized

below. Therapist {¶ 13} Berdonna Green testified she is a clinical therapist at Harbor Behavioral Health (“Harbor”). She started seeing father in December 2019, and father also had services at Harbor when he was a teenager. Father was diagnose d with “Bipolar I,” and participates in medication therapy and psychotherapy. Green sa id father reported experiencing some improvement with depression and in managing o r coping with stress. {¶ 14} Green was not sure how long father and mother have been married . Father

told Green that J.F. was not in his care due to the children. Green had heard that father felt sabotaged by one child because that child only thinks of h imself and what he can get out of the foster parents. {¶ 15} Green has seen father for almost a year and he attended about 8 5 percent of his sessions. In order to complete therapy with Harbor, father would have to report that he has three to five coping skills to help him manage his bipol ar, and report a reduction in6. his symptoms. Green said father has reported that he has three coping skills. Green stated father is on the path to managing his bipolar disorder. Green has weekly team meetings with the doctors but there is no firm idea of a timeli ne for father’s therapy.

Charles Allen {¶ 16} Allen testified he is the community organizer for Empower 1, wh ich takes homeless families and houses them. The program works in three- year increments to help families restructure their lives, through life planning and fin ancial planning. Typically, the program helps families who are together, but mother and fat her were in a reunification plan with children services, so it was thought th e children would be home within a few months; it is now close to two years. Mother and father “pretty much” engaged in the life services until Covid, and were given space to finish the classes in their reunification plan. Empower 1 offers parenting courses, but mo ther and father had parenting classes with the reunification plan. {¶ 17} Empower 1 works with families so they can move into permanent supportive housing or fair market housing, but mother and fathe r’s income was not consistent, as it was difficult for them to maintain steady wor k. Mother tried to work on her obtaining her GED, but no classes were offered due to the p andemic, so she looked

for work. {¶ 18} Allen said it was “very difficult to * * * walk [father] throug h steps to understand a lot of different things, even how to get his pay s tub or what a pay stub was. So we’ve been working with him on those things.” Father’s jobs were through a7. temporary agency, so Allen did not know if father could not kee p a job because of his disability or if the jobs were just short-term. Allen thought it would probably take another year for mother and father to be ready for fair market value housing, and he believed the route for them would be more subsidized housing. {¶ 19} Mother and father had two initial courses to take with Empower 1, one course was “sort of a life management course which is a lot of time management and how to schedule and put things down and remember when their appoint ment was,” and they also had to attend biweekly meetings. In the beginning “it got a little rough” for them. Allen believed with the proper wrap-support services and furthe r education, mother and

father could maintain a child. Caseworker Emily Costell {¶ 20} Costell testified she was an ongoing caseworker when she became involved with mother and the children in June 2018, as the family was ho meless. Mother and father were together for a number of years before they married in July 2018. When mother and the children were staying at a shelter where father was unable to stay, the agency received calls that mother was “whooping” her children a nd they were screaming and crying. {¶ 21} Case plan services were offered to mother and father, which inc luded dual diagnostic assessments, parenting and getting stable housing. Although mother did what she had to do to engage in family therapy, the children were no t ready to participate in8. family trauma therapy. When mother and father found housing, t hey assumed the children would be returned to them even though the other case p lan services had not been implemented. This conversation occurred almost monthly, as mot her and father did not understand why the children were not returned to them. {¶ 22} In June 2020, mother acknowledged that she may have been too ha rsh with the children, but by August 2020, when Costell stopped working with the family, mother said she never did anything to the children. Costell said fath er also acknowledged at one point that mother might have gone too far, but he does not alwa ys acknowledge it and usually minimizes mother’s behavior and the risk she presents t o the children. {¶ 23} Mother and father have said the children were removed because t hey were black and Costell was white, money-hungry and corrupt. Mother said she had never done anything to make the children fearful and she has never harmed them. {¶ 24} Costell testified at the permanent custody hearing for the chil dren. The issues which caused mother to lose custody were that she physic ally abused the children

and she had mental health issues. Costell believed mother did not accept responsibility for the trauma the children had gone through. {¶ 25} Regarding J.F., she was deemed to be dependent, and LCCS receiv ed temporary custody of her on July 9, 2019. Mother had Level 1 v isits at the agency two days a week with J.F. Costell observed three of mother’s visit s with J.F. and never saw anything inappropriate. However, Costell received a report fro m a security officer that in February 2020, mother was focused on doing J.F.’s hair, but J.F . was crying and9. screaming. If the security officer looked at mother, she would stop, but if the officer looked away, mother would continue to try to do J.F.’s hair. {¶ 26} When visits became virtual, on Google Duo, because of Covid, th e foster mother reported mother missed visits or was late about six time s. Father was not consistent in visiting J.F., as he has missed visits and was la te. Mother and father’s visits with J.F. were never suspended. {¶ 27} Regarding housing, Costell said mother and father have housing, through Empower 1, and live in a duplex. The duplex is appropriate and there are no concerns. {¶ 28} As to father, he was referred in September 2019, to a 12-week p arenting program, and he successfully completed the classroom portion in July 2020. He did not complete the observations portion, due to scheduling conflicts and Covid. Costell had concerns with father’s parenting ability as it appears he does not understand things that she explains to him, so she did not know if he had a mental hea lth issue or a cognitive delay. Father also disclosed that mother has some anger issues and has been aggressive with the children, but then he denies that he has seen any abus e. {¶ 29} Father was referred in July 2018, to Unison for a dual assessme nt, which he completed in mid-July 2018. He had to be re-referred in Januar y 2019, because he was not following through. Then, in September 2019, he wanted to s witch providers and go to Harbor. He was referred to Harbor in October 2019, and had three assessments scheduled; he cancelled two and was a no-show for the third. H e rescheduled another assessment, which he attended, and he has been compliant with m eeting his therapist.10. {¶ 30} Costell does not think father has progressed far enough in his services to reunify with J.F. as he still has to work on his mental health, and he is still with mother. {¶ 31} Costell would have concerns if J.F. were returned to mother soo n because J.F. has special needs and she is unable to protect herself or report abuse or neglect or

remove herself from those situations. J.F. was referred to Hel p Me Grow in June 2019, and is still involved with the program. J.F. has sensory and f ine motor skill delays, eating issues and was referred to an eye specialist. Costell did not believe J.F. would be safe with mother, and father would not be able to protect J.F. {¶ 32} Costell stated J.F. has been in the same foster home, but it is not a potential adoptive placement. Costell testified LCCS is asking for perma nent custody of J.F.

Caseworker Rhonda Nicholson {¶ 33} Nicholson testified she is an ongoing caseworker for LCCS and h as been on J.F.’s case since August 2020; case plan services for mother and father were already in effect. At the time of the hearing, mother still had housing, was engaged in mental health services and was attending new parenting classes. Mother start ed out rocky with the new parenting classes, as she missed orientation and three appointm ents. The parent educator did not want mother to continue, but Nicholson convinced her to give mother another chance. Mother has been compliant with the weekly classes sinc e October 16, 2020. {¶ 34} Since Nicholson was assigned to the case, mother has had Level 1 visits with J.F. Mother never missed a visit, was late or inappropriat e. But, Nicholson had concerns about mother’s visits with J.F. and her ability to par ent J.F. Before mother lost11. custody of the children, it was reported the children were afra id of mother and did not want to return home because of the abuse, but mother denied tha t she had abused them. After mother lost custody, she did not reach out to arrange a f inal visit with the children.

Nicholson contacted mother. {¶ 35} Father was still engaged with mental health services, he comple ted parenting classes in March 2020, and he has housing. Nicholson had concerns with father’s ability to parent and protect J.F. because he blames t he children for J.F. not being home, he feels one child sabotaged the case, he does not believ e mother abused or neglected the children or acted aggressively with them, and he does not appear to have any concerns with mother’s parenting style. {¶ 36} With respect to J.F. being placed with a relative, Nicholson te stified that on her way into court for the hearing, father asked her if she had contacted his aunt and father said mother’s adult son may be a potential placement. N icholson did not know what father was talking about regarding his aunt, and although mother mentioned her adult son to Nicholson during the first home visit, mother said the previous caseworker did not approve of her son because he was verbally aggressive w ith that caseworker. Nicholson spoke with Emily Costell and learned the son and his girlfriend were both very aggressive at the initial staffing, and the girlfriend refused to undergo a criminal background check. Costell’s supervisor said if the couple was n ot willing to be cleared through the system, the couple could not be considered for plac ement.12. {¶ 37} Regarding J.F., she is a one year old with developmental delays , she is nonverbal and very small for her age. J.F. falls a lot, has ba lance issues, is startled by loud noises and has feeding and texture issues. J.F. completed physical therapy before Nicholson was involved, and now has weekly occupational therapy sessions, early

intervention services once a month and she sees a GI doctor. T he doctor wants J.F. to try milk even though she does not like it. {¶ 38} The foster mother gives J.F. formula because she is concerned J .F. is not getting enough nutrition. Nicholson said the foster mother is very attentive to J.F.’s

needs. Nicholson talked to mother and father about J.F. not li king certain foods and they said she will probably be a vegetarian as she does not like mea t. {¶ 39} Nicholson testified that LCCS is asking for permanent custody o f J.F.

Maternal Grandmother {¶ 40} J.F.’s grandmother testified she met J.F. at the hospital when she was born, and she stayed about three hours. Grandmother has had no inter action with J.F. since that day. Grandmother was not sure when J.F. was born. {¶ 41} Grandmother said mother had six children, including J.F. Regar ding the children who were removed from mother’s care, grandmother said mother was a very good mother to them, very attentive, she made sure they had som ething to eat and “somewhere comfortable to lay their head.” Grandmother had not seen the children in two-and-a-half to three years.13. {¶ 42} Grandmother thought mother had become a better parent and perso n “because she wasn’t working * * * when she probably had the kid s. Now she is working and * * * [has] somewhere for them to stay and * * * more money to make sure that they got something to eat.” Grandmother retired January 31, 2020, and said she is now able to help mother. Grandmother thought father was “pretty nice, a pretty nice dude. He was pretty kindhearted * * * a mellow dude.” He was very good to m other, “[b]etter man than any of her kids’ father been I think.” {¶ 43} Grandmother did not know what mother’s address was, but knows w here

mother lives. Grandmother did not know what mother did if the children misbehaved because grandmother “wasn’t really around her like that,” but m other probably believed in whoopings, as mother was whooped as a child. {¶ 44} Grandmother was asked how often she sees mother and she said “n ot real often, but I talk to her all the time. * * * I don’t drive and she don’t drive so * * * it’s not that easy for me to just * * * go get her or go see her.” Befo re LCCS was involved, “I think [mother] lived with me before [J.F.] was born and the kid s were little. [Mother] lived with me for a minute. She stayed with me.” Grandmother said mother and the children lived with her for maybe two or three years, then moth er “wanted to get out and get her own. You know, my apartment wasn’t that big. So I let her stay with me * * * for the kids and she could get out and get her own place.” Gra ndmother knew mother and the children were homeless, but she did not have them live with her as “I didn’t have enough room for her and the kids to stay with me.”14. Maternal Great Aunt {¶ 45} Great aunt to J.F. testified she is mother’s aunt and grandmoth er’s sister. Great aunt met J.F. in the hospital after she was born, and has only seen pictures of her

since. {¶ 46} Great aunt saw mother with the children about twice a month and mother’s “kids were everything to her. * * * And I’m the one that took h er to the grocery store and she would buy all these groceries, and she said, girl, I got to feed my kids.” Great aunt is there for mother, if mother needs a ride or money. {¶ 47} Great aunt said mother has had a hard life, and did the best sh e could with what she knew and “with the kids she did a good job.” Great au nt thought mother was “a very good parent.” Grandmother lost custody of mother “when [m other] was coming up * * * [then] she eventually got them back.” Mother and grandmo ther “they kind of clashed heads a little bit for a long time.” Mother’s parents did not have a “very good healthy relationship so [mother] didn’t really know too much ab out healthy relationships and how to bring up a person -- or a child.” {¶ 48} Great aunt did not know mother’s address, but she has been to t he house several times. The last time was when “my brother got back, an d she started using my brother because he has a bigger truck for hauling her groceries back and forth.” {¶ 49} Great aunt has not seen mother parent the children since “they took them away from her.” Great aunt said mother did not have the equipm ent to bring up a child because mother lost her home, she did not have a job, she lost whatever support she had.15. Great aunt thought the children were taken from mother because she was homeless. Great aunt “was taking them from hotel to hotel to find them so mewhere to stay. I was taking them to shelters. And when they would kick her out of a shelter, I would go pick her up and we would find somewhere else.” Great aunt also thou ght mother did not have the children in school because they did not have their shots an d they did not have clothes. {¶ 50} Great aunt said mother now has the equipment to bring up a chil d as she has a home, it is furnished, she has a husband who has a job an d tries to take care of her. Mother has more support now than she did then. {¶ 51} Great aunt was asked if she knew the children were found to be abused and great aunt said “I don’t think it was by [mother].” Great aunt looked shocked and said she never saw mother punish the children. Great aunt said if s he found out a child was abused, that would change her opinion about mother’s ability to parent. {¶ 52} Great aunt thought father “seems to be a very nice young man, h ard working. Whenever he gets a job, he did the best he could. He didn’t have any transportation so I know at one point he was taking a bike goin g back and forth to work.”

Mother {¶ 53} Mother testified J.F. is 17 months old, and LCCS immediately to ok J.F. after she was born. Mother was seeing J.F. twice a week for at least a year at the agency in a room with a security guard. After Covid, mother saw J.F. once a week virtually, in a video chat over the phone. J.F. met the children at visits at the agency before mother’s visits with the children were suspended in October 2019.16. {¶ 54} Mother believed her rights to the children were terminated beca use she was not acknowledging that she had done something wrong. Mother sa id, “I can acknowledge and do agree on things that I’ve done wrong and mad e mistakes toward my other three kids in which I’ve learned through the parenting cl ass that I’m going through right now not to do and make the same mistakes again.” Mother said she was “[n]ot giving them enough attention, not taking them to they doctor ap pointments. Not scheduling appointments, and not making sure I had transportati on to get them back and forth to their appointments, and not being able to keep a roof over their head.” Mother said she has learned “[t]o maintain food, to maintain housing a nd to maintain the needs, going back and forth to the doctors and making sure her appoint ments are met and making sure that if I cancel an appointment, that I make sure t hat I stick to the appointment. And as well that she makes sure that she gets eve rything that she desires

and needs and wants.” {¶ 55} Mother said she made mistakes when she punished the children, a s she did not know “how to overcome the overwhelming stress that I was go ing through and dealing with.” She learned to deal with stress by going outsid e, jogging, seeing family, reading, taking a bath, meditating and listening to music. Bef ore, mother asked grandmother to “keep the kids for a couple of days, * * * just to give me a break from my

kids.” {¶ 56} Mother was asked if she heard the testimony about her doing J.F .’s hair and

how it was traumatic for J.F. Mother said she heard the testim ony and “I don’t agree on17. that, to agree or disagree. I totally outright as much as poss ible disagree with that because I would never just let my daughter just keep continuing crying and not asking her if she’s okay or give her a hug or kiss. Her [sic] just to say it’s okay, I’m just making you beautiful or making you pretty so your hair will be done for th e day.” Mother thought J.F. “would be fussing and crying, and she * * * just possibly had got up too early that morning. And she be too tired to even want to go through me do ing her hair.” Mother concluded the foster mother had gotten J.F. up too early. {¶ 57} Mother did not miss visits but was late to visits “[b]ecause of the time of me coming from the grocery store or coming from another appoint ment.” Mother does not drive, so she walks, bikes or catches the bus. Mother has worked as a home health aide for almost three months, and is getting her GED. Father a lso works, and the income they make allows them to support themselves. Mother said, “we making so much money they took us off of food stamps because we’re no longer getting food stamps. So we’re still able to maintain food without having food stamps.” {¶ 58} Mother and father have lived at their home for almost two years , and pay $400 per month in rent. Mother and father also do volunteer wo rk, a class or a meeting with Empower 1 as a requirement for living in the house. {¶ 59} Mother goes to Harbor for her mental health treatment and she h as gone there on and off since 2011. She was diagnosed with posttrauma tic stress disorder, bipolar and anxiety. To manage her diagnoses, mother takes med ication, plays video games, cooks and cleans. Mother was asked if she takes her med icine as prescribed and18. she said “[y]es, I do.” She was asked if she took her medicine every day and she said “[y]es, I do.” She was then asked if she missed any doses and she replied “I go maybe once -- well, every other day because of the fact of -- because of my job. I don’t want to oversleep and be late for my job because it leads me to being l ate for my job.” Mother works four days a week, 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Mother was asked i f she has talked to her doctor about the medicine and she replied, “[n]ot lately * * * I plan on letting her know if I can only take it on a day that I don’t have to work and the d ays that I don’t have to work to being able to still have the same -- the same effect.” {¶ 60} Mother was asked about the parenting program, in which she had been for the last two weeks, and she said she has learned “physical and verbal * * * redirection * * * [a]nd * * * how to love your child and not be physically harm ful toward your child.” She thinks these have helped her be a different parent and keep her child safe and protected. {¶ 61} Mother was asked if she heard testimony that she did not always make the virtual visits and she said she heard it, but it was not correc t. Mother was asked if she missed some virtual visits and she responded “I might have miss ed a couple of them. * * * [T]he lady, [foster mother] was supposed to be getting in con tact with me between 1 and 1:30. She would call me at around 12, 1:30. She called me at 12:30 at another time

or 1 o’clock and then call me at 12:30 another time. So it var ied on what time she would call. So I never knew what time she was going to call on a gen eral basis.”19. {¶ 62} Mother wanted the court to know that “I know how to maintain an d establish clothing for my daughter, maintain food for my daught er, maintain housing and make sure that she’s safe and protected. And as well making su re that she has everything

that she wants and desires and needs.” {¶ 63} On cross-examination, mother said since the hearing a month ear lier, she is no longer smoking marijuana. Mother said she is current with h er mental health provider and she remembers telling her counselor that CSB was keeping th e children for the money and her son was being coached. Mother said, “[t]he close -knit relationship with me and my son before CSB had taken them, me and my son had a re lationship that any mother -- or any mother and son would be jealous of our relatio nship because of the fact that we were so close that my kids could come and talk to me. They could come and laugh with me. They could come and play with me. We could do anything together that no other mother and son would possibly think to even do.” {¶ 64} Mother said it was traumatic having the children taken away as “my kids are so important to me. And doing their hair, getting their cl othes clean, taking them to the shopping mall, taking them shopping and going out to eat, a nd doing fun stuff with them and traveling with them is something that I had grew up do ing -- was traveling with my family every year. That’s something I wanted to do with my kids that I can’t do

now.” {¶ 65} Mother was asked about J.F.’s therapies and she said J.F. went to physical therapy and goes to occupational therapy “to get her coordinate d to be able to stretch her20. muscles and being able to relax her hands because she was balli ng up her hands.” When asked if those therapies were important for J.F.’s well-being, mother said, “I believe they know about [J.F.], but I don’t believe that they know all the t ime of how [J.F.] could possibly not drink milk at all. That’s the part I’m not unders tanding why she’s not drinking milk. But she is in some form of drinking milk, but i t’s not the type of milk that I’m drinking or her dad is drinking that it would help her bone s become stronger so as she grows. Her bones will become stronger instead of brittle.” {¶ 66} Mother was asked about J.F.’s eyes and mother said, “her left e ye she has -- I believe it’s a stigmatism. I don’t know. She told me before it could be, and the doctor told her it would be possibly a tumor. I don’t believe it’s a tumor. I believe it’s a stigmatism that she possibly have in her eye, and she genetical ly got from me from my young age that I received a stigmatism in my eye. And she’s no t able to get the one eye to be able to look straight like I’m looking at you.” Mother s aid she asked the foster mother about J.F.’s eye treatment, “and it, like, goes in one e ar and other the other.” Mother was asked if she recalled saying she did not notice anyt hing wrong with J.F.’s eyes, and she said, “I have pictures where she is not seen with a lazy eye. Her eye is not crossing. Her eyes looked at me like I’m looking at you. And plus my husband has -- he’s a first (sic) so I know -- pretty much know my daughter wi ll be looked after.” {¶ 67} Mother said J.F. sees a GI doctor for her stomach “[b]ecause fr om my understanding * * * she couldn’t stand the taste of textures, o r she couldn’t eat meat or she just didn’t want to eat meat.” Mother recalled that J.F. h ad problems tolerating21. formulas. Mother said when J.F. goes home “[i]f [J.F.] she can tolerate milk, there’s a certain kind of milk I can give her. I wouldn’t force her to d rink milk if she can’t drink milk. But if she can drink milk, yes, I will give my daughter milk so, therefore, she will have some milk that will strengthen her bones.” {¶ 68} Mother said at one time “I did think that she wouldn’t need the m other therapies, but being that I see that she has special needs, yes , she do need * * * them.” Mother changed her mind “when I seen my daughter * * * have a p atch over her eye and understanding that. * * * It’s making it strong.”

Father {¶ 69} Father testified he is married to mother and “I’ve been living with her for a while now, like, what is it, two years.” J.F. is their child a nd mother “had two older boys, and they grown now so -- they’re -- you know, they pretty much -- they don’t say too much bad about their mother as much as they don’t really, like, you know try to -- they don’t try to -- they don’t really try to say anything bad about their mother last time I

checked.” {¶ 70} Father was asked, “[t]here are three other children?” Father r eplied, “[y]ou

said three other children? No. No. No. There weren’t.” He was then asked “so when [LCCS] initially got involved with [mother’s] other children, t hat was before you[?]” He said “[t]hat was the time when we were separated. When we got in -- they said we got in a little proclaimed altercation.”22. {¶ 71} Regarding his understanding of LCCS’s reasons for removing the children, father said, “[w]ell, when it came down to that, I knew very we ll. And I witnessed a lot of things that were going on at the time when we were living in shelters. And what they were pretty much saying was that somebody pretty much -- somebo dy that was next door to us that was, like, a resident at the shelter at that time pr etty much said that -- and I wasn’t there but when I was there, I didn’t see none of the stu ff go on.” Father was asked the question again, he said, “[w]ell, their concern I feel like they should have did, like, more research before they just took them the way I see it.” {¶ 72} Father stated LCCS’s allegations were abuse and neglect, but “h ow can somebody neglect somebody if they keeping their eyes on them 24 /7? * * * And then when it come down to abuse, when you all say abuse, I understan d the mother, you know, if she choked the child or tried to kill the child or anything like that. But none of that stuff never happened.” Regarding concerns with physical abuse, father stated, “[t]o be honest, she probably disciplined them, but it wasn’t major. It was more like a warning, like, don’t do this again like any mother would do. I mean my momma did it.” Father was asked what the physical abuse incidents were and he said, “ [t]he incidents that pretty much happened -- I am going to be honest. Me and her used to g et in arguments, and the kids used to see that. Yes, we had a rough relationship at one time. Yes, we had a lot of things going on. Yes, she probably got too bothered about cert ain things. She was probably stressing and over the edge, but at the same time I al ways used to work things out with her and her kids. There were times when I come out my pocket and she’ll come23. out her pocket, and we’ll feed them. There were times when we would just go to Goodwill because I was budgeting on the checks that I was getti ng.” {¶ 73} Father thought mother was a really good mother, so he cannot sa y that her

one child was abused. Father said he heard the caseworkers’ te stimony that he did not understand or believe the allegations or concerns, but he “unde rstood everything. But at the same time I’ve got to go by the beliefs of the child, and t hat’s understandable. I can do that. But if it’s nothing truthful in that, you all -- you know, you all remember the situation to my rights of the constitution. What else can I sa y?” {¶ 74} Father said he was concerned because he talked to the one child who said he lost his virginity and had sex with a 24-year old. “So it w as like at that time I had to really, you know, remind myself that this lady ain’t really pay ing attention like she’s supposed to. * * * LCCS, they got to be responsible and account able for even allowing that to happen.” Father raised the concern because he wants th e court to know “I think it’s a lot of re-appealing we are doing with case. Because tho se ain’t my biological kids, but for my concern for her, I just wish, you know, they can cha nge this whole matter and do this case over again. You know, to really do their studies on it and really get to know the kids more. Because kids going to tell anybody anything. I was once a kid as well.” {¶ 75} Father was offered case plan services when LCCS first became in volved

with mother and the children because he was married to her and they lived together. He said, “I ain’t gonna to lie, I probably didn’t come to every la st one of them * * * Emily Costell was giving me my stuff last minute. * * * [S]he really didn’t want to put me on24. the case for real when her kids got tooken (sic) away.” Case p lan services continued after J.F. was born, with reunification as the goal. {¶ 76} Father did not always agree with how mother disciplined the chi ldren, “she got this thing, you know, with her that kind of creeped me out. When she got, you know, mad at me when I asked her, you know, don’t do that, don’t do t his, it wasn’t like abuse or nothing like that. It was just the way she used to get mad at the kids * * * she’ll get -- not violent with them. She would cuss them out, so I would say , no, don’t do that * * * don’t yell at your child.” Father felt like mother would cheri sh and nourish J.F. because mother “came a long way. Just to be honest with you all, * * * she been doing -- you know, she was doing fine. Plus she understands well what she d id wrong on some things. But somebody who put abuse and neglect still doesn’t make it ri ght, putting something on someone knowing it’s not true.” Father said he will protect J. F., as she is his first child. {¶ 77} Father said visits were going well until one child “made the al legation that her mother allegedly smacked her. * * * [H]ow can you smack som ebody when there’s full of cameras? * * * [H]ow can the mother smack the child * * * It just -- it’s propaganda.” {¶ 78} Father was diagnosed with bipolar during J.F.’s case, and he ta kes medication which keeps him content. Father agreed with his the rapist’s report, but he was surprised that she had not had a conversation with the doct or and treatment team. Father thought if the therapist had the conversation and he had successfully completed his mental health care, that would have impacted how LCCS viewed hi s progress. Father25. believed it would have taken his therapist to say that he had c oping skills in order for LCCS to say he had successfully completed mental health service s, but she did not testify about that. Father said he would continue his therapy, as he i s starting to like it because he has someone he can talk to about his problems. {¶ 79} Father said Rhonda Nicholson told him LCCS’s concerns were “my wife. Ain’t no -- ain’t nothing regarding me. It’s something that LC CS not appreciating what my wife did. All she did was speak her mind about some things, and you see what happened.” Father said he did everything that he was supposed to do, “[m]y daughter got wipes, * * * Pampers, * * * a bed. * * * What is the problem?” Father stated he learned about safety measures, how to protect his daughter, and patienc e. {¶ 80} Father said there was “[n]o proof” of domestic violence between him and mother. Regarding housing, father said “[s]ome people say it’s housing assisting, but how is it house assisting when I pay rent and lights and gas? It’s not for free.” Father believes he can maintain housing. He was asked about getting independen t housing, and father said, “just me staying at the place right now, that’s independe ntly done. * * * [Y]es it’s a program, but it teach you how to manage your own well being.” {¶ 81} Father is currently employed and is still trying to get his GED . When he gets paid, the temporary employment agency takes half “plus the state child support is taking my money too. Every time I get a job, they take about $ 80 or maybe like $115.” Father believes he is in a position to take custody of J.F. As to other services which may be needed, father said, “one thing based on what I’m hearing, t hat she do need special26. needs for her eye doctor, you know, dental sooner or later. Be cause she’s getting bigger. Based on her eating, there’s a good chance she might be vegan.” {¶ 82} On cross-examination, father said he had proof that the childre n were not abused, but “not physical evidence.” Father feels railroaded b y LCCS because some of the allegations made by the children against mother were not tr ue and the children were “absolutely” taking advantage of their situation with the foste r parents. Father does not believe mother smacked the child during a visit. Father does not like Lucas County Child Support taking money out of his paycheck “[b]ecause that’ s not my baby mama. That’s her right there.” {¶ 83} Father said his sisters could watch J.F. while he is working. He was asked where his sisters lived and he said, “[o]ne of my sisters -- I ain’t going to lie. To be honest, she live in the Greenbelt. And then I have another sis ter, and she live in the Greenbelt as well.” Father said a lot of people talk bad about the Greenbelt apartments. {¶ 84} On further cross-examination, father said when he married mothe r they

were homeless. Father admitted he was kicked out of a shelter “[b]ecause of arguing that took place.” When the children were removed from mother’s care , father was on the case plan, but the caseworker would not let father visit the childre n. Father heard one child was deemed to be an abused child, but “when you all said that m y wife had burnt him -- well, somebody said it. Somebody said that they had checked a burnt mark on his back saying that, I guess, she burned him, and that wasn’t even true . * * * He burnt himself.” Father said the finding of abuse was wrong and “[i]f you’re fee ding your kid and clothing27. you kid and they have a roof over then head, that’s not mistrea ted. But sometimes parents have to discipline they kids. By law you can hit the c hild in the buttocks, but not with a belt but you hand.” Father acknowledged the children we re not seeing doctors because of transportation problems. {¶ 85} Regarding reports made by the children, father said “yes, you s upposed to believe the child, yes. Yes, that’s absolutely true. You supp osed to believe the child if they got -- if it comes down to abuse, molestation, whatever th e case is. But if it’s not accurate enough and if you know it’s not accurate enough and yo u know, it just a whole little game of propaganda that you all playing with, yeah, it’s going to be a problem.” As to the child who said she was slapped by mother during a visit, “[y]ou can’t play any little games with your momma based on telling any story.” {¶ 86} Father said LCCS filed the permanent custody motion because mot her spoke her mind and father “not agreeing with half of the things that you all saying.” Regarding his concerns about the one child having sex, father w as asked if he called the agency to report it and he responded “[n]o, not at that time. Well, as a matter of fact I did, but nobody ever answered. If that’s what you’re talking a bout, right. Nobody ever did answer. If you’re talking about -- or are you talking abou t me talking about -- [?]” Also, father did not raise the issue at the 90-day review meeti ng in June 2020, or with the

caseworker because he did not think he would be believed.28. Foster Mother and Parents’ Rebuttal {¶ 87} Foster mother testified she has fostered children for 50 years, and has been caring for J.F. since she was released from the hospital at two days old. J.F.’s difficulties upon leaving the hospital included tremors for the first few mo nths and feeding issues of gagging and vomiting, she could not tolerate milk, she was weak on one side and she could only roll to one side; J.F. was listed as failure to thri ve. The agency recommended Help Me Grow for J.F., and she was referred to a gastrointestin al doctor, physical therapy and occupational therapy for her feeding and sensory issues and deficits. Foster mother takes J.F. to appointments and to twice-a-week visitations with mother and father. {¶ 88} J.F. had an MRI after foster mother noticed problems with J.F.’ s eyes and the pediatrician sent J.F. to an eye doctor. J.F. saw the eye doctor in October 2020, and the doctor thought there may be issues with the optical nerve n ot getting the right blood supply. J.F. was prescribed glasses and an eye patch. {¶ 89} Foster mother talked to mother and father about J.F.’s services , but “whenever I would bring up anything, the only response I got wa s if she were with me,

she wouldn’t have these issues or I don’t see these issues.” W hen mother and father were allowed to go to J.F.’s appointments, foster mother would tell them about the appointments, yet mother said she was never told, so the casewo rker had foster mother write a list of the appointments for mother. Mother and father went to one appointment, for the GI doctor, although there were at least six appointment s on the list. Thereafter,29. mother and father did not ask about J.F.’s services, her MRI re sults or why she had a patch on her glasses. {¶ 90} Foster mother said father told her that CSB was against him, an d the children made up all of the stories about mother. {¶ 91} Mother testified, in rebuttal, that foster mother told her abou t four of J.F.’s appointments, but mother “had meetings on the days that she [fo ster mother] set doctor appointments. One I was able to get to, the other one right be fore the pandemic had pretty much sent me to not being able to go because I had other appointments to go to.” {¶ 92} Mother had concerns that J.F. was not drinking milk, and nobody has helped to alleviate those concerns. Mother also had issues wit h the way the foster mother took care of J.F. because sometimes J.F. would have on dirty cl othes that had not been washed, and when mother would change J.F.’s diaper she would “s till have stuff in between her legs.” {¶ 93} Father testified, in rebuttal, that his main concern was that J .F. would come to visits with “not good hygiene,” and “[t]here were times wher e it felt like the clothes that she was wearing was already wore before or after. There w ere times when she would come with * * * snotty nose, * * * face, all crusty. * * * I believe a kid, you know, should be nourished by their hygiene even down to their skin. Plus my daughter got melanin, so it’s important.” Father stated “[i]t was just my m ain concern her coming there like that. I didn’t like it. * * * Just giving my daught er just any kind of way to me.”30. GAL Chris Kimberly {¶ 94} Kimberly testified she was the GAL appointed to represent appel lant’s four children in August 2019, after the previous GAL was reassigned. Kimberly spoke with the previous GAL and received notes and a report. Kimberly con ducted an independent investigation, and believes it is in J.F.’s best interest for p ermanent custody to be granted

to LCCS. {¶ 95} Kimberly had concerns with mother’s ability to parent and manag e her mental health, and there were concerns with father’s ability an d willingness to protect J.F. because he believes everything mother says or always takes her side. Kimberly observed mother and father parent the four children throughout the case, and they have not been “capable or able to have gotten all [of] the benefits of servic es that they really need to parent safely and effectively.” Mother was “very, very slow to engage” in some services, she completed some services, some she did not do and some she s tarted but did not finish. Kimberly said a therapist suggested mother could benefit from t rauma counseling. {¶ 96} Regarding visits, prior to Kimberly’s involvement, mother and f ather had Level 2 visits with the children at the agency in a room monito red by agency staff. When Kimberly was appointed, the family was at Level 1 visits at the agency with agency staff supervising. For a very brief time, the parents had Level 2 vi sits with J.F., until October 2019, when the incident occurred with the one child. At that p oint, J.F.’s visits moved back to Level 1 and the visits with the children were suspended . Mother was really31. consistent with visits while father was a lot less consistent. Before Covid, the GAL observed at least three visits between the parents and J.F. {¶ 97} J.F. has developmental issues including tremors, clenching, fee ding issues and eye issues. She is very small and slow to gain weight. J.F . is in need of continuing services and someone who is diligent about her medical care K imberly said in March 2020, at a 90-day review meeting, it was brought up that J.F. h as a lazy eye, but mother said no, she does not. The proper eye doctor had to be found, then it took six months to get an appointment due to Covid, but it was determined there wa s nothing wrong with J.F.’s optic nerve. {¶ 98} Kimberly does not believe mother has made the progress in servi ces and gained the understanding needed to be a safe and secure parent. Mother continued to not take the safety of the children seriously and mother did not se em to take J.F.’s services seriously. Kimberly does not think father has fully benefitted from services so that he would be able to provide an independent level of protection for J.F. It appears to Kimberly that no matter what evidence exists, father will never believe mother was a danger to her children, as father wholeheartedly endorsed her p arenting. {¶ 99} Kimberly was asked about her report, in which it was noted that J.F.’s meconium tested positive for THC. The GAL believed that inform ation was in the complaint. {¶ 100} Kimberly testified housing was the concern that caused LLCS to become involved with the family, but housing is no longer a concern.32. Juvenile Court’s Decision {¶ 101} In its December 23, 2020 judgment entry, the juvenile court fou nd, by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), tha t J.F. could not and should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable tim e, and pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), it was in the child’s best interest to grant pe rmanent custody to LCCS. {¶ 102} The court noted the parents secured housing through Empower 1, a threeyear program, and have been in the program for two years, as of December 2020, and there was testimony that the parents are not qualified for inde pendent housing and it does not appear they will qualify in the near future. The court ref erenced caseworkers Costell and Nicholson’s concerns with mother and father’s ability to pa rent, and observed that mother continues to deny she abused the children or negatively impacted them, and father believes the children lied about mother abusing them. The cou rt discussed the parents’ visits with J.F. The court recognized J.F. has special needs, is on a specialized diet and has therapy and doctor appointments. {¶ 103} The court mentioned the parents’ mental health services, that m other

suffers from chronic mental illness which is so severe that she is unable to provide an adequate permanent home for J.F., and mother has difficulty und erstanding certain concepts, like wanting to give J.F. milk when she cannot tolera te it. Father has difficulty expressing himself and has tangential and odd thinking, accordi ng to his Harbor records. {¶ 104} The court concluded R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), (11) and (14 ) applied, and found the following: the parents failed to substantially remedy the problems causing33. J.F.’s removal, and although the parents made some progress in their case plan services, they did not make significant progress to support reunification with J.F., including still having visitation with J.F. under the most restrictive level of fered by LCCS; the parents

s uffer from chronic mental illness which is so severe that they are unable to provide an adequate permanent home for J.F.; t he parents demonstrated a lack of commitment to J.F. by failing to consistently support or visit J.F. or attend her medical and therapy appointments.; mother had her parental rights to a sibling of the child involu ntarily terminated, and the parents failed to show, by clear and convin cing evidence, that they can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate c are for the health, welfare and safety of J.F.; the parents are not able to care fo r J.F.’s basic necessities, including her special needs; and the parents did not make enoug h progress in their case plan services to remedy the reasons for removal, including phys ical abuse. {¶ 105} The court also concluded, under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) and (d), that granting permanent custody to LCCS is in J.F.’s best interest, and further found: J.F. was doing well in her foster home where she has been since birth; J .F. has special needs which are all being met at her current placement; and J.F. need s a legally secure permanent placement which cannot be achieved without granting p ermanent custody to LCCS, as no alternative plan is possible. Standard - Permanent Custody {¶ 106} The juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evi dence: (1) the existence of34. at least one of the four factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)( 1)(a) through (d), and (2) the child’s best interest is served by granting permanent custody t o the agency. In re M.B. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP755, 2005-Ohio-986, ¶ 6; R.C. 2151. 353(A)(4). {¶ 107} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) provides that “the child cannot be place d with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find th at a child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of sixteen factors are met. R.C. 2151 .414(E)(1) - (16). {¶ 108} R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), (11) and (14) provide: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s h ome and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent effor ts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initia lly caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed cont inuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child’s home. (2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intelle ctual disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequat e permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, wit hin one year after the court holds the hearing * * *;

* * *35. (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward th e child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate wi th the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingnes s to provide an adequate permanent home for the child;

* * * (11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminate d with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or s ection 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code, or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United States that is substantia lly equivalent to those sections, and the parent has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child.

* * * (14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, cl othing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to preven t the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emo tional, or mental neglect.36. {¶ 109} To satisfy the best interest prong of the permanent custody tes t, the agency must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that p ermanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child based on an analysi s under R.C. 2151.414(D). The juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, includin g: the interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, relative s and foster caregivers; and the child’s need for permanence. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) and (d). {¶ 110} Clear and convincing evidence requires proof which “produce[s] in the

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to th e facts sought to be

established.” Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. In order to determine whether a juvenil e court based its judgment on clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing court examines the record to decide

whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the appropriate degree of proof. State v. Schiebel , 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). First Assignment of Error {¶ 111} Mother argues she made sufficient progress in her case plan ser vices to rebut the presumption that she failed to provide clear and conv incing evidence to show that she can provide a legally secure placement for J.F. and ad equate care for J.F.’s health, welfare and safety, despite the prior termination of pa rental rights. Mother contends she was compliant with her case plan services, includi ng parenting, visitation, housing and mental health treatment, and time is “available und er the statute to address residual parenting issues for this child.” Mother submits “she acknowledged from the37. witness stand that she had made mistakes in treatment and disci pline” of the children. Mother maintains the juvenile court abused its discretion by te rminating her parental rights to J.F. 1 {¶ 112} A review of the record shows LCCS established, inter alia, that mother’s parental rights to the children had been involuntarily terminat ed. Mother had the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that she remedied the condition which caused the termination of her parental rights. {¶ 113} Upon review, we find mother did not present evidence which prod uced a firm belief that she can provide adequate care for J.F.’s healt h, safety and welfare. While mother may have been compliant with many of her case plan servi ces, J.F. has special needs, not all of which mother has appreciated, and J.F. requir es therapies and doctors’ visits, most of which mother has not attended. Transportation issues were one of the

reasons mother did not take the children for medical care in th e previous case, and transportation continues to be a problem for mother, as she doe s not drive. {¶ 114} In addition, mother has failed to show that she sincerely recog nizes and acknowledges the role she played in traumatizing the children a s a result of physically abusing them. Thus, mother did not prove by clear and convinci ng evidence that she

remedied the condition which caused the removal of the children and the termination of

1 Abuse of discretion is not the appropriate standard of review in a termination of parental rights case. Rather, we review the record to determine whether the juvenile court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In re P.W. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1060, 2012-Ohio-3556, ¶ 19.38. her parental rights to the children in the previous case. Furt her, while there may be time remaining on J.F.’s case, LCCS has been involved with mother fo r well over two years,

and the same issues remain. Mother has not established that if she were given more time, she would rectify the issues. {¶ 115} Therefore, contrary to mother’s claims, we conclude the juvenil e court did not commit an error of law, and there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court’s termination of mother’s parental rights to J.F . Accordingly, the first assignment of error is not well-taken. Second Assignment of Error {¶ 116} Father asserts LCCS did not prove by clear and convincing evide nce that J.F. could not be returned to him, in part because five months were still available to him during which J.F. was still eligible for continued temporary cu stody by LCCS. Father argues he was compliant with his case plan services, except vis its, as he completed a dual diagnostic assessment and the classroom portion of parenting cl asses, he is employed, he has stable housing and he has engaged with mental health care p roviders. {¶ 117} Father admits his visits were not consistent, but claims there is no allegation of improper handling of J.F. when he did visit her. Father also acknowledges he did not believe the children were truthful when they said mo ther abused them, and he notes he was not a party to the previous case because the child ren are not his. {¶ 118} Upon review, we find LCCS did present evidence which produced a firm belief that J.F. cannot be returned home to father, as LCCS off ered witness testimony that39. father cannot provide adequate care for J.F.’s health, safety a nd welfare. Although father was somewhat compliant with his case plan services, the progres s he made was marginal, particularly as it directly relates to J.F. and her care. Fath er’s visits with J.F. were inconsistent, and father does not appear to fully comprehend J. F.’s developmental disabilities and other medical issues. J.F. has had many thera py and doctors’ appointments, but father attended only one appointment. Just l ike with mother, transportation is an issue for father because he does not drive . What is more, father does not seem to believe that mother abused the children, as the maj ority of the time, he claims the children lied about being abused by mother. {¶ 119} Finally, despite time remaining on J.F.’s case, father has prod uced no evidence to suggest that if he were given additional time, he w ould complete the steps necessary to reunify with J.F. Throughout these proceedings, f ather has shown a lack of progress in the areas directly concerning J.F., he failed to pa rticipate in all case plan services, and he did not consistently acknowledge the abuse suf fered by the children at mother’s hands. Father has been provided with ample opportunity to take corrective steps and has been unable or unwilling to remedy and improve the situ ation. {¶ 120} We therefore conclude the juvenile court did not err when it te rminated father’s parental rights to J.F. The court considered J.F.’s b est interest, and placed her best interest above all else. The court properly found, and th e record clearly shows, J.F.’s need for a legally secure permanent placement could not be achi eved without a grant of40. permanent custody to LCCS. Accordingly, the second assignment of error is not welltaken. {¶ 121} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Cour t of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellants are o rdered to pay the court costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ______________________

______ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.

____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.