[Cite as In re G.K., 2019-Ohio-1582.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

IN RE G.K. & L.K. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

 : Case Nos. 18 CA 39 

 : 18 CA 40 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 

Case No. 17J00258 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 25, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Mother-Appellant: For GCCS - Appellee: 

 

WESLEY ALTON JOHNSTON MELISSA M. WILSON 

The IMG Building, Suite 910 274 Highland Ave. 

1360 E. 9th St. Cambridge, OH 43725 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Mother-Appellant appeals the December 7, 2018 judgment entry of the 

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} Appellant H.M. is the mother of G.K. (born January 20, 2013) and L.K. (born 

May 24, 2015). Father is C.K. Mother and Father are not married. Father has had no 

involvement in the children’s lives. 

{¶3} GCCS became involved with the family based on a claim of sex abuse of 

G.K. and drug abuse by Mother. G.K. and L.K. were placed on an out-of-home safety plan 

with Paternal Uncle. Mother stated Paternal Uncle was approximately 80 years old. A 

third child, not involved in this case, was placed in another home. 

{¶4} GCCS moved for an ex parte order and the two children were placed in the 

temporary custody of Appellee Guernsey County Children Services (“GCCS”) on June 

22, 2017. Mother told GCCS that Paternal Uncle was asking Mother for sexual favors in 

order to see the children. There were concerns that Paternal Uncle was leaving the 

children with his wife, who had dementia, and with his son, who had a criminal history. 

{¶5} On August 30, 2017, G.K. and L.K. were adjudicated neglected and 

dependent. The children were placed in foster care and have been in the same foster 

home since January 2018. A case plan was developed for Mother. Mother suffered from 

drug addiction. As part of her case plan, Mother was required to complete drug, alcohol, 

and mental health assessments and follow the recommendations of her providers. Mother 

completed her assessments but did not attend follow-up counseling or utilize the 

recommended services. Mother was diagnosed with severe methamphetamine use 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 3 

disorder, severe cannabis use disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline 

personality disorder, and opioid use disorder. GCCS offered to assist Mother with 

inpatient drug treatment, but Mother declined. 

{¶6} Mother tested positive 39 times for illegal drugs including 

methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine, buprenorphine, and THC. 

{¶7} Mother had weekly one-hour supervised visitation with the children. Mother 

and children were bonded. Mother brought the children food and toys during her visits. 

Mother tested positive for drugs during some visits with the children. 

{¶8} Mother was not employed. Mother relied on Paternal Uncle for income. 

{¶9} Mother lost custody of two other children through Hancock County. 

{¶10} GCCS explored kinship placement of the children based on 

recommendations by Mother. The GCCS investigations found the 13 recommendations 

were not appropriate. 

{¶11} GCCS filed a motion for permanent custody on August 8, 2018. A hearing 

was held on November 26, 2018. 

{¶12} The Guardian ad litem recommended GCCS be granted permanent custody 

of the children. 

{¶13} On December 7, 2018, the trial court granted the GCCS motion for 

permanent custody. The trial court first found the clear and convincing evidence showed 

the children had been in the temporary custody of a public service agency for 12 or more 

months of a consecutive 22-month period. It further found the children could not be placed 

with Mother or Father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with parents. The 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 4 

trial court finally found the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the 

children. 

{¶14} It is from this judgment entry Mother now appeals. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶15} Mother raises one Assignment of Error: 

{¶16} “THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE 

AGENCY WHEN NOT HAVING CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS 

IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.” 

ANALYSIS 

{¶17} Mother contends in her sole Assignment of Error that the trial court erred 

when it found it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to 

GCCS. We disagree. 

{¶18} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re 

Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 

U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must 

be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing 

evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief 

or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 

469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue 

must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine 

whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree 

of proof.” Id. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all 

the essential elements of the case supports the trial court's judgment, an appellate court 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 5 

must affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E. 

Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). 

{¶19} 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' 

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

Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶20} 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. 

{¶21} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court may grant permanent 

custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody 

of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the 

following apply: 

(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the temporary 

custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child 

placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-twomonth period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more 

public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 

twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, as 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 6 

described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the 

child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in 

another state, 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. 

(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public 

children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or 

more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has 

been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services 

agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a 

consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1) of 

section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the 

temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state. 

(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from 

whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an 

abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any 

court in this state or another state. * * * *. 

{¶22} 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. 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 7 

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

the best interest of the child. 

{¶23} Mother concedes the children have been in the temporary custody of GCCS 

for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). She 

argues the trial court erred as to the second prong, whether permanent custody was in 

the best interest of the children. 

{¶24} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), in determining the best interest of a child 

in a permanent custody proceeding, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, 

siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any 

other person who may significantly affect the child; 

(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the 

child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; 

(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been 

in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies 

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

* * * ; 

(d) 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 to the agency; 

(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply 

in relation to the parents and child. * * * *. 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 8 

{¶25} The trial court first found the children were bonded with each other and 

placed in the same foster home. The children and Mother were bonded. Mother attended 

visitation and brought the children food and toys during the visitation. Paternal Uncle 

provided the items for Mother. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). 

{¶26} The children were too young to express their wishes, but the GAL 

recommended the trial court award permanent custody to GCCS. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b). 

{¶27} The children had been in the temporary custody of GCCS since June 22, 

2017. GCCS thoroughly investigated kinship placement, but Mother’s 13 

recommendations were found to be inappropriate. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) and (d). Based 

on Mother’s own allegations to GCCS, Paternal Uncle was not a suitable placement. 

{¶28} The issue in this case is Mother’s drug addiction. GCCS attempted to help 

Mother secure treatment, but Mother was unable to commit to treatment and address her 

drug addiction. The children need legally secure placement. Mother’s drug addiction does 

not permit reunification despite the best efforts of GCCS. 

{¶29} We find no error for the trial court to find it was in the best interest of the 

children to grant the permanent custody motion of GCCS. 

{¶30} Mother’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

 
Guernsey County, Case Nos. 18 CA 39, 18 CA 40 9 

CONCLUSION 

{¶31} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J., 

Wise, John, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J., concur.