[Cite as In re B. Children, 2021-Ohio-935.]

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 24, 2021 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Geoffrey W. Pittman, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job 

and Family Services, 

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Megan Busam, Assistant 

Public Defender, Appellee Guardian ad Litem for the Children, 

Roger W. Kirk, for Appellant Mother, 

James W. Costin, Amicus Curiae, Guardian ad Litem for Mother. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: THE B. CHILDREN. 

 

 

 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-200419 

TRIAL NO. F13-1795Z 

 

 O P I N I O N.

 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 2

WINKLER, Judge. 

{¶1} The mother of C.B., A.B., D.B.1 and D.B.2 appeals the judgment of the 

Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of her children to the 

Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). Mother 

challenges the grant of permanent custody on the ground that it was not in the 

children’s best interest. Mother’s guardian ad litem filed an amicus brief in support 

of mother’s position. The children’s longtime guardian ad litem and HCJFS argue 

that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest, due to mother’s 

failure to understand her need for the treatment of serious mental-health issues that 

will continue to interfere with her ability to provide an appropriate and safe home for 

the children. They request we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment. After careful 

review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supported the juvenile court’s 

decision, and we therefore affirm its judgment. 

Background Facts and Procedure 

{¶2} This immediate matter began in September 2017, when HCJFS filed a 

complaint for neglect and dependency involving all four children. The allegations of 

the 2017 complaint involved unsanitary home conditions, untreated mental-health 

issues, and abusive, threatening behavior by mother towards her children. This 

included asking them, “Who wants to die today.” The agency had raised similar 

concerns about mother’s mental health and abusive behavior on multiple occasions 

since 2013, resulting in the temporary removal of the children from mother’s care. 

{¶3} On September 19, 2017, the court awarded the agency interim custody. 

The agency placed eight-year-old C.B. and seven-year-old A.B. with their maternal 

grandmother, six-year-old D.B.1 with a maternal cousin, and three-year-old D.B.2 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 3 

with a maternal aunt. The court awarded the agency temporary custody of all four 

children in December 2017, after an adjudication of dependency. Mother was 

ordered to provide HCJFS and the children’s guardian ad litem access to her home, 

complete mental-health assessments and follow any recommendations, participate in 

toxicology screenings, obtain and maintain sobriety, obtain and maintain stable 

income and housing, and successfully complete parenting classes. 

{¶4} HCJFS offered mother reunification services and obtained an 

extension of temporary custody to enable reunification. On November 19, 2018, 

after the children had been in agency custody for the statutorily-defined-12-monthsof-a-22-month period, and mother had not made sufficient progress, the agency 

moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody, with a goal of adoption. 

The children’s guardian ad litem filed a report and recommended the grant of 

permanent custody, noting, among other things, the instability caused by mother’s 

reoccurring failures, and that the relative caregivers were licensed to adopt and 

desired to do so. The children, who expressed to their guardian ad litem an interest 

in returning to their mother and an interest in staying with their caregivers as a 

second choice, were appointed an attorney pursuant to In re Williams, 101 Ohio 

St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-1500, 805 N.E.2d 1110. 

{¶5} Although a magistrate had begun a hearing on the permanent-custody 

motion, the subsequent unavailability of the magistrate resulted in a new hearing 

before a visiting judge. That two-day hearing began on January 31, 2020, was 

continued in progress, and concluded on September 9, 2020. The delay was 

necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 4

{¶6} Before the start of the permanent-custody hearing, father executed a 

valid permanent surrender of his rights as parent, consistent with his lack of 

participation in any case plan or services. 

{¶7} The evidence at the hearing on the motion for permanent custody 

showed that mother did not sufficiently comply with or complete the ordered 

services and failed to demonstrate any behavioral change suggesting the insight and 

stability required to warrant reunification with the children, who were doing well 

with their relative caregivers. 

{¶8} Specifically, the evidence, including psychological evaluation reports, 

demonstrated that mother suffers from long-term mental-health issues that interfere 

with her functioning. One evaluator, Dr. Stephen Billman, who testified at the 

permanent-custody hearing, explained his diagnosis of “Unspecified Personality 

Disorder with Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial Features” due to mother’s 

issues with social functioning, manipulative behavior, mood changes, expressions of 

self-importance, and lengthy history of not cooperating with service providers and 

professionals. He had recommended that mother participate in psychotherapy, but 

admitted that she would be difficult to engage and treat due to her presenting with a 

high level of the disorder. 

{¶9} Consistent with Dr. Billman’s assessment, mother made little progress 

in understanding her need for continued intervention and treatment, despite the 

provision of services. Mother blamed her lack of progress in part on a poor 

relationship with her caseworker. But the evidence revealed mother caused the poor 

relationship, which made it impossible for the agency to confirm her housing 

situation and claims of at least five different employers over the relevant period. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 5

Mother even bragged to Dr. Billman about her lack of cooperation, revealing she 

liked being hostile towards caseworkers “to see them fold.” 

{¶10} Although mother did participate in some counseling, she was not 

consistent and did not complete it. Importantly, she did not gain insight into her 

condition or credibly acknowledge her need for on-going therapy. Tellingly, when 

asked if the agency’s concerns about her mental health were valid, she replied, “No.” 

{¶11} Mother completed parenting classes at Beech Acres, but ignored the 

program’s request that she address her mental health before participating. She was 

further assigned a parenting coach, but this coach expressed serious concerns, 

including that mother failed to develop an understanding of the role she played in 

her children being in HCJFS custody and lacked appropriate decision-making skills. 

These concerns were on display at the hearing, as mother suggested that she was 

better equipped to determine the children’s needs than a licensed professional, even 

though she was unaware of their needs due to lack of involvement. 

{¶12} The ongoing HCJFS caseworker testified in January 2020 that mother 

and the children were bonded and mother regularly communicated with them on the 

phone. But mother was not seeing them in person every week despite open 

visitation, and the visitation never progressed beyond the supervised level due to 

mother’s lack of progress. The caseworker testified that the children and relative 

caregivers were well-bonded, too. Further, she relayed that those relative caregivers 

are licensed to adopt, that she had explained to them the differences between legal 

custody and adoption, and that the agency’s decision to request permanent custody 

is consistent with their desires. The caseworker repeated this testimony in 

September 2020. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 6

{¶13} In addition, the caseworker testified that mother tested positive for 

drug use, engaged in repeated irresponsible behaviors such as driving without proper 

licensing, and had been repeatedly formally accused of violent criminal behavior 

involving a “significant other.” Mother testified that she was willing to stop using 

marijuana, but she had not done so despite a court order issued almost three years 

prior. She also downplayed the significance of her legal difficulties and lacked any 

insight as to how they affect her ability to parent and provide a safe and stable home 

for her children. 

{¶14} Upon the conclusion of the testimony, the parties submitted written 

closing arguments. Subsequently, the juvenile court granted HCJFS’s motion and 

issued a decision explaining the judgment. Mother’s sole assignment of error on 

appeal challenges the award of permanent custody on sufficiency- and weight-of-theevidence grounds. 

Analysis 

{¶15} In this case, before the juvenile court could grant the agency’s motion 

for permanent custody, it was required to find by clear and convincing evidence that 

one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) applied and that the grant of 

permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). 

Mother concedes the state proved the 12-of-22-month factor of R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d). Mother contends, however, that the evidence did not support the 

juvenile court’s best-interest finding. We disagree. 

{¶16} In determining the children’s best interest, the juvenile court was 

required to consider the factors delineated in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e), as well as 

“all” other “relevant factors.” 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 7

{¶17} As for the factor focusing on children’s interaction and 

interrelationship with others, the juvenile court determined that the children had no 

bond with their father. Further, the court could not determine the strength of the 

bond with mother because her visitation had not progressed beyond supervised. The 

presence of relatives had always provided a level of safety to the children during the 

visits. Conversely, the court noted the children were bonded with each other, and it 

credited the relative caregivers for allowing the children to “nurture” that bond. 

{¶18} As for the factor that requires consideration of the “wishes” of the 

children, the court found that the children at times had expressed their desire to be 

reunited with mother, but also had expressed a desire to remain with their current 

caregivers. 

{¶19} As for the factor involving the children’s immediate custodial history, 

the court noted that the children had been in the custody of HCJFS since September 

2017, and placed with appropriate, nurturing relative caregivers. 

{¶20} The final statutory factor of particular importance to the court’s bestinterest analysis is the one focusing on the children’s need for a legally secure 

permanent placement and whether that type of placement could be achieved without 

a grant of permanent custody to the agency. The court cited compelling reasons 

weighing for permanent custody to the agency. 

{¶21} First, the court found that the agency had made reasonable efforts for 

reunification and the children could not be returned to either parent within a 

reasonable time. Specifically, with respect to mother, the court found mother had 

been offered a multitude of services that she reluctantly began and ultimately refused 

based on her “resolute belief” that she was not in need of such services. Based on the 

evidence, including mother’s testimony and medical reports, the court noted that 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 8 

“perhaps due to the severity of her mental health issues, [mother] cannot reasonably 

be expected to engage in the kind of long term treatment necessary to stabilize her to 

the point of being able to provide a consistent safe and nurturing environment to the 

children.” 

{¶22} While mother testified that the agency’s concerns about her mental 

health were invalid, she also claimed that she had been prevented from completing 

some provided services because of the restrictions arising because of the Covid-19 

pandemic. The court found the explanation unpersuasive based on the evidence, 

which showed “the long pattern of non-cooperation with services which pre-dates the 

onset of the [2020 pandemic] limitations.” The court’s reasoning is amply supported 

by the record. 

{¶23} Finally the court noted the current plan for the children was adoption 

by their relative caregivers. Mother does not dispute this fact, but contends the 

relative caregivers could serve as the children’s legal custodians without the very 

permanent termination of her parental rights. At this stage of the proceedings, 

however, a reunification with mother was not the “paramount concern.” See In re 

Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 65. The court 

considered mother’s position, but rejected it as the caregivers had not petitioned for 

legal custody and, regardless, considering all the circumstances, permanent custody 

was more “appropriate and in line with the children’s best interest.” Notably, the 

agency had been involved with the family since 2013, and the children’s longtime 

guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to HCJFS as in the children’s 

best interest. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 9

Conclusion 

{¶24} The juvenile court ultimately found in light of all the evidence that an 

award of permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s best interest. In arriving 

at the conclusion, the juvenile court applied the relevant statutory factors and made 

factual findings that were based upon clear and convincing evidence. See In re A.B., 

1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150307 and C-150310, 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 15. This is not a 

case where the juvenile court clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage 

of justice in finding that it was in the best interest of the children to be placed in the 

permanent custody of HCJFS. See id. at ¶ 16. Because the statutory factors were 

met, we hold the juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to HCJFS. 

Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the juvenile court’s 

judgment. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BERGERON, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.