Court Opinion

ID: 9386563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 20:06:43.27426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.318065
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.J., 2023-Ohio-1209.]

                                            COURT OF APPEALS
                                           STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                           JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: J.J.                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                                   :       Hon. Willliam B. Hoffman, J.
                                                   :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                                   :
                                                   :
                                                   :       Case No. 2022 CA 00161
                                                   :
                                                   :
                                                   :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                               Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                       Common Pleas, Family Court Division,
                                                       Case No. 2020JCV01167

JUDGMENT:                                              Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                April 11, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For - Appellee                                         For - Appellant

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH                                 PAUL GRANT
STARK COUNTY JFS                                       209 S. Main Street, 8th Floor
402 2nd St. S.E.                                       Akron, OH 44038
Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as In re J.J., 2023-Ohio-1209.]

Gwin, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant-mother [“Mother”] appeals the November 16, 2022 Judgment

Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division that terminated

her parental rights with respect to her minor child and granted permanent custody of the

child to appellee, Stark County Department of Jobs and Family Services (hereinafter

“SCJFS”).

                                        Facts and Procedural History

        {¶2}     On November 5, 2020, SCJFS filed a complaint alleging the dependency,

neglect, and/or abuse of the child (b. 05.15.2017). Appellant-mother is the biological

mother of the child. On the same day, the trial court held an emergency shelter care

hearing and found that probable cause existed for the involvement of SCJFS, SCJFS had

engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent the need for the removal of the child, and

continued residence of the child with Mother was contrary to the child’s best interest. The

court approved and adopted the pre-adjudicatory orders requested by SCJFS, and

granted temporary custody of the child to SCJFS.

        {¶3}     On February 2, 2021, the trial court found the child to be abused and placed

the child in the temporary custody of SCJFS. The trial court also approved and adopted

the initial case plan, found that SCJFS had made reasonable efforts to finalize the

permanency planning in effect, and compelling reasons existed to preclude a filing of

permanent custody. [Docket Entry No. 44].

        {¶4}     On April 29, 2021, the trial court reviewed the case. The court found that

Mother was working to complete her assessment at Lighthouse. The court further found

that Mother was not employed but she did have a “Section 8 voucher” and was looking
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     3

for independent housing. The court noted that the child was referred to trauma focused

play therapy as a result of disclosing sexual abuse by the Father. Mother’s visitation with

the child was going “O.K.” and was scheduled for every week. It was noted that Mother

brings appropriate supplies to the visits. Mother was attending outpatient treatment at

CommQuest and has completed clean drug screens. Mother was noted to be taking an

independent parenting class. Judgement Entry, filed Apr 29, 2021. [Docket Entry No. 55].

       {¶5}   On July 6, 2021, SCJFS filed a motion for immediate review. [Docket Entry

No. 61]. SCJFS requested that Mother’s visitation be reduced to one visit per month. As

grounds, it was alleged that the child was experiencing extreme emotional distress and

engaging in self-injurious behavior. Id.

       {¶6}   By Judgment Entry filed July 7, 2021, the court reduced Mother’s parenting

time and ordered her to engage in the child's therapy if recommended by her therapist.

[Docket Entry No. 63].

       {¶7}   On August 16, 2021, the Guardian ad Litem [“GAL”] filed a motion for

immediate review. [Docket Entry No. 70]. The motion alleged that the child has continued

to engage in self-harming behavior. The GAL asked the court to order all visits between

the child and Mother be held in a therapeutic setting. Id. By Judgment Entry filed August

19, 2021 the court found that Mother was willing to agree to therapeutic visits and that

any further changes be at the recommendations of the child’s therapists. [Docket Entry

No. 71].

       {¶8}   The court conducted review hearings every 6 months and found SCJFS had

made reasonable efforts to prevent continued removal from the home.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      4

       {¶9}   On March 28, 2022, SCJFS filed a motion seeking permanent custody of

the child. [Docket Entry No. 95].

       {¶10} On July 15, 2022, Mother and Father filed a Motion for Change of Legal

Custody to the Maternal Grandmother.

       {¶11} On November 15, 2022, the trial court heard evidence on the motion

requesting permanent custody of the child and the motion to change legal custody to the

maternal grandmother.

                                    Permanent Custody trial

       {¶12} Caseworker Amy Craig testified that she was assigned to the case on

November 12, 2020. Ms. Craig testified that the original complaint in the case was

filed on November 5, 2020. The original concerns included the sexual abuse of the

child by Father, Mother leaving Ohio with the child and Father despite the sexual

abuse, and Mother not believing the concerns. Ms. Craig testified that the child was

adjudicated abused on February 2, 2021, and placed into the temporary custody of

SCJFS on the same day. Ms. Craig testified that the child remained in the temporary

custody of SCJFS continuously since that day.

       {¶13} Ms. Craig testified that she developed the initial case plan. Mother was

ordered to complete a parenting assessment, follow all recommendations, complete

comprehensive mental health treatment, participate in joint counseling with the child if her

counselor found it appropriate, successfully complete parenting classes, and not engage

in poor relationships.

       {¶14} Ms. Craig testified that Mother did not successfully complete parenting

classes. Mother failed the class because she failed to acknowledge/accept that the child
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                                   5

was abused, lacked appropriate boundaries, and the parenting staff had "grave concerns"

with Mother's ability to safely parent the child in the future.

        {¶15} However, Ms. Craig acknowledged that Mother was instructed by her

attorney to not participate in Goodwill Parenting while criminal charges are pending. T.

at 16. Ms. Craig disputed telling Mother she would never receive custody of the child

back if she did not complete Goodwill Parenting.

        {¶16} Ms. Craig testified that Mother initially participated in joint counseling with

the child; however, it was decreased due to the child engaging in self-harm after the visits.

Ms. Craig testified that the counselling was not benefiting the child, and Mother suggested

that Father should be included in counseling sessions. A judgment entry from Father’s

conviction for felony Child Endangering was admitted into evidence.1

        {¶17} After recommendation by the child's counselor, visitation between Mother

and the child was stopped by the trial court on September 29, 2022. Ms. Craig testified

that Mother married a man during the case who was violent with her, and whom Mother

believed was a perpetrator of sexual abuse. T. at 12; 15.               Ms. Craig testified that the

child would be at risk if Mother regained custody of the child. The marriage was

subsequently annulled.

        {¶18} Ms. Craig testified that she had made exhaustive efforts to help Mother

complete her case plan services. She had multiple meetings with Mother to explain the

status of the case, made several home visits, met with Mother at her office, and offered

        1  Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2021CR0865. The judgment entry notes that
the trial court permitted the state to amend the Rape charge to Endangering Children in violation of R.C.
2919.22(A)(E)(2)(c), a felony of the third degree.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      6

bus passes to Mother. Despite these efforts, Mother did not make significant progress in

her case plan services.

      {¶19} Dr. Aimee Thomas testified for SCJFS. All parties stipulated to Dr. Thomas

being qualified as an expert witness. Dr. Thomas testified that she conducted a parenting

evaluation on Mother. The evaluation was admitted into evidence. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.

      {¶20} Dr. Thomas testified that she was concerned with Mother’s exposure of the

child to inappropriate men.    She was concerned that Mother continued to question

whether the child was sexually abused. Dr. Thomas testified that she was concerned

with Mother’s history of relationships with abusive men.

      {¶21} Dr. Thomas testified that Mother did not appear to have insight into the risk

other people could pose to the child. Mother was also sexually abused as a child under

the care of Maternal Grandmother. Dr. Thomas testified that Mother had symptoms of

post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and dependent personality disorder. Dr.

Thomas recommended Mother engage in weekly individual counseling to address healthy

boundaries, participate in a psychiatric evaluation, successfully complete parenting

classes, and demonstrate the ability to live independently.

      {¶22} Dr. Thomas also recommended Goodwill offer additional support and

assistance due to Mother’s intellectual ability. T. at 28; 29. Dr. Thomas recommended

that Goodwill offers more repetition, more hands-on learning, and assistance with

questions for testing being read to her. Dr. Thomas is not aware if Goodwill followed her

recommendations for additional assistance for Mother. T. at 29-30.

      {¶23} Dr. Thomas expressed concerns regarding Mother's financial dependence

on others for housing and financial support. Mother receives SSI. However, there is
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      7

nothing in the record regarding any services provided to Mother to address any financial

or housing concerns.

       {¶24} Dr. Thomas testified that she believed Mother’s prognosis is "poor'' due to

her history, poor judgment, and poor boundaries.

       {¶25} SCJFS presented testimony regarding the best interest of the child. Ms.

Craig testified that the child does not have any medical or developmental issues. Ms.

Craig testified that the child had significant behavioral issues, had sexually acted out in

her foster home, had been verbally and physically aggressive in her foster home, and had

engaged in self-harming behavior. The child was in treatment to address the issues.

Mother had participated in joint counseling with the child until visitation was suspended

by the trial court, at the recommendation of the child's counselor.

       {¶26} Ms. Craig testified that the child was doing "very well" in her current foster

placement and was growing and making strides. Ms. Craig testified that she had identified

a potential adoptive placement for the child. Ms. Craig testified that the child's counselor

did not believe the child had "real attachment" to Mother.

       {¶27} The child is adoptable. Ms. Craig testified that permanent custody was in

the child's best interest, and that the benefit of permanent custody would outweigh any

detrimental impact of severing the parental bond.         Ms. Craig testified that she had

explored multiple relative placements, all of which were denied for various reasons. One

of the relatives denied was Maternal Grandmother. Ms. Craig testified that she initiated

an ICPC due to Maternal Grandmother residing in Florida2. Maternal Grandmother’s

ICPC was denied by Florida due to her history with children services agencies involving

       2   Interstate Compact for Placement of Children
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      8

losing custody of her own children over twenty years ago. Ms. Craig testified that, once

another state denies an ICPC, SCJFS cannot overturn the denial.

       {¶28} The GAL testified that permanent custody was in the child's best interest.

       {¶29} On November 16, 2022, the trial court issued its findings of fact granting

permanent custody of the child to SCJFS, denying Mother’s motion to change legal

custody of the child to Maternal Grandmother, and terminating the parental rights of

Mother. Specifically, the trial court found that, despite reasonable efforts by SCJFS, the

child could not and should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable amount of time,

the child had been in the temporary custody of SCJFS for 12 or more months in a

consecutive 22-month period, and the grant of permanent custody was in the child's best

interest. The trial court further found that the motion to change legal custody of the child

to Maternal Grandmother was not in the child's best interest.

                                      Assignments of Error

       {¶30} Mother raises two Assignments of Error,

       {¶31} “I.   THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL

RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶32} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING THE PARENT'S

MOTION FOR LEGAL CUSTODY TO MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS.”

                                Standard of Appellate Review

       {¶33} “[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). A parent's interest in the care, custody,
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                        9

and management of his or her child is “fundamental.” Id.; Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S.

745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599(1982). The permanent termination of a parent's

rights has been described as, “* * * the family law equivalent to the death penalty in a

criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45(6th Dist. 1991).

Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law

allows.” Id. An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and convincing

evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

       {¶34} The Ohio Supreme Court has delineated our standard of review as follows,

“clear and convincing evidence” is “[t]he measures or degree of proof that will produce in

the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be

established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the

extent of such certainty as required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It

does not mean clear and unequivocal.” In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-

104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986). In Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118

(1954), the Supreme Court further cautioned,

              The mere number of witnesses, who may support a claim of one or

       the other of the parties to an action, is not to be taken as a basis for resolving

       disputed facts.     The degree of proof required is determined by the

       impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of

       facts, and the character of the testimony itself. Credibility, intelligence,

       freedom from bias or prejudice, opportunity to be informed, the disposition

       to tell the truth or otherwise, and the probability or improbability of the

       statements made, are all tests of testimonial value. Where the evidence is
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                       10

       in conflict, the trier of facts may determine what should be accepted as the

       truth and what should be rejected as false. See Rice v. City of Cleveland,

       114 Ohio St. 299, 58 N.E.2d 768.

161 Ohio St. at 477-478. (Emphasis added). A court of appeals will affirm the trial court's

findings “if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could

have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a

termination of parental rights have been established.”        In re Adkins, 5th Dist. Nos.

2005AP06–0044 and 2005AP07–0049, 2006-Ohio-431, 2006 WL 242557, ¶17.

                        Requirements for Permanent Custody Awards

       {¶35} 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 filing of a motion for permanent custody of a

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

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

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

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

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

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply:

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

       or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      11

       for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, 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, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's

       parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's

       parents;

                      (b) the child is abandoned;

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

       who are able to take permanent custody; or

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

       more public children services agencies or private child 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.

       {¶37} 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, the trial

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

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

the best interest of the child.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                   12

        Temporary Custody for at least 12 out of a consecutive 22-month period-

                                R.C. 2151.414(B) (1) (d).

      {¶38} The “12 of 22” provisions set forth in R.C. 2151.413(D)(1) and R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) balance the importance of reuniting a child with the child’s parents

against the importance of a speedy resolution of the custody of a child. In re C.W., 104

Ohio St.3d 163, 2004–Ohio–6411, 818 N.E.2d 1176, ¶22.           Through the “12 of 22”

provisions in the permanent-custody statutes, the legislature provides parents with 12

months to work toward reunification before an agency can institute a permanent-custody

action asserting R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) grounds. Id.

      {¶39} “Before a public children-services agency or private child-placing agency

can move for permanent custody of a child on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) grounds, the child

must have been in the temporary custody of an agency for at least 12 months of a

consecutive 22-month period.” In re: C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818

N.E.2d 1176 at paragraph one of the syllabus. When calculating this time period, the

Court in C.W. cautioned, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for

permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12-

month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” Id. at 167, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818

N.E.2d at 1180, ¶26.

      {¶40} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) states that, “[f]or the purposes of division (B)(1) of

this section, a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an

agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of

the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from home.”
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     13

       {¶41} Testimony was presented that the child was removed from Mother’s home

on November 5, 2020. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) sixty days from November 5,

2020 would be January 4, 2021. The juvenile court adjudicated the child as an abused

child by Judgment Entry filed February 2, 2021.

       {¶42} Accordingly, the “earlier date” that the child will be deemed to have enter

the temporary custody of SCJFS for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is January 4,

2021. SCJFS filed the Motion for Permanent custody on March 28, 2022, 1 year, 2

months and 25 days after the child is considered to have entered the temporary custody

of SCJFS.

       {¶43} Accordingly, the trial court correctly found that the child had been in the

temporary custody of the SCJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month

period.

       {¶44} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are

alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the motion

for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2007 AP 0041, 2007-

Ohio-5805. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to

support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118,

2008-Ohio-5458.

       {¶45} Because Mother has not challenged the twelve of twenty-two-month finding

as to the child, we would not need to address the merits of Mother’s assignments of error.

However, even if we consider Mother’s arguments the trial court did not err in determining

the child cannot be placed with Mother at this time or within a reasonable time.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                      14

          Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time– R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)

       {¶46} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining the child

cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with

the parents. R.C. 2151.414(E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding

under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should

not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be

placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon

the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one factor

alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a

reasonable time. See In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996–Ohio–182, 661 N.E.2d

738; In re Hurlow, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 98 CA 6, 1997 WL 701328 (Sept. 21, 1998); In re

Butcher, 4th Dist. Athens No. 1470, 1991 WL 62145(Apr. 10, 1991).

       {¶47} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to consider in determining

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

should not be placed with the parents. Specifically, Section (E) provides, in pertinent part,

as follows:

              (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this

       section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the

       Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a

       reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, the court

       shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and

       convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this

       section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                    15

       Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child’s

       parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with

       either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either

       parent:

              (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and

       notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency

       to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child

       to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and

       repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be

       placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have

       substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental

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

       rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to

       the parents for changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and

       maintain parental duties.

                                               ***

              (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

       {¶48} As set forth above, the trial court’s findings are based upon competent

credible evidence. The record includes the recommendation of the guardian ad litem for

the child, and the testimony of the witnesses at trial. The trial judge was in the best

position to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

       {¶49} The juvenile court found that SCJFS had made reasonable efforts to

prevent the removal, to eliminate the continued removal, or to make it possible for the
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                   16

child to return home safely to Mother’s home. The record supports the juvenile court’s

finding that Mother has not shown consistent sustained progress to have the child returned

to her custody.

       {¶50} The testimony presented during the permanent custody trial establishes

that the Mother continues to struggle with exposure of the child to inappropriate men. Dr.

Thomas testified that Mother did not appear to have insight into the risk other people

could pose to the child.

       {¶51} Dr. Thomas testified that Mother has symptoms of post-traumatic stress

disorder, depression, and dependent personality disorder. Dr. Thomas testified that she

believed Mother's prognosis is "poor" due to her history, poor judgment, and poor

boundaries. Mother reported to Dr. Thomas there was DNA evidence to support the

allegations against Father but she continues to question whether Father abused the child

and continued to maintain contact with him and the child in another state.

       {¶52} Dr. Thomas stated that Mother has a verbal IQ of 72, a non-verbal IQ of

77 and her full IQ was 71. Mother is functioning at a verbal level of an eight-year-old

and non-verbal level of an eleven-year-old.      Mother was sexually assaulted at the

age of fourteen by her brother.       Mother was also raised by a mother that was

addicted to drugs and her father was incarcerated.

       {¶53} Caseworker Craig stated the only case plan objective Mother successfully

completed was counseling. The GAL believes the court should grant permanent

custody because of concerns regarding Mother's ability to safely parent the child.

       {¶54} It does not appear that Mother has been able to apply any behavioral

changes that she has attempted to learn. Despite offering numerous services, Mother
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     17

was unable or unwilling to mitigate the concerns that led to the child’s removal. As set

forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there was sufficient and

substantial competent evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems which initially

caused the removal of the child from her home.

        {¶55} In the case of in re: Summerfield, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005CA00139, 2005-

Ohio-5523, this Court found where, despite marginal compliance with some aspects of

the case plan, the exact problems that led to the initial removal remained in existence, a

court does not err in finding the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable

time.

        {¶56} The evidence demonstrated the very little successful efforts Mother had

made on the case plan. On that point, the evidence demonstrates that any improvement

that Mother has made in her life is tentative and, perhaps, temporary, and that she is at

risk of relapse. The trial court found that Mother is not able to be a successful parent to

the child.

        {¶57} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s

determination that the child cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or

should not be placed with Mother.

                                          Reasonable Efforts

        {¶58} Mother further contends the finding that SCJFS made reasonable efforts to

reunify the child with Mother is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

        {¶59} The Supreme Court of Ohio in In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 78, 862 N.E.2d

816, 821(2007) noted,
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     18

             [N]o one section of the Revised Code addresses the concept of

      reasonable efforts. Overall, Ohio’s child-welfare laws are designed to care

      for and protect children, ‘whenever possible, in a family environment,

      separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the

      child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety.’ R.C. 2151. 01(A). To

      that end, various sections of the Revised Code refer to the agency’s duty to

      make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family unit. For example,

      R.C. 2151. 412 requires the agency to prepare and maintain a case plan for

      children in temporary custody with the goal ‘to eliminate with all due speed

      the need for the out-of-home placement so that the child can safely return

      home.’    Under R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b), an agency may not file for

      permanent custody under R.C. 2151. 413(D) - the ‘12 months out of 22 rule’-

      ‘[i]f reasonable efforts to return the child to the child’s home are required

      under section 2151.419’ and the agency has not provided the services

      required by the case plan.

      {¶60} A “reasonable effort” is “* * * an honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and

the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver, 79 Ohio

App.3d 59, 63, 606 N.E.2d 1011(12th Dist. 1992). The issue is not whether there was

anything more the agency could have done, but whether the agency’s case planning and

efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. In re J.D., 3rd

Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-10-34, 2011-Ohio-1458.          The child’s health and safety are

paramount in determining whether reasonable efforts were made. In re R.P., 5th Dist.

Tuscarawas No. 2011-Ohio-5378.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                       19

       {¶61} R.C. 2151.419 requires the trial court to determine whether the agency filing

the complaint for custody “has made reasonable efforts * * * to eliminate the continued

removal of the child from his home, or to make it possible for the child to return home.”

Subsection (B)(1) mandates the trial court to issue written findings of fact setting forth the

reasonable efforts made by the agency, including a brief description of “the relevant

services provided by the agency to the family of the child and why those services did not

prevent the removal of the child from his home or enable the child to return home.”

       {¶62} However, even where a trial court has failed to include in its judgment entry,

the findings contemplated by R.C. 2151.419(B)(1) we have found that the ultimate issue

is the reasonableness of the Department’s efforts, and have concluded those efforts may

be determined from the record.        In the matter of Kell/Bess Children, 5th Dist. No.

97CA0278, 1998 WL 401767(Mar. 23, 1998); Hunt v. Ickes, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No.

2014 AP 08 0032, 2015-Ohio-309, ¶19.

       {¶63} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s

determination that SCJFS efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances

of the case. We find that the record supports that SCJFS was working toward the goal

of reunification. We find no evidence of dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, or

breach of duty on the part of SCJFS.

       {¶64} Having reviewed the record, we find that SCJFS made a good faith effort

to reunify Mother and her child. Furthermore, the record contains clear and convincing

evidence to support the court’s determination that the child could not be placed with

Mother.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     20

       {¶65} We find that the trial court’s determination that Mother had failed to remedy

the issues that caused the initial removal and therefore the child could not be placed with

her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her was based upon competent

credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

       {¶66} We further find the trial court correctly found that the child had been in the

temporary custody of the SCJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month

period.

                                                II.

       {¶67} In her Second Assignment of Error, Mother contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion to have legal custody given to the

maternal grandmother.

                      Legal Custody and the Best Interest of the Child

       {¶68} The award of legal custody is “not as drastic a remedy as permanent

custody.” In re L.D., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-985, 2013-Ohio-3214. This is because

the award of legal custody does not divest parents of their residual rights, privileges, and

responsibilities. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188.

       {¶69} Before awarding legal custody to a non-parent, a trial court must ordinarily

make a finding that each parent is unsuitable. In re L.P., 5th Dist. Muskingum No.

CT2016-0045, 2017-Ohio-52, citing In re Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-7208.

This requirement does not apply, however, in cases involving abuse, neglect, or

dependency. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, “[a] juvenile court adjudication

of abuse, neglect, or dependency is a determination about the care and condition of a

child and implicitly involves a determination of the unsuitability of the child’s custodial
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                    21

and/or noncustodial parents.” In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843

N.E.2d 1188. Thus, “[w]hen a juvenile court adjudicates a child to be abused, neglected,

or dependent, it has no duty to make a separate finding at the dispositional hearing that

a noncustodial parent is unsuitable before awarding legal custody to a nonparent.” Id. In

this case, the child was adjudicated abused. R.C. 2151.353(A) states, in pertinent part,

             If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child,

      the court may make any of the following orders of disposition:

                                           ***

             (3) Award legal custody of the child to either parent or to any other

      person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal

      custody of the child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a

      complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to

      the proceedings * * *.

      {¶70} A trial court “must have wide latitude in considering all the evidence” and a

custody decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Flickinger,

77 Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159, citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 523 N.E.2d

846 (1988). As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility

of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent, and

credible evidence upon which the finder of fact could base its judgment. Cross Truck

Equip. Co. v. The Joseph A. Jeffries Co., 5th Dist. Stark No. CA5758, 1982 WL 2911

(Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent and credible

evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                          22

against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio

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

       {¶71} Unlike in a permanent custody proceeding where a juvenile court’s standard

of review is by clear and convincing evidence, the standard of review in legal custody

proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence.             In re S.D., 5th Dist. Stark Nos.

2013CA0081, 2013CA0082, 2013-Ohio-5752.

       {¶72} Issues relating to the credibility of the 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, 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 as much evidence in the parties’

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

Ohio St.3d 415, 674 N.E.2d 1159.

       {¶73} The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include

a specific test or set of criteria, and a trial court must base its decision on the best interest

of the child. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188; In re

P.S., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2012CA00007, 2012-Ohio-3431. When determining the issue of

legal custody, the trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances. In re D.T.,

5th Dist. Stark No. 2013CA00252, 2014-Ohio-2495. Trial courts should consider all

factors relevant to the best interest of the child. Id. This may include the best interest

factors contained in R.C. 2151.414(D) and/or R.C. 3109.4(F), including: the wishes of

the child (expressed to the court or through the GAL) and the child’s parents; the child’s

interactions and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, and any other person

who may significantly affect the child; the custodial history of the child; the child’s need
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                       23

for a legally secure placement; the child’s adjustment to their home, school, and

community; the mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; and

the person more likely to facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation.

       {¶74} An agency that seeks permanent custody of a child bears the burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the

child’s best interest. In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶

26.

       {¶75} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11), which are referred to in

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), involve a parent’s having been convicted of or pleaded guilty to

specific criminal offenses against the child, the child’s sibling or another child who lived

in the parent’s household; a parent’s withholding medical treatment or food from the child;

a parent’s repeatedly placing the child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or

drug abuse; a parent’s abandoning the child; and a parent’s having had parental rights

as to the child’s sibling involuntarily terminated.

       {¶76} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re

C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does

not require a juvenile court to make specific findings regarding each best-interest factor

listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or to include in its decision or judgment entry a written

discussion of each of those factors. In re: A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102,

184 N.E.3d 1, ¶33.

       {¶77}    A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he

discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                            24

custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the

nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will have on the lives

of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL

1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424

(8th Dist. 1994).

       {¶78} There is no dispute Mother made minimal progress toward completion of

portions of her case plan, but the primary goal is not to simply complete the case plan. In

re T.H., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0009, 2016-Ohio-7312, ¶ 42.                     Even the

successful completion of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification. In re

W.A.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99813, 2014-Ohio-604. Where a parent has participated

in his or her case plan and completed most or all the plan requirements, a trial court

may still properly determine that such parent has not substantially remedied the problems

leading to agency involvement. In the Matter of A.L. and J.L., 5th Dist. Guernsey No.

11 CA 23, 2012-Ohio-481. While it may be in Mother's best interest to complete the

case plan, this is only one factor for a trial court to consider in the best interest of the child,

and, “in legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best

interest of the child.” In the Matter of D.P. and G.P., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2010CA00348,

2011-Ohio-1907.

       {¶79} The issue in this case is whether the preponderance of the evidence

demonstrated it was in the best interest of the child to grant legal custody to the Maternal

Grandmother.

       {¶80} Ms. Craig testified that she had explored multiple relative placements, all of

which were denied for various reasons. Ms. Craig testified that one of the relatives denied
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     25

was Maternal Grandmother. Ms. Craig testified that she initiated an ICPC due to Maternal

Grandmother residing in Florida. Ms. Craig testified that Maternal Grandmother's ICPC

was denied by Florida due to her history with children services agencies losing custody

of her own children over twenty years ago. Ms. Craig testified that, once another state

denies an ICPC, SCJFS cannot overturn the denial.

         {¶81} Maternal grandmother and her spouse provided testimony in support of

Mother’s Motion for Legal custody. The couple have resided in Dade City, Florida in a

mobile home park for people fifty-five and over for the last two years. They have a room

prepared for the child in their mobile home. Both testified they have the resources and

means to care for the child and are able and willing to keep her until she is eighteen. Both

testified that they are aware of the child's mental health issues and are prepared to handle

those.

         {¶82} Both contacted the Agency early in the case and were interested in taking

the child. An ICPC was conducted in Florida; however, they were denied. Caseworker

Craig testified the reason for the denial was their history with the Agency. Maternal

grandmother’s spouse testified regarding the circumstances surrounding her losing

custody of her children. She testified that she made mistakes when she was younger.

She further indicated that she voluntarily relinquished permanent custody and that her

father subsequently adopted her children. She testified that she has gotten help since

this occurred and has changed.

         {¶83} The GAL testified that the timeframe for the prior agency cases were from

1983 to 1998 for Maternal Grandmother and for her spouse from 1991 to 1997.
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                     26

       {¶84} The couple further testified that they have an established relationship with

the child. The Maternal Grandmother testified that she was very involved with the child

during the child’s first year. She indicated that the child and the mother had resided with

them prior to Maternal Grandmother moving to Florida.

       {¶85} The trial court found that,

              Neither [the Maternal Grandmother] nor [her spouse] have

       demonstrated any understanding of [the child’s] significant mental health

       and emotional needs. Their inability to acknowledge the risks that mother

       presents would place [the child] at risk if they were legal custodians.

       {¶86} After reviewing the record and the elements of R.C. 2515.414(D)

regarding the best interest of the child, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse

its discretion when it determined that Mother has failed to remedy the problems that

caused the removal of the child from the home and that it was in the best interest of the

child to grant legal custody to SCJFS. In addition, the Guardian ad Litem recommended

that the permanent custody of the child be granted to the Agency. In short, the juvenile

court’s judgment entry demonstrates that the court satisfied its statutory duty to consider

the best interest factors set out in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e).

       {¶87} Finally, we further find that the trial court’s decision that permanent custody

to SCJFS was in the child’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence

and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

                                           Conclusion

       {¶88} For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s determination that Mother

had failed to remedy the issues that caused the initial removal and therefore the child
Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00161                                                    27

could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her

was based upon competent credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or

sufficiency of the evidence.

       {¶89} We further find the trial court correctly found that the child had been in the

temporary custody of the SCJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month

period.

       {¶90} We further find that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in

overruling Mother’s motion to change legal custody to the Maternal Grandmother.

       {¶91} Finally, we find that the trial court’s decision that permanent custody to

SCJFS was in the child’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence and

is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

       {¶92} Because the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s judgment, we

overrule Appellant-Mother’s two assignments of error, and affirm the decision of the Stark

County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division.

By Gwin, P.J.,

Hoffman, J., and

King, J., concur
[Cite as In re J.J., 2023-Ohio-1209.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO

                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: J.J.                              :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :       JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :       CASE NO. 2022 CA 00161

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

Appellant-Mother’s two assignments of error, and affirm the decision of the Stark County

Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division. Costs to appellant.

                                                        _________________________________
                                                        HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

                                                        _________________________________
                                                        HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

                                                        _________________________________
                                                        HON. ANDREW J. KING