Court Opinion

ID: 9942335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 20:11:20.551537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.218896
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re C.L., 2024-Ohio-616.]

                                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           PREBLE COUNTY

 IN RE:                                           :
                                                          CASE NO. CA2023-03-004
          C.L., et al.                            :
                                                                 OPINION
                                                  :               2/20/2024

                                                  :

                                                  :

                                                  :

             APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                             JUVENILE DIVISION
                         Case Nos. 20213059; 20213060

Ryan Agee, for appellant.

Martin P. Votel, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean Brinkman, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        BYRNE, J.

        {¶1}     The biological father ("Father") of C.L. and R.L ("the children") appeals from

decisions of the Preble County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted

legal custody of the children to their maternal grandparents. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.
                                                                    Preble CA2023-03-004

                         I. Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2}   In 2019, Preble County Job and Family Services, Children Services Division

("the Agency") filed complaints alleging that the children were neglected and dependent.

These complaints sought removal of the children and temporary custody. The Agency's

basis for seeking the children's removal was because Father had been sentenced to a

term of incarceration and the children's mother ("Mother") was using methamphetamine

and not providing for the children's basic needs. In December 2019, the juvenile court

placed the children in the Agency's temporary custody. A year later, in December 2020,

the children were placed with their maternal grandparents, with whom they have remained

since that time.

       {¶3}   In June 2021, the original 2019 complaints were dismissed due to statutory

time constraints, and the Agency filed new complaints, again alleging neglect and

dependency. At the time, the children were ages seven and eight. The new complaints

asked the court to grant the grandparents legal custody of the children or, alternatively, to

grant the grandparents temporary custody.           In early July 2021, the court granted

temporary custody of the children to the grandparents.

       {¶4}   The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing on the 2021 complaints later

that month. Mother appeared pro se and admitted the allegations in the complaint.

Father, who was in prison for drug possession and tampering with evidence, did not

personally attend the hearing but was represented by counsel. Father's attorney, with

Father's permission, also admitted the allegations in the complaint. Based on the parents'

admissions, the court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent.

       {¶5}   The juvenile court scheduled a dispositional hearing in August 2021 to

address the Agency's request to grant legal custody of the children to the grandparents.

The juvenile court arranged for Father, who remained incarcerated, to attend the hearing

                                              -2-
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

via video-conferencing technology. However, the prison notified the court shortly before

the hearing that Father was quarantined with COVID-19 and would not be permitted to

attend the hearing, even remotely.

       {¶6}   At the dispositional hearing, Father's attorney orally moved the court to

continue the hearing to permit Father to attend. The court denied Father's motion and

proceeded to hold the dispositional hearing. Ultimately, the court found that it was in the

children's best interest to be placed in the legal custody of the grandparents.

       {¶7}   Father appealed that decision to this court. On appeal, Father argued that

the juvenile court denied him due process of law by not continuing the dispositional

hearing. We agreed and found that the juvenile court denied Father due process when it

proceeded with the dispositional hearing without his participation or appearance by video

conferencing telephone, or otherwise. In re C.L., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2021-09-008,

2022-Ohio-3596, ¶ 21. We reversed the juvenile court's decision and remanded for a

new dispositional hearing. Id.

                             A. The Dispositional Hearing

       {¶8}   The juvenile court held the new dispositional hearing in February 2023. The

following is a summary of the key testimony presented at that hearing.

                   1. Agency's Case – Jalisa Tackett's Testimony

       {¶9}   Jalisa Tackett testified that she was employed by the Agency and was the

agency worker assigned to the children's cases. Father was incarcerated when the

Agency first received temporary custody of the children. Father was released from

incarceration in September 2021.

       {¶10} Tackett explained that Father was on a case plan with the Agency with the

goal of reunifying with his children. His case plan requirements were to complete drug

and alcohol treatment, to complete a mental health assessment, and to follow all

                                             -3-
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

recommendations of those services.       Father was also required to attend parenting

classes.

       {¶11} Tackett testified that Father had not reported engaging in any drug and

alcohol treatment. Father had also not reported engaging in any mental health services.

The Agency also had no documentation from Father's prison regarding any drug and

alcohol treatment or mental health services. The Agency had no information from Father

as to whether he completed parenting classes.

       {¶12} Tackett reported that Father was currently living at his sister's home in

Ansonia, Ohio. She understood that he was looking for an apartment or other housing

for himself and the children. Father was employed but was currently not working while

he was recovering from injuries sustained in a recent car accident. Father had no driver's

license.

       {¶13} Tackett understood that Father was visiting the children one or two times

per month. Those visits lasted approximately eight hours at a time and were monitored

by a grandparent. No inappropriate behavior was reported. Father had not had any

overnight visits.

       {¶14} The Agency had concerns with the appropriateness of placing the children

with Father at his sister's home.     This was due to an "indicated" (as opposed to

"substantiated") case where his sister was found to have been giving unprescribed

Adderall to underage children. "Indicated" meant that the allegation had been proven but

children services had determined the children were not at future risk. "Substantiated"

meant that the children would be at future risk and would require agency involvement.

The Agency was also concerned with Father's failure to complete any case plan services.

       {¶15} Tackett testified that the grandparents were meeting the children's needs.

The children told her that they were enjoying living with the grandparents. Ultimately, the

                                             -4-
                                                                      Preble CA2023-03-004

Agency was requesting that the juvenile court grant legal custody to the grandparents.

                                  2. Father's Testimony

        {¶16} Father testified that he was working at a Taco Bell, though he was currently

off work recovering from injuries suffered in a car accident. He planned to return to work

later that month.

        {¶17} Father stated he received a monthly payment from social security disability

that, after deductions for child support and insurance, left him with approximately $700 in

monthly income. Father agreed that his disability payment was not enough for him to live

on, which was why he worked at Taco Bell.

        {¶18} As to his compliance with the case plan, Father stated that he participated

in drug and alcohol treatment while incarcerated. He claimed to have three certificates

from this drug and alcohol program. He admitted that he did not provide the certificates

to the Agency and explained that he did not do so because "I was never asked to."

        {¶19} Father also stated that he engaged in mental health services while in prison.

And he stated that he had taken parenting classes prior to going to prison. Father stated

that he never shared this information with the Agency because, "[i]t was never asked of

me."

        {¶20} Father testified that his sister had never been convicted of a crime and had

never had a child removed from her care. As to her home, Father stated that there were

five individuals living there, including himself. The individuals were Father, Father's sister,

the sister's fiancé, and two children.

        {¶21} There were three bedrooms in the home. His sister and her fiancé slept in

one bedroom. The two children each had their own bedroom. Father slept in the living

room.

        {¶22} As to where his children would sleep at the home, Father stated that "[t]hey

                                               -5-
                                                                                Preble CA2023-03-004

would make accommodations" for the two children and indicated his sister's older child

might move out of the home. Father stressed that this was a temporary situation because

he was looking for his own apartment.

        {¶23} As to why he believed it was in the children's best interest for him to regain

custody, Father stated, "[b]ecause I'm their father and I know what's in their best interest."

        {¶24} On cross-examination and also under questioning by the court, Father

stated that the last time he had lived with the children was in October 2019, immediately

prior to going to prison. As to the parenting class he took before his incarceration, he

clarified that this was a "co-parenting" class he took when he and his wife were

contemplating a divorce.

        {¶25} Father claimed that he had been sober since 2014. However, Father also

admitted that he was convicted of possession of drugs in 2019.

        {¶26} Father conceded that he had no driver's license. But he stated he had a

vehicle and had people who could drive him around until he obtains a driver's license.

                            3. Mother's Participation at the Hearing

        {¶27} The children's biological mother informed the court that she would prefer

that the children remain with the grandparents, and that she also wanted the children to

have visits with Father.1 Mother also stated that she had concerns about uprooting the

children from their current arrangement with their grandparents and that she believed the

younger of the two children would have trouble adjusting to a new custody situation.

                               B. The Juvenile Court's Decisions

        {¶28} The juvenile court found that Father had completed none of the objectives

in his case plan. The court stated that it was very concerned with the prospect of removing

1. Mother did not separately appeal the juvenile court's decisions and has not participated in this appeal.
                                                      -6-
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

the children from their stable home with the grandparents and placing them with Father.

The court noted that the children had been living with the grandparents for over two years

due to Mother and Father's actions or inactions.

       {¶29} The court found that Father's current living situation was not ideal, and

questioned whether there was truly room for the children in Father's sister's home.

       {¶30} The court observed that Father had no driver's license and was working part

time. He had a history of drug use and no evidence of having completed any drug abuse

assessment, let alone any drug abuse treatment. Additionally, Father had not utilized any

mental health or parenting services.

       {¶31} The court observed that Father meant well and noted that he had a positive

relationship with his children. The court commented that if Father made positive strides

in the future, the court believed that he could file to regain custody. However, any request

by Father to regain custody was premature at that time.

       {¶32} The court found that the children were connected to the grandparents'

community and were not connected to Father's community. The court found it was

unclear if the children had any relationship with the paternal aunt and her family.

Ultimately, the court found that it was in the children's best interest to be placed in the

legal custody of the grandparents.

       {¶33} Father has appealed, raising two assignments of error.

                                  II. Law and Analysis

                         A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

       {¶34} Father's first assignment of error states:

              THE COURT DENIED FATHER DUE PROCESS AND HIS
              6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL BY APPOINTING
              THE SAME ATTORNEY FOR HIS DISPOSITIONAL
              HEARING AFTER HE REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL.

                                             -7-
                                                                     Preble CA2023-03-004

       {¶35} Father makes two arguments within this assignment of error. First, he

states that the court violated his due process rights under the Sixth Amendment to the

United States Constitution by appointing an attorney to represent him at the dispositional

hearing even though he had objected to that attorney representing him. Second, he

argues that the attorney provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel at the

dispositional hearing.

                           1. Objection to Appointed Attorney

       {¶36} Father states that he objected to the appointment of the attorney who

represented him at the dispositional hearing but that the juvenile court appointed that

attorney notwithstanding his objection. Father does not cite any portion of the record

where he objected to his appointed attorney prior to the dispositional hearing. The state

contends that there is nothing in the record reflecting that Father objected to his appointed

attorney between the October 2022 entry appointing his attorney and the dispositional

hearing. We also found no objection by Father to his appointed attorney in this portion of

the record.

       {¶37} Regardless, even if we assumed that Father had objected to the

appointment of his attorney, an indigent party does not have a right to the counsel of his

or her own choosing.      See State v. Blankenship, 102 Ohio App.3d 534, 558 (12th

Dist.1995), citing Thurston v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St.2d 92, 93 (1965). Accordingly, this

argument is meritless.

                          2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

       {¶38} Next, Father contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by

"failing to object or call witnesses in this case." Father argues that by failing to object or

call witnesses, his attorney "may have neglected to provide critical evidence or arguments

that could have potentially changed the outcome of the case" in his favor. Father also

                                              -8-
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

argues that his attorney was deficient for failing to "engage in meaningful communication"

with him.

       {¶39} Father is entitled to effective assistance of counsel in legal custody

proceedings. Matter of Coffey, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA97-05-021, 1998 WL 24341, *3

(Jan. 26, 1998). The test used to determine whether a parent has been denied effective

assistance of counsel is that set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.

2052 (1984). Id.

       {¶40} To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Father must

establish "(1) deficient performance by counsel, that is, performance falling below an

objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, that is, a reasonable

probability that but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceedings would have been

different." State v. Taylor, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2018-11-021, 2019-Ohio-3437, ¶ 16,

citing Strickland at 687-688, 694 and State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-Ohio-4836,

¶ 62. The failure to demonstrate either prong is fatal to an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim. State v. Kaufhold, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-09-148, 2020-Ohio-3835,

¶ 54. In considering an ineffective assistance claim, an "appellate court must give wide

deference to the strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel in determining

whether counsel's performance was constitutionally ineffective." State v. McLaughlin,

12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2019-02-002, 2020-Ohio-969, ¶ 54.

       {¶41} Father argues that his attorney provided defective performance by

"[n]eglecting to object or call witnesses."    However, Father does not specify what

testimony his attorney should have objected to during the dispositional hearing. Nor does

Father articulate what witnesses an effective attorney would have called to testify. It is

not the duty of this court to search the record for evidence to support Father's argument.

State v. Carpenter, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2022-02-005, 2023-Ohio-2523, ¶ 82.

                                              -9-
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

       {¶42} Regardless, the decision to object or not to object, and the decision of which

witnesses to call to the stand is a matter of a trial strategy and is within the ambit of

professional legal assistance. See State v. Boeddeker, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009-

05-029, 2010-Ohio-106, ¶ 18. Father has not demonstrated that his attorney provided

deficient performance based on the generic argument of "[n]eglecting to object or call

witnesses."

       {¶43} Father also argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to engage him

in "meaningful communication." Father does not cite the portion of the record that

supports this claim.

       {¶44} Father attached to his brief a copy of a handwritten letter that he filed with

the clerk of courts shortly after the juvenile court's dispositional decision and before the

filing of the notice of appeal. In it, he requested a new attorney to file an appeal and

stated that he received "poor representation in between hearings my lawyer had never

made contact with me nor has she returned my calls." He went on to state that his

attorney failed to adequately represent him and that "things was proven that was not

proven." However, Father did not clarify what "things" were not proven. He stated he

had messages between himself and the "CPS [w]orke[r]” but did not explain the import of

those messages. Finally, he stated he believed that the court issued a biased decision

"based on previous supreme court [rulings.]"

       {¶45} Assuming Father's attorney did not contact him or return his calls, Father

does not articulate what he was attempting to communicate with counsel or what

communication should have occurred. Father's other statements in the letter do not shine

any further light on this issue. Father had the opportunity to testify at the dispositional

hearing that he was unable to prepare for the hearing due to a lack of communication by

his attorney, but he did not do so. On this record, we cannot find that Father has

                                             - 10 -
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

demonstrated deficient performance by his attorney.

       {¶46} We also find that Father has not established the second prong of

Strickland—that is, prejudice, or a changed outcome. As stated above, Father failed to

specify what testimony his attorney should have objected to, what witnesses should have

appeared on his behalf at trial, and what communication should have occurred with his

appointed attorney. Based on the lack of any evidence in the record supporting these

claims, it would be entirely speculative for this court to find that the outcome of the

proceedings would have changed.         Newbauer v. Bertrand, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2002-09-074, 2003-Ohio-5109, ¶ 25 (overruling an argument that an attorney was

ineffective for failing to introduce documentary evidence where the record did not contain

the evidence, based on its "purely speculative" nature).

       {¶47} Father's first assignment of error is meritless and is overruled.

                               B. Legal Custody Decision

       {¶48} Father's second assignment of error states:

              THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING
              LEGAL CUSTODY AS IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE
              CHILDREN'S BEST INTEREST.

       {¶49} Father argues that the court abused its discretion in granting legal custody

to the grandparents. Father argues that the court ignored that he completed his case

plan requirements, had "regular" contact with his children after his release from prison,

and that he was living with his sister, "who had space for his children in her home."

            1. Applicable Law: Legal Custody and Best Interest Factors

       {¶50} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), if a child is adjudicated an abused,

neglected, or dependent child, the juvenile court may award legal custody of a child "to

either parent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion

requesting legal custody of the child * * *." Legal custody may be awarded to a nonparent

                                             - 11 -
                                                                     Preble CA2023-03-004

upon a demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that granting legal custody to

the nonparent is in the child's best interest. In re L.C., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-08-

086, 2020-Ohio-4629, ¶ 14. A preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is of a

greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is in opposition to it. In re

K.M., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-015, 2019-Ohio-1833, ¶ 37.

       {¶51} R.C. 2151.353(A) does not independently set forth factors that a court must

consider in determining the child's best interests in a request for legal custody. In re F.B.,

12th Dist. Brown No. CA2021-03-002, 2022-Ohio-499, ¶ 43. "In determining the best

interests of the child, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors * * *." In re

A.M.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-12-159, 2022-Ohio-2913, ¶ 18. Such factors

include but are not limited to (1) the wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's

care; (2) the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the juvenile court; (3) the

child's interaction and interrelationships with the child's parents, siblings, and any other

person who may significantly affect the child's best interest; (4) the child's adjustment to

home, school, and community; and (5) the mental and physical health of all persons

involved. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a) through (e). Accord In re L.C. at ¶ 15.

       {¶52} As the paramount concern is the best interest of the child, the court "should

consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the best interest of the child." In re

S.L., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-07-137 thru CA2012-07-142 and CA2012-07-147

thru CA2012-07-149, 2013-Ohio-781, ¶ 54.

                                  2. Standard of Review

       {¶53} The juvenile court enjoys broad discretion in custody proceedings. In re

L.W., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2020-12-019, 2021-Ohio-2461, ¶ 31. As a result, "[t]his

court reviews the juvenile court's custody determination for an abuse of discretion." In re

A.S., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-11-074, 2023-Ohio-1607, ¶ 19, citing In re S.K., 12th

                                              - 12 -
                                                                     Preble CA2023-03-004

Dist. Butler No. CA2013-06-108, 2014-Ohio-563, ¶ 12. "An abuse of discretion implies

that the court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." In re A.S. at ¶

19, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). The discretion that a

juvenile court enjoys in custody matters "'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 J.M., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-12-148, 2009-

Ohio-4824, ¶ 17, quoting Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). A reviewing court

must not substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court when applying the abuse of

discretion standard. In re J.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-108, 2020-Ohio-322, ¶

23.

                                          3. Analysis

       {¶54} Upon review of the record, we do not find that Father has demonstrated that

the juvenile court abused its discretion by determining it was in the children's best interest

to grant legal custody to their grandparents. The record reflects that as of the date of the

dispositional hearing, the children had been living with their grandparents for over two

years. The grandparents were providing for the children's basic needs and the children

enjoyed living with their grandparents.

       {¶55} Father did not see the children during his period of incarceration between

2019 and 2021. Father was released from incarceration in September 2021 and the

relevant dispositional hearing occurred in February 2023, or approximately 17 months

after his release. During that time, Father inexplicably failed to complete any aspect of

his case plan.

       {¶56} Father argues that the court ignored that he in fact completed his case plan

requirements of drug and alcohol treatment, a mental health assessment, and parenting

classes. However, Father's assertion that he completed drug and alcohol treatment and

                                              - 13 -
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

a mental health assessment was based solely on his testimony that he completed these

services in prison. He provided neither the court nor the Agency with any documentary

evidence to support these assertions, despite claiming to have "certificates" showing his

completion. The court specifically noted that Father had a drug history, and yet had

shown no evidence of drug treatment.

       {¶57} Father also stated that he completed the parenting class requirement of his

case plan, but this was a disingenuous claim. Father later clarified that this parenting

class occurred prior to the children's removal and was for "co-parenting" when Father was

contemplating a divorce. Father's testimony regarding allegedly completing his case plan

requirements was not credible.

       {¶58} After his release from incarceration, Father saw the children in visits that

were monitored by the grandparents. Those visits went well. However, Father only visited

with the children once or twice a month. Father claimed that these occasional visits were

all his schedule could afford him. But Father also admitted that, more recently, he had

not been working and his only other obligation was a one-hour a day, twice a week

physical therapy session. Father's testimony on this subject was not credible.

       {¶59} Father did not demonstrate that he had an appropriate and stable housing

situation prepared for the children. He was living with his sister and three other people in

a home with three bedrooms, all of which were occupied. Father himself was sleeping in

the living room. Father vaguely discussed making "accommodations" for his two children.

But as found by the juvenile court, it did not appear realistic that there was room for the

children. Father claimed to be searching for an apartment, but he offered no other

evidence to suggest that he would be moving out of his sister's home and into new,

appropriate housing any time soon.

       {¶60} In sum, by the time of the relevant disposition hearing, Father had been out

                                             - 14 -
                                                                              Preble CA2023-03-004

of prison for approximately 17 months yet during that time he failed to take any meaningful

steps towards completing his agency case plan or acquiring suitable housing. Father's

lackadaisical attitude towards reunifying is underscored by his testimony that he did not

provide the agency with verification of his progress on the case plan because "I was never

asked to." It appears, unfortunately, that Father was satisfied with the status quo of the

grandparents caring for the children while he made occasional visits.

        {¶61} Under these circumstances, we do not find that the juvenile court abused

its discretion in granting legal custody of the children to their grandparents. The children

deserve a level of permanency and stability in their life, and the juvenile court's decision

affords them that stability. The record reflects that the juvenile court's decision was in the

children's best interest under the totality of the circumstances. In re S.L., 2013-Ohio-781

at ¶ 54.2

        {¶62} We also note that this case involves a grant of legal custody, not a grant of

permanent custody. "Unlike a grant of permanent custody, an award of legal custody

does not terminate the parent-child relationship." In re A.M.W., 2022-Ohio-2913 at ¶ 16.

Though legal custody of the children has been granted to the grandparents, Father retains

his residual parental rights and responsibilities, and this includes visitation rights and a

duty of support. Id. There was testimony that the grandparents permitted Father to visit

with the children so long as both their schedules allowed it and there is nothing in the

record to suggest that visitation would be limited in the future.

2. Father argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting legal custody and presented no
argument referring to the manifest weight of the evidence in the body of his second assignment of error. In
the conclusion section of his brief, Father requested that we remand this matter to the juvenile court
"consistent with a ruling that said decision runs counter to the manifest weight of the evidence." However,
in the same conclusion, Father referred to the juvenile court's decision to grant "permanent custody to the
Agency," rather than legal custody to the grandparents, which is the issue in this appeal. This error leads
us to believe that the language used here was boilerplate and Father did not intend to present a manifest
weight argument. Regardless, Father did not raise a manifest weight of the evidence challenge within his
assignment of error and we therefore do not address the manifest weight of the evidence. See App.R.
12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7).
                                                    - 15 -
                                                                   Preble CA2023-03-004

       {¶63} In any event, the grant of legal custody to grandparents was not as drastic

of a remedy as a grant of permanent custody and Father can continue to work towards

reunification. As the juvenile court noted, if Father decides he is ready to make progress

on reunifying, he may apply for custody of the children in the future. We of course express

no opinion at this time on whether that may be appropriate when and if he makes such a

request.

                                     III. Conclusion

       {¶64} For the foregoing reasons we overrule both of Father's assignments of error.

       {¶65} Judgment affirmed.

       HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

                                            - 16 -