Court Opinion

ID: 9387725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 19:06:35.463053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.093574
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.C., 2023-Ohio-1263.]

                                             COURT OF APPEALS
                                        TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                         FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:                                :        JUDGES:
                                                 :        Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        J.C.                                     :        Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
        J.C.                                     :        Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
        C.C.                                     :
                                                 :        Case No. 2022 AP 11 0044
                                                 :        2022 AP 11 0045
                                                 :        2022 AP 11 0046
                                                 :        2022 AP 11 0047
                                                 :        2022 AP 11 0048
                                                 :        2022 AP 11 0049
                                                 :
                                                 :        OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                                  Appeal from the Tuscarawas County
                                                          Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
                                                          Division, Case No. 20JN00324

JUDGMENT:                                                 Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                         April 17, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                    For Defendant-Appellant Korenna Lint

LISA VITALE ARNOLD                                        NICOLAS DOUGHTY
Tuscarawas County Job and Family                          401 Tuscarawas Street West, Suite 201
Services                                                  Canton, Ohio 44702
389 16th Street SW
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663                              For Appellant Jack Lint and Lucy Lint

Guardian ad Litem                                         DAN GUINN
                                                          Guinn Law Firm, LLC
GERRITT DENHEIJER                                         232 West 3rd Street, Suite 312
222 West Main Street                                      Dover, Ohio 44622
Ravenna, Ohio 44266
                                                          For Appellee Joshua Cameron

                                                          LISA CALDWELL
                                                          203 Fair Avenue NE
                                                          New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                    2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The Mother and Great-grandparents of J.C., J.C. and C.C. appeal the

decision of the Tuscarawas Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting

permanent custody of the children to appellee, Tuscarawas County Job and Family

Services. This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered in

compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

                       STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   This case began with a report in December 2020 that appellant Mother had

recently given birth to C.C. and that testing of the infant’s meconium reflected high levels

of methamphetamine. This discovery was reported to Tuscarawas County Job and Family

Services (TCJFS) who promptly began an investigation and discovered that the parents

tested positive for methamphetamines as well. The infant and two siblings, aged 4 and 6

at the time, were placed with their Great-grandparents under a voluntary safety

agreement and a case plan was drafted and approved. The case plan contained

obligations for the Parents and Great-grandparents.

       {¶3}   TCJFS grew concerned about the Great-grandparents ability to care for the

children and willingness to comply with the case plan. TCJFS moved to modify the

placement, planning to remove the children from the Great-grandparents and place them

in foster care absent locating another suitable and willing relative placement. The motion

was heard on November 4, 2021 and the court granted the motion. During the hearing,

TCJFS explained that suitable relatives were willing and able to accept the children, but

that the background checks had not been complete. The proposed relatives were present

at the hearing and the trial court placed them under oath, questioned them about their
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                    3
criminal history and ordered that the children be placed with them pending the resolution

of the efforts to reunify the children with their parents.

       {¶4}   Though the relatives were willing to have the children placed with them, they

discovered that these children needed more attention than they had the ability to provide

and asked that they be placed elsewhere. TCJFS had consistently invited the parents to

provide the names of other relatives that might be willing to assist, but none were found

and the children were placed in the temporary custody of TCJFS. (Judgment Entry, March

14, 2022).

       {¶5}   While the children were outside of the home, the parents had the

opportunity to focus on the requirements of the case plan and to resolve the issues that

caused the removal of the children from the home, but the record reflects they made little

progress, particularly with regard to maintaining their sobriety. TCJFS concluded that the

parents had not made sufficient progress toward curing the issues identified in the case

plan and filed a motion for permanent custody on May 23, 2022. After that motion was

filed the Great-grandparents filed a motion for legal custody May 25, 2022, seeking to

have the children placed in their home.

       {¶6}   After the children were removed, and before TCJFS filed the motion for

permanent custody, Mother gave birth to another child. As she had been unable to resolve

her drug habit and consistently tested positive for illegal substances, this child was also

removed from her custody. That child’s placement is not addressed in this case.

       {¶7}   Also, during this period, it was determined that the father of J.C. and J.C.

was not the father of C.C. as revealed by a DNA test. Mother initially insisted he was the

father, but conceded that another may be the father during a conversation with a case

worker at a court hearing. The putative father was contacted, but he declined to become
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                     4
involved and refused to appear for a DNA test, so paternity of C.C. was undetermined at

the time of the permanent custody hearing.

       {¶8}   At the permanent custody hearing, TCJFS offered the testimony of a

psychologist, a counselor, the case worker and the guardian ad litem. The evidence

supported a conclusion that the parents consistently tested positive for use of illegal drugs

during the pendency of the case and had not demonstrated material progress in

maintaining sobriety. The testimony further demonstrated that the parents contact with

the children had been limited, in part due to their inability to maintain sobriety, and that

they made little effort to see or have any contact with the children.

       {¶9}   The parents offered no evidence or testimony at the permanent custody

hearing, but counsel for Mother did support the Great-grandparents’ motion for legal

custody.

       {¶10} The Great-grandfather testified in support of his motion for legal custody,

confirming that he and his wife believed that placement of the children with them was in

the child’s best interest. He agreed that his granddaughter’s drug habit made her

unsuitable to care for the children, but struggled to explain why he permitted his

granddaughter to take a newborn home without insuring that she was no longer using

drugs. He claimed that he could tell when she was under the influence, but did not appear

confident that he would be able to act on that knowledge.

       {¶11} TCJFS’s concerns regarding Great-grandparents ability to care for the

children was explored at the hearing that resulted in removal of the children from their

care in November 2021. Great-grandfather is seventy-one years old and has had both

knees replaced, causing him discomfort during cold weather. His wife is sixty-five and

though both claim to be in good health, the record shows that caring for three children
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                     5
under the age of six may present a serious challenge to them. The children were removed

from their care in 2021 in part due to concerns that Great-grandparents were unable to

match the children’s energy and closely supervise them. The case worker testified that

during her visit to the home while the children were placed with the Great-grandparents,

J.C., four years old at the time, darted from the home without Great-grandmother noticing.

The case worker also noted that the children were very active in the home and that one

of the children climbed and jumped from a dresser. The youngest child, placed in the

home as an infant, was left unattended on a bed rather than in a more secure crib.

       {¶12} The case plan required Great-grandparents to complete a parenting

program, obtain a fetal alcohol syndrome test for one of the children and an evaluation of

the youngest child by the Help Me Grow Program. The Great-grandparents completed

the parenting program, taking much more time than typically allotted, but failed the written

test at the end of the program. They did not see that the fetal alcohol syndrome or Help

Me Grow assessments were completed.

       {¶13} The concern about the ability of the Great-grandparents to care for the

children was aggravated by their belief that the children should be permitted to visit their

mother despite her unabated drug habit. While they consistently stated they did not and

would not permit contact, the record shows that they disagreed with that rule. These

issues lead to the Court removing the children from their custody in November 2021.

       {¶14} The Great-grandparents expressed their continued interest in obtaining

custody of the children during the permanent custody hearing, but provided no evidence

that their understanding of the needs and challenges of the children had changed or that

they had invested any time preparing for the placement. Instead they relied upon their
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                    6
belief that the children would be devastated by their separation and that the trial court’s

decision taking the children from them in the past was based upon faulty evidence.

         {¶15} The trial court granted the motion for permanent custody and denied the

motion for legal custody. The Mother appealed and submitted one assignment of error:

         {¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS

IN THE MINOR CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT

OF THE EVIDENCE.”

         {¶17} The Great-grandparents also appealed and offered one assignment of

error:

         {¶18} “I. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE APPELLANTS

SHOULD NOT BE NAMED THE LEGAL CUSTODIANS OF THE CHILD.”

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

         {¶19} Mother is appealing the trial court’s decision to grant the motion for

permanent custody. The Great-grandparents are appealing the trial court’s dismissal of

their motion for legal custody. For that reason, we consider the standard of review

applicable to both permanent custody and legal custody.

                                 PERMANENT CUSTODY

         {¶20} As to our standard of review, generally we review the trial court’s decision

in this context for abuse of discretion. We would examine the entire record and determine

whether there is sufficient competent and credible evidence to support the judgment

rendered by the trial court. Seasons Coal Company v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80,

461 N.E.2d 1273 (1978). Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952).

The trial court must resolve disputed issues of fact and weigh the testimony and credibility

of the witnesses. Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21, 23, 550 N.E.2d 178 (1990). We
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                        7
would defer to the trial court's discretion because the trial court had the opportunity to

observe the witnesses and parties in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony in

a way a reviewing court cannot.

                  BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY

       {¶21} “[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

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.

       {¶22} An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and convincing

evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). The Ohio Supreme Court has defined “clear and

convincing evidence” as “[t]he measure 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).

       {¶23} 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
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                      8
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.

       {¶24} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) 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

       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
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                          9
      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.

      {¶25} 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. The statutory best interest test is set out in R.C.

2151.414(D)(1):

             In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant

      to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of

      section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code,

      the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the

      following:

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

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

      other person who may significantly affect the child;

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

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

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

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

      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
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                          10
       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;

       (d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether

       that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent

       custody to the agency;

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

       in relation to the parents and child.

                                    LEGAL CUSTODY

       {¶26} Unlike in a permanent custody proceeding where a juvenile court's standard

of review is by clear and convincing evidence, the court’s 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, ¶ 32; In re A.C., 12th Dist. No. CA2006–

12–105, 2007–Ohio–3350 at ¶ 14; In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445, 455, 751 N.E.2d 552

(7th Dist.2001).

       {¶27} The statutes regarding an award of legal custody do 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 and all factors

relevant to the best interest of the child. In re D.T., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2013CA00252,

2014-Ohio-2495. “The statutory best interest test designed for the permanent custody
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                     11
situation may provide some ‘guidance’ for trial courts making legal custody decisions.” In

re A.F., 9th Dist. No. 24317, 2009–Ohio–333 at ¶ 7, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. No. 22954,

2006–Ohio–4468 at ¶ 17; In re S.D. 5th Dist. Stark Nos. 2013CA0081, 2013CA0082,

2013–Ohio–5752, ¶ 33.

       {¶28} We review the trial court’s award of legal custody for an abuse of discretion

and recognize that a trial court has broad discretion in proceedings involving the care and

custody of children. In re R.D.J., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 12 CAF 07 0046, 2013–Ohio–

1999, ¶ 29, quoting In re Gales, 10th Dist. No. 03AP–445, 2003–Ohio–6309; In re Nice,

141 Ohio App.3d 445, 455, 2001–Ohio–3214, 751 N.E.2d 552; In re Mullen, 129 Ohio

St.3d 417, 2011–Ohio–3361, ¶ 14. Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of

law or judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court's decision was unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶29} The trial court resolved two motions, a motion for legal custody, filed by the

Great-grandparents of the children, and a motion for permanent custody, filed by the

Tuscarawas County Department of County Children’s’ Services. Both dispositions require

consideration of the children’s best interest, though with different evidentiary standards.

Before granting legal custody, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance

of the evidence supports that result. Permanent custody, being a more drastic resolution

requires the trial court to find clear and convincing evidence in support of the disposition.

       {¶30} And, as noted above, we review the trial court’s decision for abuse of

discretion.

       {¶31} Mother submitted an assignment of error complaining that “[t]he trial court's

finding that permanent custody was in the minor child's best interests was against the
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                        12
manifest weight of the evidence” but not because she had made sufficient progress on

her case plan so that the issues that caused removal of the child from the home had been

resolved. She did not present any evidence at the hearing on the motion for permanent

custody to refute TCJFS’s contention that she had made little progress in that regard.

Most significantly, the record supported a conclusion that Mother continued to use

amphetamines and methamphetamines without any evidence of material progress toward

becoming sober. Mother is not contending that the children should be returned to her, but

that “[i]t is in the best interest of the children to remain within the family environment under

the care of the [Great-grandparents].” (Appellant’s Brief, p. 4). Mother’s counsel

mentioned that she was in support of the Great-grandparents’ motion for legal custody at

the hearing on that motion and she repeating that position in her appeal of the trial court’s

decision.

          {¶32} The Great-grandparents assignment of error likewise states that “[t]he court

erred in determining that the appellants should not be named the legal custodians of the

child.”

          {¶33} Our review is guided by precedent that makes clear that a trial court is not

required to consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to

an agency. In re Zoms, Franklin App. No. 02AP–1297, 2003–Ohio–5664, ¶ 28; In re

Turner, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006CA00062, 2006–Ohio–4906, ¶ 35; In re Perry, 4th Dist.

Vinton Nos. 06 CA 648, 06 CA 649, 2006–Ohio–6128, ¶ 62. Relatives seeking custody

of a child are not afforded the same presumptive legal rights that a parent receives. Id. A

trial court does not even need to find by clear and convincing evidence that a grandparent

is not a suitable placement option. In re A.D., Cuyahoga App. No. 85648, 2005–Ohio–

5441, ¶ 12. Instead, it is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether to place
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                       13
children with a relative, such as grandmother. In re Patterson, 134 Ohio App.3d 119, 129–

130, 730 N.E.2d 439(9th Dist.1999); In re Poke, 4th Dist. Lawrence App. No. 05CA15,

2005–Ohio–5226. We will reverse such a decision only upon an abuse of that discretion.

The term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies

that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v.

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

       {¶34} The willingness of a relative to care for a child does not alter the statutory

factors to be considered in granting permanent custody. In re Keaton; In re Dyal; In re

Jefferson (Oct. 25, 2000), Summit App. No. 20092. The child's best interests are served

by the child being placed in a permanent situation which fosters growth, stability, and

security. In re Adoption of Ridenour (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 319, 324, 574 N.E.2d 1055.

Accordingly, a court is not required to favor a relative if, after considering all the factors,

it is in the child's best interest for the agency to be granted permanent custody. In re

Keaton; In re P.P., Montgomery App. No. 19582, 2003–Ohio–1051.

       {¶35} As the Ohio Supreme Court has instructed, in deciding what is in a child's

best interests, R.C. 2151.414 does not make the availability of a relative placement an

all-controlling factor; the statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more

heavily than other factors. In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006–Ohio–5513, 857

N.E.2d 532, ¶ 63.

       {¶36} The Appellants do not contest the trial court’s findings that the children

“cannot and should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time” and that

“[t]he evidence supports a finding that despite diligent, reasonable efforts and planning

by the Tuscarawas County Job and Family Services to remedy the problems which

caused removal of the children, said parents have failed continually and repeatedly to
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                      14
substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.” Judgment Entry, Oct 13, 2022, p.

7. The only issue under review is what disposition served the best interest of the children.

       {¶37} Appellants point to the close relationship between the children and the

Great-grandparents in support of their contention that they should receive legal custody.

Great-grandfather testified in support of his motion for legal custody and focused upon

refuting the trial court’s November 2021 decision to remove the children from their custody

and place them with an alternative family member, claiming that they did what was asked

of them, appropriately cared for the children and then blamed the caseworker for not

providing additional support. The trial court did not accept his explanation for their prior

failings and found that:

       31. On November 4, 2021, the children were removed from the [Great-

       grandparents’] home and placed with other family members.

       32. The [Great-grandparents] reported multiple times that Mother should be

       permitted to visit with the children.

       33. Since the children were removed from the [Great-grandparents’] home,

       the children's behaviors have improved.

       34. Concern's with the [Great-grandparents] include:

              a.     Lack of supervision, children are young, didn't follow through

              with making appointments for the children while the children were in

              the [Great-grandparents’] custody.

              b.     The [Great-grandparents] did not take [C.C.] to Help Me Grow

              appointment. [C.C.] did not receive needed vaccinations while in the

              [Great-grandparents’] care.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                              15
              c.      The [Great-grandparents] did not get [J.C.] a fetal alcohol

              syndrome (FAS) assessment.

Judgment Entry, Oct. 13, 2022.

       {¶38} The November 2021 transcript of the hearing on the removal of the children

from the Great-grandparents’ home provides a foundation for the findings of the trial court

in the 2022 permanent custody hearing:

              But what, what concerns me here is, Help Me Grow has been there

       since day one, that's been a requirement, and for the two of you to say that

       we just didn't do it because we just didn't think we had to, your, your

       testimony was, quite frankly, inconsistent, and not believable. You know, it

       was well, we were gonna do it, we initially waited, and then I felt that it

       wouldn't benefit the child. That wasn't your call to make, folks, that was my

       call, and I made that call at the very beginning of the case.

Transcript, Nov. 4, 2021, p. 103, line 21 to p. 104, line 5.

              A fetal alcohol syndrome assessment, again, not your call. If there is

       a medical expert, a doctor, that says this is a referral for the child, the case

       plan is clear that that's required. You have to follow the assessments. And

       for you to come in today, and even in your testimony, be so reluctant that

       you are actually going to do it, I guess, I mean, your, your testimony, at

       some point was that you are willing to do the services if they can be done

       locally. Well, what the heck does that have to do with the children's best

       interest? Whether it's locally, or if it's out of town, if the children need it, the

       children need it, and that's what we need the person that's providing the
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                       16
       care to these children to do, whatever is necessary for these children's best

       interests.

Id. at p. 104, lines 8-20.

       {¶39} The trial court further found that it was “not convinced that the two of you

are going to follow through with, with what's being asked, and what's being required” and

that “[f]or whatever reason, that the two of you have chosen, rather than the paths of least

resistance, just to do whatever you thought was best for the children, and that's not how

it works in a Job and Family Services case.” Id. at p. 105, lines 3-5; p. 106, lines 4-7.

       {¶40} The trial court was also concerned that the Great-grandparents would

encourage contact between the children and their Mother finding that “The [Great-

grandparents] reported multiple times that Mother should be permitted to visit with the

children.” Judgment Entry, p. 5, ⁋ 32. This concern arose from the fact that Mother was

unable to maintain her sobriety and persistently tested positive for consumption of

amphetamines and methamphetamines and had not been permitted to visit the children

as a result. Great-grandfather acknowledged that the Mother suffered from a drug

addiction but conceded that he was not always able to determine whether she was under

the influence. Further, Mother gave birth to a fourth child and took that baby to her home

and not only was Great-grandfather not concerned about the safety of the child being

cared for by a drug addict, he “didn’t even think about it.” Transcript, Dec. 19, 2022, p.

185, line 4.

       {¶41} Great-grandparents did not think to seek legal custody of the children until

TCJFS filed the motion for permanent custody, presumably content with their monthly

visitation with the children. While the motion was appropriately filed and the Revised Code

only requires such a motion to be filed prior to the dispositional hearing, we find that the
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                     17
timing of this motion supports the trial court’s concern that the Great-grandparents will

follow their inclination to allow the children contact with their Mother regardless of her

sobriety. And, while this Court and the trial court recognize that there is a bond between

the Great-grandparents and the children, the timing of the motion can be viewed as

serving their concerns rather than the best interest of the children.

       {¶42} If the Great-grandparents believed that the best interests of the children

would be served by placing legal custody with them, it would be logical for them to take

steps to prepare for the return of the children and pursue legal custody prior to the filing

of the motion for permanent custody. During the hearing on the removal of the children

from their home, the discharge report from the Goodwill In-Home Parenting Program

recommended that they attend counseling, but they decided to forgo that opportunity and

there is no evidence they fulfilled that requirement before the seeking legal custody. Id.

at p. 176 line 18 to p. 177 line 1. And the record could support a conclusion that their

motion was not motivated by their concern for the best interest of the children, but by the

realization that the parents had not resolved the problems that caused the removal of the

children from the home, that permanent custody would most likely be granted and that

they would lose contact with the children.

       {¶43} The trial court issued a lengthy entry and we find that it considered all the

relevant evidence to determine what disposition was in the best interest of the children.

The GAL spoke on behalf of the children, recommending the grant of permanent custody

for these children who were too young to form an express their own opinions. The trial

court also acknowledge the relationship between the children and the Great-

grandparents, but still concluded that permanent custody best served the children’s

interest by providing a final resolution fostering growth, stability and security.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 11 0045-0049                                   18
       {¶44} We have reviewed the record and find trial court did not abuse its discretion

by finding that the best interest of the children was served by granting permanent custody

to TCJFS. The assignments of error of Mother and Great-grandparents are denied.

       {¶45} The decision of the Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile

Division, is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.
[Cite as In re J.C., 2023-Ohio-1263.]