Court Opinion

ID: 9401274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 17:09:31.881413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.656919
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re N.C., 2023-Ohio-1942.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 MAHONING COUNTY

                                        IN THE MATTERS OF:

                                   N.C., T.C., T.C., I.C., M.C.,

                           ALLEGED DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 23 MA 0047

                               Juvenile Appeal from the
           Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Mahoning County, Ohio
               Case Nos. 2018 JC 01067, 2018 JC 01068, 2018 JC 01069,
                           2018 JC 01070, 2019 JC 00230

                                          BEFORE:
                 David A. D’Apolito, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                            JUDGMENT:
                                              Affirmed.

 Atty. Rhonda G. Santha, 6401 State Route 534, West Farmington, Ohio 44491, for
 Appellant and

 Atty. Kristie M. Weibling, Mahoning County Children Services, 222 West Federal Street,
 4th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Appellee (No Brief Filed).

                                         Dated: June 12, 2023
                                                                                                            –2–

    D’Apolito, P.J.
         {¶1}    Appellant, B.C. (“Mother”), appeals from the March 30, 2023 judgment of
the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental
rights and granting permanent custody of two of her minor children, N.C. (d.o.b. 7/2/2014)
and M.C. (d.o.b. 2/20/2019) (together “minor children”), to Appellee, Mahoning County
Children Services (“Agency”), following a hearing.1                    On appeal, Mother asserts the
juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody of the minor children to Agency.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

                              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2}    On September 6, 2018, Agency filed a complaint for temporary legal
custody alleging that N.C. was dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C). On February 25, 2019,
Agency filed a complaint for temporary legal custody alleging that M.C. was dependent
under R.C. 2151.04(C). The juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for the
minor children and appointed counsel and a GAL for Mother.
         {¶3}    Shelter care hearings were held. The safety of the minor children was an
issue due to extensive domestic violence in the household, unsafe home conditions
(mold, broken windows, no utilities), and Mother’s mental health. At the time of M.C.’s
birth, Mother tested positive for marijuana.
         {¶4}    Adjudication and disposition hearings were held. The juvenile court found
the minor children to be dependent and granted temporary custody to Agency. Agency
filed case plans and the GAL filed reports.
         {¶5}    Ultimately, on February 15, 2022, Agency filed a motion for permanent
custody. The final report of the minor children’s GAL recommended that permanent
custody, with power of adoption, be granted to Agency.

1 N.C.’s father is P.H. P.H. completed a voluntary surrender of permanent custody of N.C. effective July
11, 2022. M.C.’s father is D.W. D.W. is deceased. Mother’s three other children listed in the caption, T.C.
(d.o.b. 9/9/2015), T.C. (d.o.b. 8/12/2016), and I.C. (d.o.b. 12/21/2017), are not subject to this appeal. T.C.,
T.C., and I.C.’s father is T.H. The juvenile court granted legal custody of T.C., T.C., and I.C. to T.H. effective
July 29, 2022.

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                      –3–

       {¶6}     The juvenile court held a final hearing on August 1, 2022. The following
were present at that hearing: Attorney Kristie Weibling, Agency’s counsel; Miranda Boyle,
an Agency caseworker (did not testify); Jill Solis, an Agency caseworker (“Caseworker
Solis”); Ryan Nagy, M.D., Mother’s treating physician at Generations Behavioral Health
(“Dr. Nagy”); Attorney Daniel Solmen, the minor children’s GAL (“GAL Solmen”); Mother;
Attorney Ross Douglass, Mother’s counsel; Attorney Robert Price, Mother’s GAL (“GAL
Price”); and Jason and Megan Lewis, foster parents/prospective adoptive placements (did
not testify).
       {¶7}     Dr. Nagy provides medical care services for Generations Behavioral Health
and psychiatric services through its Anchor Recovery team. (8/1/2022 Hearing Tr., p.
40). Dr. Nagy treated Mother and prepared her medical record. (Id. at p. 41); (Exhibit 1).
Mother was admitted to Generations Behavioral Health on January 4, 2022 and was
discharged on January 9, 2022. (Id. at p. 42, 44). She was brought in by police after
exhibiting psychotic symptoms. (Id. at p. 42).
       {¶8}     Dr. Nagy diagnosed Mother as having “symptoms consistent with bipolar
disorder, Type I, severe, with manic features.” (Id. at p. 43). Mother tested positive for
marijuana and also exhibited “some dilutions [sic] at the time in regards to religious and
supernatural preoccupations.”     (Id. at p. 43-44).   Mother had “racing thoughts” and
believed she was “a prophet.” (Id. at p. 44). It was reported that Mother had an episode
and jumped out of a moving vehicle. (Id. at p. 46). Medication, specifically Abilify, an
atypical antipsychotic drug, seemed to improve Mother’s concerning behaviors. (Id. at p.
44-45). With regard to her treatment plan, it was recommended that Mother follow up
with her outpatient treatment services and continue taking Abilify. (Id. at p. 45).
       {¶9}     Caseworker Solis was assigned as the caseworker for the minor children
and their siblings in September 2021. (Id. at p. 58). The four oldest children were
adjudicated dependent on November 15, 2018. (Id. at p. 58-59). Agency received
temporary custody of M.C. on February 25, 2019. (Id. at p. 59). M.C. was adjudicated
dependent on April 23, 2019. (Id.) The children remained in the uninterrupted temporary
custody of Agency until September 29, 2020. (Id. at p. 60). At that time, they were
returned to the temporary custody of Mother with protective supervision. (Id.) Since there

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                       –4–

was a resolution relative to T.C., T.C., and I.C., the focus at the hearing only remained on
the minor children, N.C. and M.C. (Id. at p. 61).
       {¶10} In an effort to reunite the minor children with Mother, a case plan was
implemented. (Id.) The case plan goals included for Mother to maintain stable housing
with working utilities; to re-engage with her mental health provider; to obtain a mental
health assessment and comply with treatment recommendations; to submit to random
drug tests; to complete a substance abuse assessment and comply with treatment
recommendations; to demonstrate an understanding of the minor children’s need for age-
appropriate supervision and discipline; and to resolve all pending criminal matters. (Id.
at p. 61-62).
       {¶11} On February 2, 2021 and February 23, 2021, Mother left her children alone
without proper adult supervision which necessitated them coming back into the temporary
custody of Agency. (Id. at p. 62-63). Nine criminal child endangering charges resulted
from these two incidents. (Id. at p. 63). The minor children were included as victims in
those cases. (Id. at p. 91). Mother entered guilty pleas to all nine charges and is on
probation with Warren Municipal Court. (Id. at p. 63). Agency obtained temporary
custody of the children on February 24, 2021 for the second time. (Id. at p. 64). Since
February 24, 2021, the minor children have remained in the uninterrupted temporary
custody of Agency. (Id.)
       {¶12} In mid-December 2021, Mother lost her housing and had 30 days to vacate.
(Id. at p. 65). It was reported thereafter that Mother was staying at the Rescue Mission
but she never provided any documentation. (Id. at p. 66). Mother also never provided
any copies of any lease agreement or any bills to establish she had housing. (Id.)
       {¶13} Caseworker Solis indicated Mother made threats to her via voicemail
because Mother did not want T.C. admitted to Belmont Pines and did not want him
medicated. (Id. at p. 69). As a result, Agency granted Caseworker Solis permission to
complete visits at Agency. (Id. at p. 70). Mother’s mental health treatment plans at
Coleman Health Services are for “Ongoing individual therapy.” (Id. at p. 71). Mother was
not engaged in medication management at Coleman Health Services. (Id.) Although
Mother had medication management appointments scheduled, she did not attend. (Id. at
p. 72). At the time Mother was admitted to Generations Behavioral Health for concerns

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                           –5–

of delusions and religious ideations on January 4, 2022, she was treating at Coleman
Health Services. (Id. at p. 74). Mother tested positive for marijuana and Oxycodone.
(Id.) Mother never provided Caseworker Solis with a valid prescription for Oxycodone.
(Id. at p. 75). To Caseworker Solis’ knowledge, Mother has a medical marijuana card.
(Id. at p. 76).
       {¶14} Caseworker Solis referred Mother to Coleman Health Services for a
substance abuse assessment. (Id. at p. 78). However, Mother did not obtain that
assessment. (Id.) Apparently, Mother has more children as seven of her children would
be present during visitations at Agency. (Id. at p. 81). Caseworker Solis observed Mother
paying more attention and was much more interactive with child “L.” (Id. at p. 80-81).
The visits were “very chaotic.” (Id. at p. 81). During a visit in April 2022, Mother’s visitation
actually became disruptive to other families that were visiting their children. (Id. at p. 82).
Mother’s behavior was “inappropriate,” she used “vulgar language,” and was “very loud.”
(Id.) Other families in visitation rooms at that time were “scared.” (Id. at p. 82-83). Two
deputies had to “de-escalate” Mother. (Id. at p. 83). Virtual visitations occurred thereafter
as a result of Mother’s behavior. (Id. at p. 83-84). N.C. refused to attend visitation
because of how Mother treated her during visits. (Id. at p. 84).
       {¶15} Unsuccessful attempts were made to place the children with numerous
relatives in various states. (Id. at p. 86-87). The minor children were in separate foster
homes. (Id. at p. 88). N.C. is doing “excellent” and has “bonded” to her foster family. (Id.
at p. 88-89). M.C.’s foster mother put Caseworker Solis on notice asking that M.C. be
removed due to his “behaviors.” (Id. at p. 89). Agency requested that the juvenile court
grant it permanent custody of the minor children, with the power of adoption, and find it
made reasonable efforts in attempting to reunify the family. (Id. at p. 91-92).
       {¶16} Mother testified she lives in Warren, Ohio and provided a rental lease. (Id.
at p. 110); (Exhibit A). The residence is a three bedroom house and Mother said she has
made preparations for her children to live with her there. (Id. at p. 111). Mother stated
she is currently in counseling at Coleman Health Services. (Id. at p. 112). Mother
provided a report from her counselor. (Id. at p. 113); (Exhibit B). Mother indicated she
obtained a marijuana card in June 2021.           (Id. at p. 114).    Mother said she had a
prescription for Oxycodone and claimed she is not addicted. (Id. at p. 115).

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                          –6–

       {¶17} Mother has been working at Always Best Healthcare as a home health aide
since March 2022. (Id. at p. 115-116). Mother indicated her criminal cases have been
resolved. (Id. at p. 117). Mother said a pending criminal charge regarding an eviction
due to a gun charge was dismissed. (Id.) Mother is on non-reporting probation in
Mahoning and Trumbull counties. (Id. at p. 117-118). Mother said she has never violated
her probation. (Id. at p. 119). Mother is not in favor of Agency’s motion for permanent
custody of her children. (Id.)
       {¶18} GAL Solmen, the minor children’s GAL, testified that “despite [Mother’s]
issues, she does show love for her children and she does demonstrate a bond with them,
albeit not the most healthy one.” (Id. at p. 121). GAL Solmen indicated, however, that
“due to [Mother’s] mental health issues and her inability to address them, she’s created a
dangerous environment for her children on more than one occasion. In addition, [Mother]
has failed to address her case plan goal as set forth by [Agency].” (Id.) GAL Solmen
said, “while [Mother] has regularly visited her children, she has not taken any steps toward
a realistic safe reunification with them, choosing instead to blame the system.” (Id. at p.
122). “[Mother’s] behaviors have been extreme enough to warrant the limitation of her
visits to zoom meetings at [Agency].” (Id.) GAL Solmen concluded, “And based upon
that I do make a recommendation that permanent custody of [the minor children] be
granted to [Agency].” (Id.)
       {¶19} GAL Price, Mother’s GAL, testified that he had met with Mother and
discussed her history of mental illness, her need to take her medication, her relationship
with various Agency personnel, her case plan, and her adherence. (Id. at p. 135). GAL
Price would like to see Mother, currently pregnant with another child, have the opportunity
to continue to work on her case plan. (Id. at p. 136). They did not discuss any plans for
her unborn child. (Id.)
       {¶20} On March 30, 2023, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights
and granted permanent custody of the minor children to Agency following the hearing. In
its judgment, the court stated the following:

       After a careful review of the file, transcript, and case law, the Court finds as
       follows:

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                      –7–

      ***

      The Court finds the Magistrate properly found clear and convincing
      evidence that pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(B)(1)(d), Minor
      Children, [N.C. and M.C.], have been in the Temporary Custody of the
      Agency for twelve (12) or more of the past twenty-two (22) consecutive
      months. * * *

      The Magistrate considered all of the factors in Ohio Revised Code
      2151.414(D)(1). As the trier of fact, the Magistrate found [Caseworker] Jill
      Solis was credible and compelling, in all respects. According to the
      uncontroverted testimony of the caseworker, Minor Children, [N.C. and
      M.C.], have been in several placements during the periods that the Agency
      had Temporary Custody. Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(D)(1)(a). She
      observed that these Minor Children struggled with visitation with Mother. Id.
      Mother paid more attention to her oldest daughter, and another young child
      who joined the visits with these Minor Children, and siblings, [T.C., T.C.,
      and I.C.]. Id. Additionally, Mother had to be removed from visits at the
      Agency because of inappropriate outbursts, and her visitation was
      converted to Zoom. Id. These Minor Children have resisted visitation with
      Mother. Minor Child, [M.C.], is too young to express a custody preference.
      Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(D)(1)(b). Minor Child, [N.C.], does not even
      want to have visitation with Mother, according to the compelling testimony
      of the caseworker. Id. The caseworker testified that Minor Child, [N.C.], is
      very bonded to her current foster family. Id. Minor Child, [N.C.], came into
      the Agency’s Temporary Custody on November 18, 2018. Ohio Revised
      Code 2151.414(D)(1)(c). Minor Child, [M.C.], came into the Agency’s
      Temporary Custody on February 25, 2019. Id. Both Minor Children were
      returned to Mother on September 29, 2020. Id. These Minor Children then
      came back into care on February 23, 2021. Id. Both Minor Children have
      [been] disrupted from several placements due to behavioral problems. Id.
      The Court finds that Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], have a need for a

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                       –8–

      legally secure placement due to their custodial history, and the trauma they
      have incurred. Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(D)(1)(d). The Court further
      finds that * * * a placement which provides permanency and stability cannot
      be achieved without a grant of Permanent Custody to the Agency. Id.
      Finally, the Court finds that Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(D)(1)(e), does not
      apply to Mother. [P.H.], Father of Minor Child, [N.C.], completed a Voluntary
      Surrender of Permanent Custody during Trial on July 11, 2022. [D.W.],
      Father of Minor Child, [M.C.], is deceased. In making this Decision, the
      Court further considered all of the factors in Ohio Revised Code
      2151.414(E).

      The trial court found that Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(E)(1), applied to
      Mother. Following the placement of Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], outside
      these Minor Children’s home, and notwithstanding reasonable case
      planning and diligent efforts by the Agency to assist the Mother with
      remedying the problems that caused these Minor Children’s removal from
      Mother’s home, Mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to
      substantially remedy the conditions causing these Minor Children to be
      removed. Mother had not successfully utilized psychiatric, psychological,
      and other social and rehabilitative services for mental health treatment,
      despite being made available to Mother for the purpose of changing her
      conduct, to allow her to resume, or to maintain parental duties. Specifically,
      Mother failed to successfully address her serious mental health issues,
      failed to follow treatment recommendations, such as weekly counseling,
      and failed to engage in medication management throughout the pendency
      of this proceeding. Also, Mother was evicted during the pendency of this
      proceeding, and never provided an address for her residence, until her
      averments during her testimony at Trial.

      The evidence presented supports a finding that Ohio Revised Code
      2151.414(E)(2), applies to Mother. The chronic emotional illness of Mother
      was so severe that it made Mother unable to provide an adequate

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                        –9–

      permanent home for Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], at the present time,
      and, as anticipated, within the foreseeable future. Mother has severe mental
      health issues which she has failed to address by the time of [the] Permanent
      Custody Trial. Id. Mother was involuntarily committed in January, 2022, and
      continued to fail or refuse to follow mental health and medication
      management treatment recommendations thereafter.

      The evidence further supports that Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(E)(16),
      applied to Mother. Mother was convicted of nine (9) counts of Child
      Endangering concerning these Minor Children, and three (3) of their
      siblings. The Court noted that this involved two (2) separate incidents of
      Child Endangering, that occurred only twenty (20) days apart in February,
      2021. The first incident on February 2, 2022, involved Minor Child, [N.C.],
      and her siblings, [T.C., T.C., and I.C.]. Mother was charged with four (4)
      counts of Child Endangering, due to leaving these Minor Children home
      alone, unsupervised. On February 23, 2021, Mother was charged with five
      (5) counts of Child Endangering, due to leaving all five (5) Minor Children
      home alone, unsupervised, including Minor Child, [M.C.], DOB: February
      20, 2019. This demonstrated to the Court Mother’s inability to protect the
      Minor Children due to her severe mental health issues. The Court also
      found the testimony of Attorney Daniel Solmen, Guardian Ad Litem, and Jill
      Solis, caseworker, compelling regarding these incidents. * * *

      The Court found that the Agency has made reasonable and diligent efforts
      to assist the Parents with reunification with the Minor Children. * * * Based
      on the foregoing, this Court supports the granting of Permanent Custody to
      the Agency, with power of adoption, as it will serve the best interest of Minor
      Children, [N.C. and M.C.]. Counsel for Mother argues that Mother has met
      the requirements of the case plan as set forth by the Agency, however,
      Mother never advised the Agency of her home location until the Hearing
      which prevented the Agency from conducting a home investigation to
      determine if it complied with the law. Additionally, the Agency was unable

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                                     – 10 –

          to confirm that the lease presented at the Hearing was indeed her lease and
          suitable. Mother’s Counsel further asserted that Mother has appropriate
          employment but supporting evidence or documentation of the employment
          was never presented. Finally, Counsel for Mother claimed Mother is
          attending      her    monthly      counseling       however       the     evidence   was
          uncontroverted that Mother is not engaged in medication management. Her
          medical orders are for her to continue taking Abilify as prescribed but is not
          following with any medical doctor. Importantly, Mother did not show any
          evidence that supported her claim that she has the proper parenting skills
          and ability to meet the needs of the Minor Children. It is important to note,
          due to Mother’s inappropriate parenting skills at visitation, the visits were
          converted to virtual visits so as not to endanger or harm the Minor Children.
          These significant issues were raised at the Hearing and remained
          uncontroverted by Mother. * * *

          ***

          The Court finds that the Agency met its burden of proof by clear and
          convincing evidence, and that placement of Minor Children, [N.C.], DOB:
          July 2, 2014, and [M.C.], DOB: February 20, 2019, in Permanent Custody
          of the Agency, with power of adoption, will serve their best interest.

          IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2151.353,
          that Minor Children, [N.C.], DOB: July 2, 2014, and [M.C.], DOB: February
          20, 2019, be permanently committed to [Agency] Mahoning County
          Children Services, Mahoning County, Ohio, with power of adoption, and that
          the best interest of Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], will be served by
          permanently terminating the parental rights of the Parents.

(3/30/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 9-12).

          {¶21} Mother filed a timely appeal and raises a single assignment of error.2

2   Mother filed an appellate brief on May 15, 2023. Agency did not file a brief.

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                           – 11 –

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       THE COURT’S PERMANENT CUSTODY ORDER WAS AGAINST THE
       MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND, AS A RESULT, FAILED
       TO BE CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF OF BEST INTERESTS AS AN
       EVIDENTIARY BURDEN.

       {¶22} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court’s
permanent custody order was against the manifest weight of the evidence and, as a
result, failed to amount to clear and convincing proof of best interests as an evidentiary
burden. Mother asserts the court “substantiated conclusions mandatory for a permanent
custody finding with faulty reasoning and information that was not current.” (5/15/2023
Mother’s Brief, p. 3). Mother believes “[t]his case becomes ‘the “exceptional case in which
the evidence weighs heavily against the (decision)”.’” (Id. at p. 6).

       “(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, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208 (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
       (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.

In re W.W., 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 21 CO 0011, 2021-Ohio-3440, ¶ 26.

       “(A) court exercising Juvenile Court jurisdiction is invested with a very broad
       discretion, and, unless that power is abused, a reviewing court is not
       warranted in disturbing its judgment.” In re Anteau, 67 Ohio App. 117, 119,
       36 N.E.2d 47, 48 (1941). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more
       than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is
       unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable (* * *).” In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                            – 12 –

      St.3d 135, 137, 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (1990), citing State v. Adams, 62
      Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 172-173, 404 N.E.2d 144, 148-149 (1980). A juvenile
      court’s decision to terminate parental rights and transfer permanent custody
      of a minor child must be supported by clear and convincing
      evidence. Santosky, supra, paragraph three of the syllabus. “Clear and
      convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce
      in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations
      sought to be established. It is (an) intermediate (standard), being more than
      a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required
      beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear
      and unequivocal.” (Emphasis sic). Cross v. Ledford, 191 Ohio St. 469, 477,
      120 N.E.2d 118 (1954).

      When reviewing the decision of a juvenile court to determine whether it is
      supported by clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court may not as
      a matter of law substitute its judgment as to what facts are shown by the
      evidence for that of the trial court” because the “trial judge, having heard the
      witnesses testify, was in a far better position to evaluate their testimony
      th(a)n a reviewing court.” Id. at 478, 120 N.E.2d 118. “Where the evidence
      is in conflict, the trier of facts may determine what should be accepted as
      the truth and what should be rejected as false.” Id. “Judgments supported
      by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements
      of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against
      the manifest weight of the evidence.” C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr.
      Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus.

In the Matter of K.J. and S.M.J., 7th Dist. Jefferson Nos. 21 JE 0022 and 21 JE 0023,
2021-Ohio-4299, ¶ 29, quoting In re T.N.T., 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 12 JE 25, 2013-Ohio-
861, ¶ 14-15.

      {¶23} When a motion for permanent custody is filed by a children services agency,
the juvenile court’s decision whether to grant permanent custody to the agency is

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                         – 13 –

governed by R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the first prong of the permanent custody test, which
provides:

      “[T]he court may grant permanent custody of a child to [the agency] if the
      court determines at the hearing * * * by clear and convincing evidence, that
      it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child
      to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of
      the following apply:

      (a) The child * * * cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within
      a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.

      (b) The child is abandoned.

      (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
      able to take permanent custody.

      (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
      children services agencies * * * 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 * * * for twelve or more
      months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and * * * the child was
      previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another
      state.

      (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from
      whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
      abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
      court in this state or another state.

      For 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

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                      – 14 –

       Code [to be an abused, neglected, or dependent child] or the date that is
       sixty days after the removal of the child from home.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e).

       {¶24} In this case, the minor children could not be placed with any parent within a
reasonable period of time.     N.C.’s father, P.H., completed a voluntary surrender of
permanent custody of his daughter. M.C.’s father, D.W., is deceased. Mother failed to
comply with aspects of the case plan, including: failed to successfully address her serious
mental health issues; failed to follow treatment recommendations, including weekly
counseling; failed to engage in mental health and medication management treatment
recommendations; failed to provide an address following her eviction; failed to present
supporting evidence or documentation of appropriate employment; had to be removed
from visits at Agency due to inappropriate outbursts; and was convicted of nine counts of
criminal child endangering on two separate occasions involving the minor children and
three of their siblings. The record reveals the minor children have been in the temporary
custody of Agency for 12 or more of the past 22 consecutive months. See (3/30/2023
Judgment Entry, p. 9). N.C. came into Agency’s temporary custody on November 18,
2018. M.C. came into Agency’s temporary custody on February 25, 2019. The minor
children were returned to Mother on September 29, 2020. The minor children returned
into Agency’s care on February 23, 2021. In the past 22 months, the minor children were
in Agency’s temporary custody in excess of 16 months.           Thus, there is clear and
convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights
and award of permanent custody to Agency under the first prong of the permanent
custody test. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).
       {¶25} In addition to the first prong, “[an] agency [also] bears the burden of proving
by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the child’s best
interest.” Matter of J.C., 7th Dist. Monroe No. 20 MO 0012, 2021-Ohio-1476, ¶ 6, citing
In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 26. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)
sets out a nonexhaustive list of factors the court must consider, and the court is
encouraged but not required to address the factors relevant to the decision.” Matter of
J.C. at ¶ 6. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides:

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                         – 15 –

      In determining the best interest of a child * * *, 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 * * *;

      (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.

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e).

      {¶26} In determining the best interest of the minor children being placed into the
permanent custody of Agency, the juvenile court considered and referenced numerous
factors in its March 30, 2023 judgment, including:

      A custody order is in the best interest of the Minor Children. Reasonable
      efforts were made to prevent the need for placement and/or to make it
      possible for the Minor Children to return home and/or to finalize the
      permanency that is in effect. The Agency has made reasonable and diligent
      efforts to achieve reunification with a Parent, after the Minor Children were
      removed from Mother due to dangerous situations. The Agency has
      provided extensive case management services to Mother for mental health
      assessment and treatment, stable housing, and parenting. Mother failed to
      maintain mental health services, as recommended, and did not successfully
      apply what she learned through parenting instruction. Mother was evicted

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                         – 16 –

       during the pendency of this proceeding, and if she located housing, never
       provided verification to the Agency of same. The Agency facilitated
       supervised visitation between Mother and the Minor Children. Due to
       Mother’s inappropriate conduct during visitation, Mother’s visitation was
       converted to Zoom. This occurred after Mother was escorted out of the
       Agency’s building, due to an inappropriate outburst during visitation.

(3/30/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 8).

       {¶27} Turning now to determining whether a child can be placed with either parent
within a reasonable period of time, or whether a child should be placed with either parent
pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E), a court “shall consider all relevant evidence” and
determine “by clear and convincing evidence” that “one or more of the following exist as
to each of the child’s parents:”

       (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. * * *

       (2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual disability,
       physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe
       that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home
       for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after
       the court holds the hearing [on the motion for permanent custody];

       ***

       (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(2) and (16).

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                       – 17 –

      {¶28} In granting permanent custody of the minor children to Agency, the juvenile
court specifically found, as stated, in its March 30, 2023 judgment:

      The trial court found that Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(E)(1), applied to
      Mother. Following the placement of Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], outside
      these Minor Children’s home, and notwithstanding reasonable case
      planning and diligent efforts by the Agency to assist the Mother with
      remedying the problems that caused these Minor Children’s removal from
      Mother’s home, Mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to
      substantially remedy the conditions causing these Minor Children to be
      removed. Mother had not successfully utilized psychiatric, psychological,
      and other social and rehabilitative services for mental health treatment,
      despite being made available to Mother for the purpose of changing her
      conduct, to allow her to resume, or to maintain parental duties. Specifically,
      Mother failed to successfully address her serious mental health issues,
      failed to follow treatment recommendations, such as weekly counseling,
      and failed to engage in medication management throughout the pendency
      of this proceeding. Also, Mother was evicted during the pendency of this
      proceeding, and never provided an address for her residence, until her
      averments during her testimony at Trial.

      The evidence presented supports a finding that Ohio Revised Code
      2151.414(E)(2), applies to Mother. The chronic emotional illness of Mother
      was so severe that it made Mother unable to provide an adequate
      permanent home for Minor Children, [N.C. and M.C.], at the present time,
      and, as anticipated, within the foreseeable future. Mother has severe mental
      health issues which she has failed to address by the time of [the] Permanent
      Custody Trial. Id. Mother was involuntarily committed in January, 2022, and
      continued to fail or refuse to follow mental health and medication
      management treatment recommendations thereafter.

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                      – 18 –

       The evidence further supports that Ohio Revised Code 2151.414(E)(16),
       applied to Mother. Mother was convicted of nine (9) counts of Child
       Endangering concerning these Minor Children, and three (3) of their
       siblings. The Court noted that this involved two (2) separate incidents of
       Child Endangering, that occurred only twenty (20) days apart in February,
       2021. The first incident on February 2, 2022, involved Minor Child, [N.C.],
       and her siblings, [T.C., T.C., and I.C.]. Mother was charged with four (4)
       counts of Child Endangering, due to leaving these Minor Children home
       alone, unsupervised. On February 23, 2021, Mother was charged with five
       (5) counts of Child Endangering, due to leaving all five (5) Minor Children
       home alone, unsupervised, including Minor Child, [M.C.], DOB: February
       20, 2019. This demonstrated to the Court Mother’s inability to protect the
       Minor Children due to her severe mental health issues. The Court also
       found the testimony of Attorney Daniel Solmen, Guardian Ad Litem, and Jill
       Solis, caseworker, compelling regarding these incidents. * * *

(3/30/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 10-11).

       {¶29} The record reveals the juvenile court complied with the procedure
prescribed by R.C. 2151.414. The court did not err in finding that it was in the minor
children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights and grant permanent custody
to Agency. Mother fails to establish that the court incorrectly found that the minor children
could not or should not be placed with her within a reasonable period of time.
       {¶30} Based on the facts presented, the juvenile court’s decision does not go
against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court had more than adequate facts
and sufficient testimony, as delineated above and in the judgment granting permanent
custody of the minor children to Agency, to proceed with a determination that the minor
children remained dependent as previously adjudicated. Clear and convincing evidence
existed that the minor children shall be placed into the permanent custody of Agency as
the same was in the best interest of the minor children. Thus, because the juvenile court’s
judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential
elements of the case, it will not be reversed by this court as being against the manifest

Case No. 23 MA 0047
                                                                                     – 19 –

weight of the evidence. The minor children deserve safety and stability at this time which
can only be accomplished through permanent custody to Agency.
      {¶31} Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in finding that it was in the minor
children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights and grant permanent custody
to Agency.

                                     CONCLUSION

      {¶32} For the foregoing reasons, Mother’s sole assignment of error is not well-
taken. The March 30, 2023 judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, terminating Mother’s parental rights and granting permanent custody
of the minor children to Agency following a hearing is affirmed.

Robb, J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 23 MA 0047
[Cite as In re N.C., 2023-Ohio-1942.]

         For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error
 is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
 Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed.
 Costs to be waived.
         A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

         This document constitutes a final judgment entry.