Court Opinion

ID: 9376241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 15:06:35.4592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:05.477282
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re A.C., 2023-Ohio-602.]

                                           COURT OF APPEALS
                                          STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:                               :       JUDGES:
                                                :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
   A.C. (DOB 8-09-20)                           :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
   A.C. (DOB 9-11-21)                           :
                                                :
    MINOR CHILDREN                              :       Case No. 2022CA00129
                                                :                2022CA00130
                                                :
                                                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                                Appeal from the Stark County Court
                                                        of Common Pleas, Family Court
                                                        Division, Case Nos. 2021JCV01059
                                                        and 2021JCV010060

JUDGMENT:                                               Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                       February 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                  For Defendant-Appellant

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH                                  BERNARD L. HUNT
Stark County JFS                                        2395 McGinty RD NW
402 2nd Street SE                                       Canton, Ohio 43720
Canton, Ohio 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      2

Baldwin, J.

         {¶1}   Appellant K.C. appeals from the September 13, 2022 Judgment Entries of

the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, terminating his parental

rights and granting permanent custody of his children A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) and A.C. (DOB

9-11-21) to appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family Services.

                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

         {¶2}   Appellant K.C. is the biological father of A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) (“A.C. 1”) and

A.C. (DOB 9-11-21) (“A.C. 2”). K.W. is the biological mother.1 Appellee’s initial concerns

regarding A.C. 1 and A.C. 2 arose when mother was using methamphetamine while

pregnant with A.C. 2. In addition, appellee had concerns regarding the dynamic between

appellant and mother, concerns regarding appellant’s drug use, and concerns that A.C.

1 had been dropped “quite frequently,” which appellee suspected was due to her parents

being under the influence of drugs.

         {¶3}   Appellee initially attempted to work a “non-court case” with appellant by

putting a safety plan in place in which the maternal and paternal grandparents would

supervise. However, due to the appellant’s refusal to acknowledge his substance use

despite positive drug screens, and continuous violations of the safety plan, the appellee

ultimately sought court intervention.

         {¶4}   On October 20, 2021, the appellee filed a Complaint as to each child

alleging dependency and neglect in which it sought temporary custody of the children. In

addition, the appellee filed a Motion for Pre-Adjudicatory Order as to each child seeking

an order for the following: that appellant arrange for and proceed with a parenting

1
    The trial court also terminated the parental rights of K.W., who has not appealed.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                       3

assessment     to   be   completed    by   the     adjudicatory   hearing,   and   follow   all

recommendations; that appellant receive an assessment for drug and alcohol abuse; that

appellant begin any recommended drug or alcohol treatment; and, that appellant submit

to a urinalysis within 48 hours of the order. The trial court granted the motion. In addition,

the trial court issued a Judgment Entry ordering the appellee to take the children into

shelter care custody, and scheduled an emergency shelter care hearing for October 21,

2021.

        {¶5}   The emergency shelter care hearing proceeded on October 21, 2021, at

which time the appellant stipulated that probable cause existed for the issuance of the

emergency shelter care order and placement of the children in shelter care pending

further hearing. The trial court found that removal of the children was necessary to prevent

immediate harm, and that continued residence in the home would be contrary to the

children’s best interests. The trial court further found that the appellee had made

reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement, and ordered that the children be

placed in the temporary custody of the appellee. Finally, the trial court also reaffirmed the

orders for drug and alcohol assessment and drug and alcohol urine screening, and

ordered visitation at the appellee’s discretion.

        {¶6}   The matter was set for a review hearing on November 17, 2021, and a

guardian ad litem (“GAL”) was appointed. The appellee worked with the appellant and

prepared a Family Case Plan for each child which was filed just prior to the scheduled

hearing. In addition, the GAL investigated the matter and filed a GAL Report just prior to

the hearing in which she recommended that the children remain in the temporary custody

of the appellee while the appellant worked his case plan services. The GAL
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                        4

recommended further that the appellant needed to demonstrate the ability to maintain

sobriety and comply with parenting evaluations and parenting classes.

         {¶7}    The appellant failed to appear for the hearing, but counsel for mother

requested discovery, and the trial court set the matter for adjudication on January 13,

2022. The appellee had investigated possible placement with relatives, but no appropriate

relatives could be found. The children were therefore placed with a foster family, who

ensured that their needs were met during the pendency of the case.

         {¶8}    Following the November 17, 2021 hearing, the appellee undertook efforts

to work with appellant on the items set forth in the Family Case Plan (“Plan”.) The Plan,

the goal of which was reunification, was jointly developed with and agreed to by the

appellant. Items of concern that were addressed in the Plan were as follows:

         {¶9}    1. Appellant was to establish paternity for A.C. 2; 2

         {¶10} 2. Appellant was to obtain and maintain stable housing that was safe, clean,

and free from environmental hazards, and provide documentation showing that rent and

utilities were being paid and that he was in compliance with housing agreements;

         {¶11} 3. Appellant was to maintain stable employment/source of income and

demonstrate his ability to meet his own needs and the needs of the children, and to

provide documentation of the same;

         {¶12} 4. Appellant was to ensure that he could provide for the children’s basic

needs at all times;

2
    Appellant subsequently signed A.C. 2’s birth certificate, thus establishing paternity.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                    5

       {¶13} 5. Appellant was to complete parenting evaluations and assessments at

Lighthouse Family Center to determine his level of functioning and need for additional

services in order to safely and successfully parent the children;

       {¶14} 6. Appellant was to follow any and all recommendations from Lighthouse

service providers, and attend and participate in all appointments;

       {¶15} 7. Appellant was to sign a release of information to be in effect for the

duration of the case.

       {¶16} 8. Appellee was to make a referral to Lighthouse, provide any background

and/or collateral information, authorize payments as ordered, and maintain contact with

service providers to monitor progress;

       {¶17} 9. Appellant was to complete a drug and alcohol assessment as ordered by

the court at CommQuest Recovery Services;

       {¶18} 10. Appellant was to remain substance free, gain insight and knowledge

regarding the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol on family functioning, and provide a

safe and drug free living environment for the children and ensure no person involved with

drug activities are around or providing care for the children;

       {¶19} 11. Appellant was to submit to random drug screens as requested by

appellee;

       {¶20} 12. Appellee was to engage in written and oral communication with

appellant, as well as service providers, to monitor and determine progress; and,

       {¶21} 13. Appellant had the opportunity for supervised visitation with the children

for two hours two times per month.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      6

       {¶22} The adjudication hearing went forward on January 13, 2022 with all parties

and their counsel present, as well as the GAL, and evidence was presented. The trial

court found that appellant needed to complete both the parenting assessment with

Lighthouse and substance assessment with CommQuest; that appellant had not signed

the necessary releases of information and appellee was therefore unable to speak with

service providers to monitor and determine his progress; that the children were placed

with foster parents who were ensuring that their needs were met; that appellant visited

the children every other week at the agency, interacted well with the children and brought

them food and toys; that appellee attempted several safety plans prior to removal; that

appellee sought relatives for possible placement; that the GAL was pleased with the

children’s placement, and would observe the parents’ visit soon; and, that counsel for

appellee requested the appellant be ordered to sign the releases and submit to a drug

screen that day.

       {¶23} The trial court found further that the appellee had engaged in reasonable

efforts to prevent the need for placement and/or make it possible for the children to return

home, and that the appellee had engaged in intensive efforts to identify and engage

kinship caregivers for the children. Finally, the trial court found that the children, having

previously been determined dependent, should be placed in the temporary custody of the

appellee, and ordered the appellant to submit to a drug screen and sign the appropriate

releases that day. A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for April 19, 2022, and a

twelve-month review hearing was scheduled for September 16, 2022.

       {¶24} The dispositional review hearing went forward on April 19, 2022. The

appellant failed to appear for the hearing. He was represented by counsel. The trial court,
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                     7

after hearing all the evidence, found that appellant had not complied with a parenting

assessment at Lighthouse and, while appellant had completed a CommQuest

assessment and was referred to a substance abuse treatment program, he had not

followed through with an outpatient treatment program and was not truthful about his

substance use. In addition, the appellant was not compliant with random drug screens,

and needed independent housing and employment. The trial court also found that while

the appellant visited the children, he was historically not on time for the visits and no-

showed a number of times. Accordingly, the appellee required him to appear for the visit

before the children would be transported.

        {¶25} The GAL reported that the children were doing well in foster care and

recommended that the placement continue. The trial court held that reasonable efforts

were made to finalize the permanency planning in effect; that appellee had utilized

intensive efforts to identify and engage appropriate and willing kinship caregivers for the

children; approved and adopted the Case Plan Review Packet; and, ordered the status

quo be maintained. A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for September 16,

2022.

        {¶26} On July 6, 2022, the appellee filed a motion for permanent custody.

Appellee’s motion was based upon the appellant’s continuous and repeated failure to

substantially remedy the conditions that led the award of temporary custody to the

appellee; the appellant’s chemical dependency, which was so severe that he was unable

to provide an adequate permanent home for the children and it was not anticipated that

he could do so within one year after the court held the R.C. 2151.414(A) hearing; the

appellant’s failure to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the children when able
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      8

to do so; the appellant’s unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the

children; the appellant’s abandonment of the children by failing to visit or maintain contact

with the children for more than ninety days; and, the appellant’s unwillingness to provide

food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the children. A hearing on the

motion was scheduled for September 12, 2022.

       {¶27} On August 16, 2022, the appellee filed an Amended Case Plan which added

an additional afterborn child as a plan participant. Appellant did not jointly develop and

agree with the amended plan, as he was no longer engaging in the case plan in any way.

       {¶28} The permanent custody proceedings went forward on September 12, 2022.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing. He was represented by counsel. Testimony

of the case worker was presented at the hearing which established that the appellant

failed to complete the parenting assessments and, while he completed the substance

abuse assessment with CommQuest through which the Moderate Outpatient Program

was recommended, he failed to comply with the recommendation and engage in

treatment. In addition, while the appellant averred that he was clean, he provided a urine

drug screen on the day of his assessment that tested positive for amphetamine. Further,

the appellant failed to engage in the required random drug screens. In fact, at the time of

the hearing the appellant’s last drug screen was from January 13, 2022, wherein he tested

positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine with levels of methamphetamine that

were “concerningly high.” The appellant continued to refuse drug screens, was

unemployed, and had no housing. Appellee sent the appellant numerous letters and

called him numerous times in an effort to engage him in services, but he was “very

resistive to any engagement.”
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                        9

       {¶29} Finally, the appellant had not seen the children since March 21, 2022. Thus,

the time period between the appellant’s last visit with the children and the filing of the July

6, 2022 Motion for Permanent Custody was in excess of ninety days.

       {¶30} Although the appellant failed to appear for the permanent custody hearing,

his counsel argued that his housing was appropriate because it was structurally sound.

His counsel argued further that appellant had completed the substance abuse evaluation,

which was progress, and that he attended two of the three or four parenting evaluation

assessments. Finally, appellant’s counsel argued that appellant had visited the children

prior to March of 2022. 3

       {¶31} The trial court then proceeded with the best interest portion of the

proceedings. The appellee provided the following testimony. The children had been with

an agency foster home since they came into the appellee’s custody on October 20, 2021,

and were happy and healthy. The appellee engaged in efforts to find a kinship placement,

including assessing the grandparents, sending out letters to other relatives, and going

through obituaries online, but was unable to find a suitable family member with whom the

children could be placed. The appellee provided evidence that the appellant’s last visit

with the children was on March 21, 2021, and that it did not appear that the children were

bonded with appellant. The appellee submitted that the children, who are adoptable,

       3   The appellee contended that when the appellant did show up for visitation, the

visits were chaotic. He and K.W. would bicker and snap at one another, and appellant

would scratch at the sores on his face. The visits required a lot of redirection by the

case worker or visitation aide.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      10

deserve to have permanency, safety, and stability in their lives, and that permanent

custody was in their best interests.

       {¶32} The appellant’s counsel cross-examined the appellee’s case worker,

arguing that when the appellant visited with the children they recognized him, he

interacted with them, and they did not cry when he held them. Appellant’s counsel called

no witnesses.

       {¶33} The GAL made a statement at the conclusion of the proceedings, submitting

that it is hard to re-unify with parents who do not show up to visits and do not present with

clean urines, and that do not do much of anything on their case plan but continue to use

drugs. The GAL stated further that the children were happy, healthy, and well cared for

by the foster family, and agreed with the appellee that permanent custody was in the best

interests of the children.

       {¶34} The trial court issued separate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for

each child on September 13, 2022 in which it found, inter alia, that the appellant had

abandoned the children due to his lack of contact with them for more than ninety days,

and that notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency the

appellant had failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed with

the agency. The court therefore found by clear and convincing evidence that the children

could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time nor should they be placed

with him.

       {¶35} The trial court next considered the best interests of the children, and after

considering all relevant factors found that the harm caused by severing any bond with the

parents was outweighed by the benefits of permanence in the children’s lives, found the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                     11

children to be adoptable, and found that it was in the children’s best interests to grant

permanent custody to appellee for purposes of adoption, terminating the appellant’s

parental rights.

       {¶36} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:

       {¶37} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) AND A.C.

(DOB 9-11-21) COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE FATHER WITHIN A

REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”

       {¶38} The appellant contends that because he completed his CommQuest

assessment and two of his parenting evaluation appointments, had a “structurally sound”

place to live, and did not appear for visits with the children while intoxicated, that the

decision to terminate his parental rights and grant permanent custody to the appellee was

against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

                              BURDEN OF PROOF

       {¶39} “[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), citing 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., citing 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
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                       12

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

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

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶40} The Ohio Supreme Court has defined “clear and convincing evidence” as

“[t]hat measure or degree of proof that 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 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.”

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E. 2d 118 (1954); In the Matter of: J.P.,

5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00119, 2019-Ohio-4972, ¶19.

       {¶41} A court of appeals will affirm the trial court's findings “if the record contains

competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or

conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have

been established.” In re Adkins, 5th Dist. Nos. 2005AP06–0044 and 2005AP07–0049,

2006-Ohio-431, ¶ 17, citing Cross, supra. Accordingly, judgments supported by some

competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶42} 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 that the trial

court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent

custody of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency

that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      13

      {¶43} 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, that 1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent

custody to the agency; and, 2) 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

      agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      14

       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.

       {¶44} Thus, 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.

       {¶45} R.C. 2151.011(C) provides:

              For the purposes of this chapter, a child shall be presumed

       abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain

       contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the

       parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.

       {¶46} In the case sub judice, the trial court found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that the appellant had no contact with the children for more than ninety days

and had therefore abandoned them pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b). Competent,

credible evidence supports the trial court's findings. In this case, the appellee provided

uncontroverted testimony that the appellant had no contact with the children from March

21, 2022 to September 12, 2022, the day of the permanent custody proceedings, a time

period in excess of ninety days. Accordingly, we find no reversible error with regard to the

trial court's finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b), and the trial court's

decision that abandonment established the grounds necessary for an award permanent

custody to appellee SCDJFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                      15

       {¶47} A trial court's finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b)

satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody test, independent of a finding under

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) [Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time], allowing the

court to move on to the second prong of considering whether the grant of permanent

custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child. In re A.M., 5th Dist. Stark No.

2013 CA 00113, 2013-Ohio-4152. Despite the fact that the appellant’s abandonment of

the children satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody analysis rendering a

reasonable efforts determination unnecessary, we will nonetheless address the

appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in finding that the children could not be

placed with him within a reasonable period of time, as this argument must also fail.

       {¶48} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining that a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reasonable time. In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 1996-Ohio-182, 661 N.E.2d 738.

       {¶49} R.C. 2151.414(E) states in pertinent part:

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

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

       Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                       16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     parent:

            Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and

     notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency

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

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

     repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be

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

     substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental

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

     rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to

     the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to

     resume and maintain parental duties.

            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
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                       17

       one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this

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

       Revised Code;

                                   *      *       *

       (10) The parent has abandoned the child.

                                   *      *       *

       (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

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

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

the children, and the testimony of the case worker at trial. The trial judge was in the best

position to determine the credibility of the witness. The trial court found that the appellee

had made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal, to eliminate the continued removal,

or to make it possible for the children to return home safely to appellant's home.

       {¶51} The record supports the trial court's finding that the appellant had not shown

consistent sustained progress necessary to have the children returned to his custody. In

fact, he had shown very little progress, and very little interest in working the care plan. He

continued to engage in drug abuse. It did not appear that he had been able to apply any

behavioral changes, and despite being offered numerous services, he was unable or

unwilling to mitigate the concerns that led to the children's removal. We find that there

was sufficient and substantial competent evidence that the appellant failed continuously

and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be

placed outside the home. This, combined with the appellant’s chronic drug use and his

abandonment of the children, satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(E). We
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                        18

therefore find that there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's

determination that the children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable

time nor should they be placed with appellant.

       {¶52} The second phase of the permanent custody proceedings involves a

determination regarding the best interests of the children. R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates

that the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the

following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents,

siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who

may significantly affect the child; (2) 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;

(3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) 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.

       {¶53} The focus of the “best interest” determination is upon the children, not the

parent, as R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically prohibits the court from considering the effect a

grant of permanent custody would have upon the parents. In re: Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d

309, 315, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).

       {¶54} This Court has held that a trial court is not required to specifically enumerate

each factor under R.C. 2151.414(D) in its decision. In re: Turner, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas

No. 2006-CA045, 2006-Ohio-6793, ¶ 34. Nevertheless, there must be some indication on

the record that all of the necessary factors were considered. Id.

       {¶55} In this case, the trial court made findings of fact regarding the children's best

interest. It is well-established that “[t]he discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                     19

determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child should

be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the

court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In re: Mauzy

Children, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In

re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).

       {¶56} A review of the trial court's decision illustrates that it considered the best

interest factors. The court found that when the appellant did visit with the children the

visits were not successful, and found that the children had not bonded with appellant. The

trial court further found that the children, who reside together in the same foster home,

are healthy and happy, and have excellent bonded relationships with their foster parents

and all persons in their foster homes. In addition to the testimony, the trial court

considered the reports of the GAL. The trial court concluded the children's need for legally

secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to the

appellee. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court's

finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in the children's best interest.

       {¶57} As already noted, in addition to abandoning the children, the appellant failed

to remedy the problems that initially caused the removal of the children from the home.

Very little has changed with respect to appellant's life choices since this case began. He

failed to acknowledge his drug use issues, failed to demonstrate any meaningful change

in his lifestyle during the pendency of the case, and failed to attend the April 19, 2022

dispositional hearing as well as the September 12, 2022 permanent custody hearing.

       {¶58} Upon review of the record on appeal and the findings and conclusions of

the trial court, we conclude the grant of permanent custody of A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) and
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130                                    20

A.C. (DOB 9-11-21) to appellee SCJFS was in the children's best interest and did not

constitute an error or an abuse of discretion under the circumstances presented.

                                     CONCLUSION

      {¶59} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court's decision awarding

permanent custody of the children to appellee SCJFS was in the children's best interest,

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

sufficiency of the evidence.

      {¶60} The evidence contained in the record supports the trial court's judgment.

We therefore overrule the appellant's sole assignment of error, and affirm the decision of

the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division.

      {¶61} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.

By: Baldwn, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, John, J. concur.