Court Opinion

ID: 9393909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 16:07:37.089105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.048175
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re D.H., 2023-Ohio-1580.]

                                            COURT OF APPEALS
                                         RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                    :   JUDGES:
                                                    :
                                                    :   Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
                                                    :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                    :   Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
  IN RE D.H.                                        :
                                                    :   Case No. 2023 CA 0003
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                               Appeal from the Richland County Court
                                                        of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,
                                                        Case No. 2020 DEP 00153

 JUDGMENT:                                              AFFIRMED

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                May 11, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

  For Mother-Appellant:                           For RCCSB-Appellee:

  JAMES L. BLUNT II                               SARAH E. EXTEN
  3954 Industrial Parkway                         RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES
  Shelby, OH 44875                                731 Scholl Road
                                                  Mansfield, OH 44907
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                 2

Delaney, J.

      {¶1} Mother-Appellant S.L. appeals the January 4, 2023 judgment entry of the

Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      {¶2} Mother-Appellant S.L. is the biological mother of D.H., born in September

2009. Father, E.H. is not married to Mother and is not involved in this appeal. Mother has

two other minor children, S.L. and D.M., half-siblings to D.H. The three children resided

with Mother.

      {¶3} Appellee, Richland County Children Services Board (“RCCSB”) had been

informally involved with Mother and the three children due to Mother’s mental health

issues. On October 8, 2020, RCCSB filed a complaint with the Richland County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Court, alleging D.H. was a dependent and negligent child and

requesting an order of protective supervision. D.H. had been diagnosed with high-risk

epilepsy that was managed with two daily prescription medications. RCCSB stated it had

received reports that Mother was not giving D.H. his medications, which placed D.H. at a

high risk for medical issues and death. D.H. required regular testing to monitor his

medication levels, but he had not been seen by his medical provider since November

2019 and his prescriptions were last filled in June 2020. RCCSB attempted to contact

Mother, but she would not answer the door. D.H.’s school was unable to contact Mother.

RCCSB believed that based on Mother’s mental health history, she was experiencing a

severe depressive episode.

      {¶4} The initial adjudicatory hearing was held on October 14, 2020. The juvenile

court appointed a Guardian ad Litem for the children.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                  3

       {¶5} On November 9, 2020, RCCSB filed Mother’s proposed case plan. The

case plan required Mother to complete a mental health assessment, follow all

recommendations, actively participate in her mental health treatment plan, and complete

parenting education. Mother was also required to communicate with the RCCSB

caseworker during announced and unannounced visits. Mother refused to sign the

proposed case plan.

       {¶6} The second adjudicatory hearing was held on November 6, 2020, with

resulting judgment entry filed on November 17, 2020. Mother elected to admit and agree

that D.H. was a dependent child. RCCSB withdrew its claim of neglect. After she left the

hearing, Mother was charged with assault based on an incident with a relative in the court

parking lot. Father later admitted and agreed that D.H. was a dependent child, via

judgment entry filed December 3, 2020.

       {¶7} On November 20, 2020, Father filed a motion for temporary custody. Father

requested the juvenile court place D.H. in the temporary custody of Paternal

Grandmother, L. H. Father simultaneously filed a motion for legal custody, arguing the

juvenile court should award legal custody of D.H. to Paternal Grandmother. RCCSB filed

a motion to amend disposition that its request for an order for protective supervision to

RCCSB be amended to a request for temporary custody to Paternal Grandmother with

an order of protective supervision to RCCSB.

       {¶8} The GAL filed her written report on December 7, 2020. The GAL

recommended it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the custody of

Mother with an order of protective supervision to monitor Mother’s legal issues, her mental

health, and D.H.’s medical care.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                  4

       {¶9}   The dispositional hearing was held on December 7, 2020.

       {¶10} On December 8, 2020, the juvenile court granted Father and RCCSB’s

motion for temporary custody. It ordered that it was in the best interests of D.H. to be

placed in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother. Thereafter, Mother filed a

motion for disposition of legal custody or retention of custody of D.H. by Mother. Mother

also requested the juvenile court conduct an in-camera interview of D.H. The in-camera

interview was scheduled for April 6, 2021 and then continued to August 3, 2021.

       {¶11} On December 24, 2020, the juvenile court issued its judgment as to the

dispositional hearing. The juvenile court found that Paternal Grandmother and maternal

relatives regularly assisted Mother with D.H.’s care. D.H. had epilepsy and Mother was

not consistent with his care. On December 2, 2020, after RCCSB’s intervention, D.H. was

seen by his medical provider and it was determined D.H. did not have the proper levels

of medication to control his epilepsy, possibly rendering rescue medication ineffective if

D.H. had a seizure. Upon inspection of D.H.’s prescription medication, a caseworker

determined one prescription bottle was unopened and one had not been filled. While in

her written report, the GAL recommended that RCCSB be granted protective supervision

of D.H., at the hearing, the GAL recommended that D.H. be placed in the temporary

custody of Paternal Grandmother with an order of protective supervision to RCCSB. The

juvenile court concluded it was in the best interest of D.H. that he be placed in the

temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother and that protective supervision be granted

to RCCSB. The juvenile court denied Father’s motion for legal custody to Paternal

Grandmother.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                  5

       {¶12} On January 14, 2021, RCCSB moved the juvenile court to order Mother to

undergo a psychological evaluation and assessment with Dr. Aimee Thomas at

Lighthouse Family Center. Mother objected to the motion. On April 27, 2021, the juvenile

court ordered Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation.

       {¶13} A proposed case plan amendment was filed on January 15, 2021. The

amended plan added a case plan participant, placement change, modified concerns, and

a visitation plan. On April 8, 2021, RCCSB filed another proposed case plan amendment.

The basis for the amendment was that D.H.’s two siblings were placed in the temporary

custody of one of the sibling’s paternal aunt. As a non-relative to the other siblings, the

juvenile court named her the “Fictive Kin.” The Fictive Kin would supervise visitation

between Mother and D.H.

       {¶14} The GAL filed her written report on June 29, 2021. She recommended that

D.H. be placed in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother, with a continued order

of protective supervision.

       {¶15} In July 2021, Mother’s case plan was amended to increase visitation

between D.H. and her. Mother was allowed unsupervised visitation with D.H. and one

overnight visit per week.

       {¶16} The GAL filed an updated written report on September 2, 2021. She

recommended that D.H. be placed in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother,

with a continued order of protective supervision by RCCSB. She further recommended

that the Fictive Kin be given consideration as a long-term, permanency placement for all

three children if they were unable to be reunified with Mother.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                   6

       {¶17} On September 9, 2021, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on

the pending motions regarding temporary and legal custody of D.H. Via judgment entry

filed on September 21, 2021, the juvenile court ordered that D.H., who was currently

placed in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother, be placed in the temporary

custody of the Fictive Kin with a continuing order of protective supervision to RCCSB.

       {¶18} While the juvenile court ordered that the Fictive Kin gain temporary custody

of all three children, D.H. continued to live with Paternal Grandmother. RCCSB amended

D.H.’s case plan to reflect the living arrangement and to adjust Mother’s visitation to

unsupervised visitation overnight, Friday evening through Sunday evening. On March 15,

2022, the GAL filed a written report recommending that the two siblings be placed in the

legal custody of the Fictive Kin and D.H. be placed in the legal custody of Paternal

Grandmother.

       {¶19} RCCSB filed an amended motion for disposition on March 31, 2022, stating

it was in the best interest of D.H. that temporary custody to the Fictive Kin be terminated,

the order of protective supervision be terminated, and legal custody to Paternal

Grandmother be granted. RCCSB also filed a motion for temporary order of temporary

custody to Paternal Grandmother. Mother objected to the motion for legal custody. On

May 3, 2022, the juvenile court granted temporary custody of D.H. to Paternal

Grandmother.

       {¶20} On July 21, 2022, the GAL filed her written report, continuing her

recommendation that the two siblings be placed in the legal custody of the Fictive Kin and

D.H. be placed in the legal custody of Paternal Grandmother. She also recommended

liberal visitation between the siblings, Mother, respective fathers, and relatives.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                7

      {¶21} The juvenile court held a legal custody hearing before the magistrate on

July 28, 2022. Aleesia Shaw, the ongoing caseworker with RCCSB, testified as to her

work with Mother and D.H. In August 2020, RCCSB began working with Mother and the

children when it learned that Mother was not giving D.H. his medication. (T. 6). Due to

Mother’s failure to cooperate with RCCSB, RCCSB filed the complaint in juvenile court.

      {¶22} RCCSB developed a case plan for Mother that required self-protection,

mental health, and parenting education. (T. 6-7). As of the date of the hearing, Mother

had not completed her case plan. Mother participated in mental health counseling for two

months in early 2021. (T. 8). She was discharged for failure to cooperate in counseling.

She completed a full psychiatric evaluation with Dr. Thomas in June 2021. (T. 8). Dr.

Thomas diagnosed Mother with Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent with Paranoid

Ideation and Paranoid Personality Disorder. (T. 10). Dr. Thomas ruled out schizophrenia

or schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disabilities mild. (T. 10). Dr. Thomas

recommended Mother have ongoing psychiatric counseling and parenting education. (T.

9). Mother self-reported that she started mental health counseling two weeks before the

hearing. (T. 11). RCCSB did not consider Mother compliant with the mental health portion

of her case plan because she just started mental health counseling. (T. 11).

      {¶23} Another part of Mother’s case plan was to ensure D.H. received his

prescribed medication. (T. 11). Early in Mother’s visitation with D.H., there was concern

that she was not providing D.H. his medication. Paternal Grandmother counted D.H.’s

pills before and after he visited Mother to ensure he had taken his medicine. (T. 51).

Paternal Grandmother provided D.H. his medication and took him to his doctor’s

appointments.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                 8

       {¶24} Mother obtained employment the week of the hearing. (T. 13). Mother had

rental housing. (T. 13). Mother started parenting classes in 2021 but was discharged from

the program due to Mother’s uncooperativeness. (T. 13). Mother tried to reenroll in 2022,

but due to Mother’s behavior, the parenting education program would not accept her. (T.

14). Mother found a different parenting program, enrolled, and had completed two

sessions as the time of the hearing. (T. 14).

       {¶25} RCCSB determined Paternal Grandmother’s home was appropriate for

D.H. (T. 15). D.H.’s father lived with Paternal Grandmother. Other than his epilepsy, D.H.

had no other medical or mental health issues. (T. 15). D.H. regularly attended school but

his grades had been low. Paternal Grandmother got D.H. a tutor to come to the home

and D.H.’s grades improved. (T. 41).

       {¶26} D.H. was placed in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandmother and in

March 2021, the two other children were placed in the temporary custody of the Fictive

Kin because the children were not attending school. (T. 7). One of the children required

a truancy hearing. (T. 8). Mother and the three children had regular visitation with each

other, facilitated by Paternal Grandmother and the Fictive Kin. (T. 18). During the school

year, D.H. went to Mother’s home on Friday and came back on Sunday. (T. 46). D.H.

reported that he would like to live with Mother again. Compared to Mother’s household,

Paternal Grandmother maintained more rules and structure. (T. 30).

       {¶27} Mother testified that she struggled with depression and anxiety. It

prevented her from working until recently. (T. 81). It prevented her from getting her

children to school. (T. 86). After she was discharged from her mental health counseling,

she did not resume counseling because she felt uncomfortable. (T. 80). Mother admitted
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                    9

that initially, she felt that she did not need parenting classes. (T. 83). After the two-year

pendency of the case, Mother started counseling and enrolled in parenting classes per

her case plan requirements. (T. 86). She was currently taking medication prescribed by

her primary care physician to address her depression and anxiety. (T. 90-91, 98). She

also had a family support system, which included the Fictive Kin, to help her. (T. 94).

       {¶28} Mother understood that D.H. needed to take his medication regularly, but at

the time D.H. was removed from her care, she did not see the problem when he missed

his doses. (T. 83). She did not understand at the time that if D.H. had a seizure, he could

die. (T. 96). She admitted that even with the family support system to help her with D.H.’s

medication, her stubbornness would get in the way. (T. 95). When she had visitation with

D.H., she made sure D.H. took his three daily doses of medication, but also stated that

D.H. ould take them on his own. (T. 90).

       {¶29} The magistrate issued his decision on August 23, 2022. He found it was in

the best interests of D.H. that legal custody be granted to Paternal Grandmother and

protective supervision to RCCSB be terminated. Mother filed objections to the

magistrate’s decision, arguing the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law

were not supported by the sufficiency or the manifest weight of the evidence. On January

4, 2023, the juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections. It found the evidence supported

the magistrate’s findings that Mother failed to comply with her case plan in obtaining

mental health treatment or complete a parenting education class in the two years the

matter was pending. The juvenile court further found that Mother was unlikely to faithfully

administer D.H.’s medication. The evidence showed that D.H. wanted to stay with Mother
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                                  10

because she had few rules and responsibilities for him. The juvenile court then adopted

the August 23, 2022 magistrate’s decision.

        {¶30} It is from this judgment that Mother now appeals.

                                    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

        {¶31} In her Statement of Assignment of Errors, Mother raises two Assignments

of Error1:

        {¶32} “I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT

APPELLANT FAILED TO [SIC] SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THE CASE PLAN TO

AMELIORATE THE ISSUES WHICH CAUSED THE CHILDREN TO BE REMOVED.

        {¶33} “II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING LEGAL

CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT/AUNT.”

                                               ANALYSIS

                                                I. and II.

        {¶34} We consider Mother’s two Assignments of Error together because they are

interrelated. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in granting legal custody of D.H. to

Paternal Grandmother. We disagree.

        {¶35} Paternal Grandmother is a non-parent. Before awarding legal custody to a

non-parent, a trial court must ordinarily make a finding that each parent is unsuitable. In

re L.P., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0045, 2017-Ohio-52, 2017 WL 74719, ¶ 18

1
  Mother recited two Assignments of Error in her “Statement of Assignments of Error.” The “Table of
Contents” in Mother’s appellant’s brief, however, includes a third Assignment of Error, which states: “II.
WHETHER RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES ENGAGED [SIC] REASONABLE EFFORTS
TO REUNITE THE CHILDREN WITH A PARENT.” Pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(1), the Appellant is required
to include a table of contents, but pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(3), the Appellant is required to include “a
statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record
where each record is reflected.” As such, we only consider Mother’s Assignments of Error properly listed
pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(3).
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                     11

citing In re L.M., 2nd Dist. Greene No. 2010-CA-76, 2011-Ohio-3285, 2011 WL 2584195,

¶ 18 citing In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-7208, 781 N.E.2d 971. This

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

Id. The Ohio Supreme Court in In re C.R. held “[a] juvenile court adjudication of abuse,

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

implicitly involves a determination of the unsuitability of the child's custodial and/or

noncustodial parents.” 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, paragraph

one of syllabus. Thus, “[w]hen a juvenile court adjudicates a child to be abused,

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

hearing that a noncustodial parent is unsuitable before awarding legal custody to a

nonparent.” In re L.M., 2011-Ohio-3285 quoting In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006 -

Ohio- 1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, paragraph two of syllabus.

       {¶36} In this case, D.H. was adjudicated a dependent child.

                                   Standard of Review

       {¶37} Custody issues are some of the most difficult and agonizing decisions a trial

court judge must make; for that reason, the trial court is given “wide latitude in considering

all the evidence.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).

“A trial court has broad discretion in proceedings involving the care and custody of

children.” In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417, 2011-Ohio-3361, 953 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 14. We

review the award of legal custody for an abuse of discretion. In re L.D. at ¶ 8; In re Gales,

10th Dist. No. 03AP-445, 2003-Ohio-6309, 2003 WL 22785029, ¶ 13; In re N.F., 10th

Dist. No. 08AP-1038, 2009-Ohio-2986, 2009 WL 1798146, ¶ 9, citing In re Nice, 141 Ohio

App.3d 445, 455, 751 N.E.2d 552 (7th Dist.2001). Abuse of discretion connotes more
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                    12

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, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). We must presume that the trial court's findings are correct

because the trial court is “best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor,

gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of

the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461

N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Therefore, deferential review in a child custody determination is

especially crucial “where there may be much evident in the parties’ demeanor and attitude

that does not translate to the record well.” Davis at 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159.

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

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

proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence. In re J.W., 5th Dist. Richland No. 2021

CA 0007, 2021-Ohio-2917, 2021 WL 3747036, ¶ 40; In re S.D., 5th Dist. Stark Nos.

2013CA0081, 2013-Ohio-5752, 2013 WL 6844490, ¶ 32; In re A.C., 12th Dist. No.

CA2006-12-105, 2007-Ohio-3350, 2007 WL 1880600 at ¶ 14; In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d

445, 455, 751 N.E.2d 552 (7th Dist.2001).

                                   Case Plan Progress

       {¶39} In Mother’s first Assignment of Error, she contends the juvenile court erred

when it found Mother had not progressed on her case plan so that she could be reunified

with D.H. There is no dispute Mother made progress toward completion of portions of her

case plan, but the primary goal is not to simply complete the case plan. In re T.H., 5th

Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0009, 2016-Ohio-7312, 2016 WL 5940835, ¶ 42. Even the

successful completion of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification. In re
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                      13

W.A.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99813, 2014-Ohio-604, 2014 WL 688653. Where a parent

has participated in his or her case plan and completed most or all of the plan

requirements, a trial court may still properly determine that such parent has not

substantially remedied the problems leading to agency involvement. Matter of N.D., 5th

Dist. Stark No. 2022CA00104, 2023-Ohio-439, 2023 WL 1992085, ¶ 26 citing In the

Matter of A.L. and J.L., 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 11 CA 23, 2012-Ohio-481, 2012 WL

424928. While it may be in Mother’s best interest to complete the case plan, this is only

one factor for the juvenile court to consider in the best interest of the child, and, “in legal

custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the

child.” In the Matter of D.P. and G.P., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2010CA00348, 2011-Ohio-1907,

2011 WL 1533158.

       {¶40} Mother argues that a major case plan requirement was for Mother to provide

D.H. his medication. Mother states the record shows she met this requirement because

when D.H. had visitation with Mother, D.H. received his medication. The record shows

there were more elements to the management of D.H.’s epilepsy than just D.H. taking his

medication. Paternal Grandmother sent D.H.’s medication with him when he visited

Mother. Paternal Grandmother counted the pills before and after Mother’s visitation to

confirm that Mother provided D.H. with his medication. Paternal Grandmother filled D.H.’s

prescriptions and took D.H. to his medical appointments to ensure he was properly

medicated to manage his epilepsy.

       {¶41} Mother’s case plan, created in November 2020 and which Mother initially

refused to sign, also required Mother to engage in mental health treatment and parenting

education. At the legal custody hearing in July 2022, the RCCSB caseworker testified that
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                   14

Mother engaged in mental health counseling approximately two weeks before the

hearing. The RCCSB caseworker testified that Mother enrolled in a parenting education

program a few weeks before the hearing.

       {¶42} Mother’s progress on her case plan is but one factor to consider in

determining whether granting legal custody of D.H. to Paternal Grandmother was in his

best interests.

                               Best Interests of the Child

       {¶43} In this type of dispositional hearing, the focus is on the best interest of the

child. In re T.B., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0065, 2019-Ohio-1747, 2019 WL

2041906, ¶ 26 citing In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188;

In re P.S., 5th Dist. No. 2012CA00007, 2012-Ohio-3431, 2012 WL 3068423. Despite the

differences between a disposition of permanent custody and legal custody, some Ohio

courts have recognized “the statutory best interest test designed for the permanent

custody situation may provide some ‘guidance’ for trial courts making legal custody

decisions.” In re A.F., 9th Dist. No. 24317, 2009-Ohio-333, 2009 WL 187959 at ¶ 7, citing

In re T.A., 9th Dist. No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, 2006 WL 2484165 at ¶ 17; In re S.D.,

5th Dist. Stark Nos. 2013CA0081, 2013-Ohio-5752, 2013 WL 6844490, ¶ 33. R.C.

2151.414(D) sets forth factors to be considered in making a determination regarding the

best interest of the child.

       {¶44} In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors

enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re J.W., 2021-Ohio-

2917, ¶ 42 citing In re M.T., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29690, 2020-Ohio-5493, 2020 WL

7055379, ¶ 20 citing In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-5003, 2008 WL
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                   15

4409464, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those

factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the child's wishes, the

custodial history of the child, the child's need for permanence, and whether any of the

factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) are applicable. In re M.T. at ¶ 20 citing R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). In addition, the juvenile court may also look to the best interest

factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re M.T. at ¶ 20 citing In re K.A., 9th Dist.

Lorain Nos. 15CA010850, 2017-Ohio-1, 2017 WL 27378, ¶ 17. “While some factors

overlap with those above, others include the child's adjustment to his or her environment;

the mental and physical health of all persons involved; the parents’ history of providing

support and honoring companionship orders; whether a parent plans to or has established

a residence outside of Ohio; and certain indicia of violence, abuse, or neglect in any

household involved. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). Such indicia include convictions relating to the

abuse or neglect of a child, as well as whether there exists any ‘reason to believe that

either parent has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused or a neglected

child[.]’ R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(h).” Id. at ¶ 20.

       {¶45} We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the juvenile court’s

determination that it was in the best interests of D.H. to be placed in the legal custody of

Paternal Grandmother. At the time of the hearing, D.H. had been in the care of Paternal

Grandmother for approximately 20 months. Paternal Grandmother ensured that D.H. was

attending regular medical appointments and taking his medication to manage his

epilepsy. D.H.’s grades had been low and during Paternal Grandmother’s care, D.H.’s

grades improved by attending school regularly and receiving the help of a tutor. Paternal

Grandmother kept more structure in her home than Mother, which as a teenager, was
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                                      16

challenging for D.H. He said that he wanted to return to living with Mother. D.H. had

successful unsupervised, overnight visitations with Mother where he took his medication,

but after Paternal Grandmother provided and monitored the medication. The record in

this case showed that Paternal Grandmother, Mother, and the Fictive Kin worked together

as an interrelated unit, cooperating and supporting each other and the three children to

maintain their relationships and succeed. The preponderance of the evidence

demonstrates that the custodial history of D.H., the appropriate management of D.H.’s

epilepsy by Paternal Grandmother, the improved management of D.H.’s education, D.H.’s

need for permanence, and Paternal Grandmother’s success in maintaining D.H.’s

relationship with his siblings and Mother supports the juvenile court’s determination that

it is in the best interests of D.H. to be placed in the legal custody of Paternal Grandmother.

       {¶46} Mother’s two Assignments of Error are overruled.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0003                                        17

                                 CONCLUSION

       {¶47} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division is affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Wise, John, P.J. and

King, J., concur.