Court Opinion

ID: 9918885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 20:07:52.828685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:28.073962
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:                                   CASE NO. 2023-T-0058

L.C. AND R.C.,
DEPENDENT CHILDREN                                  Civil Appeal from the
                                                    Court of Common Pleas,
                                                    Juvenile Division

                                                    Trial Court No. 2021 CH 00044

                                             OPINION

                                       Decided: January 16, 2024
                                          Judgment: Affirmed

Judith M. Kowalski, 333 Babbitt Road, Suite 323, Euclid, OH 44123 (For Appellant,
Brayasha Clark).

Tammy S. Richardson, Children Services Board of Trumbull County, 2282 Reeves
Road, N.E., Warren, OH 44483 (For Appellee, Trumbull County Children Services
Board).

Carol A. Sopkovich, Martin F. White Co., LPA, 156 Park Avenue, N.E., Warren, OH
44481 (Guardian ad litem).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Brayasha Clark (“Mother”), appeals the judgment awarding

appellee, Trumbull County Children Services Board (“CSB”), permanent custody of her

children R.C. and L.C. We affirm.

        {¶2}     Shortly after their births, Trumbull County CSB filed complaints in the trial

court alleging L.C., born August 27, 2021, was dependent and that R.C., born October 3,

2022, was abused and dependent. During the course of the proceedings, the court
granted temporary custody of both children to Trumbull County CSB, adjudicated L.C. as

dependent, adjudicated R.C. as dependent and abused, and appointed a guardian ad

litem (“GAL”) for the children. The putative father of the children did not appear in the

proceedings, and paternity was not established. In 2023, Trumbull County CSB filed a

motion for permanent custody of the children. A hearing on this motion was thereafter

held before a magistrate.

       {¶3}   After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision determining that

permanent custody of the children should be granted to Trumbull County CSB. Mother

filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision. Subsequently, the trial court adopted the

magistrate’s decision and independently entered judgment granting Trumbull County

CSB permanent custody of the children.

       {¶4}   In her first assigned error, Mother argues:

       {¶5}   “Appellant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the trial

level by reason of her counsel’s failure to file objections to the magistrate’s decision

granting permanent custody.”

       {¶6}   “‘At the outset, we recognize that parents have a constitutionally protected

fundamental interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.’” In re J.L.,

11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2021-L-066, 2021-L-068, 2021-L-069, 2021-Ohio-3977, ¶ 9, quoting

In re C.P., 187 Ohio App.3d 246, 2010-Ohio-346, 931 N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.).

“‘The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized the essential and basic rights of a parent to

raise his or her child.’” J.L. at ¶ 9, quoting C.P. at ¶ 11. “‘These rights, however, are not

absolute. A parent’s natural rights are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child.’”

J.L. at ¶ 9, quoting C.P. at ¶ 11.      “[W]hen the state initiates a permanent custody

                                              2

Case No. 2023-T-0058
proceeding, parents must be provided with fundamentally fair procedures in accordance

with the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.” In re Roque, 11th Dist.

Trumbull No. 2005-T-0138, 2006-Ohio-7007, ¶ 7, citing In re Sheffey, 167 Ohio App.3d

141, 854 N.E.2d 508, 2006-Ohio-619, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.). “This includes effective assistance

of counsel.” Roque at ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 6, 399 N.E.2d

66 (1980), paragraph two of the syllabus; In re Ridenour, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2004-L-

168, 2004-L-169, 2004-L-170, 2005-Ohio-349, ¶ 9; and In re Brewster, 11th Dist. No. 91-

P-2365, 1994 WL 316371 (Mar. 25, 1994). Accordingly, a parent may challenge the

effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding terminating parental rights. In re Ridenour

at ¶ 9.

          {¶7}   “When presented with ineffective assistance of counsel claims in

proceedings to terminate parental rights, Ohio courts apply the two-prong Strickland test.”

Roque at ¶ 11, citing Ridenour at ¶ 9; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Pursuant thereto, in order to prevail on a

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “a defendant must prove that counsel’s

performance was deficient and that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient

performance.” State v. Davis, 159 Ohio St.3d 31, 2020-Ohio-309, 146 N.E.3d 560, ¶ 10,

citing State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989); and

Strickland at 687. “Thus, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there exists a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.” Davis at ¶ 10, citing Bradley at paragraphs two and three of the syllabus.

                                             3

Case No. 2023-T-0058
       {¶8}   Here, Mother argues that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file

objections to the magistrate’s decision awarding permanent custody to Trumbull County

CSB.     Generally, “[t]he sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-

evidence standards of review are the proper appellate standards of review of a juvenile

court’s permanent-custody determination, as appropriate depending on the nature of the

arguments that are presented by the parties.” In re Z.C., Ohio Supreme Court Slip

Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 11 (Dec. 27, 2023).       However, here, counsel’s failure to

file objections to the magistrate’s decision has limited Mother’s challenges to the

judgment under the Juvenile Rules.

       {¶9}   Juv.R. 40(D) governs the procedure to object to a magistrate’s decision. “If

no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision, unless it

determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the

magistrate's decision.” Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(c). Further, pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv),

“[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s

adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated

as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has

objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b).” However, claims

of ineffective assistance of counsel are not forfeited by failure to object to a magistrate’s

decision, and the reviewing court may consider the transcript of proceedings before the

magistrate when determining whether counsel was ineffective.           In re S.N., 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-190151, C-190152, 2020-Ohio-3958, ¶ 20.

        {¶10} In support of her ineffective assistance claim, Mother appears to argue that

trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to certain findings made by the magistrate

                                             4

Case No. 2023-T-0058
and for failing to object on the basis that the evidence weighed against granting

permanent custody of the children to Trumbull County CSB.            R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)

provides that a court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if it finds by

clear and convincing evidence that (1) one or more of the factors in R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) applies, and (2) granting permanent custody of the child to the

movant is in the best interest of the child.

        {¶11} The factors contained in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) include, as relevant here:

              (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.

              ***

              (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
              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.

        {¶12} R.C. 2151.414(D) provides:

                                               5

Case No. 2023-T-0058
            (1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held
            pursuant to division (A) of this section * * * the court shall
            consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the
            following:

            (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the
            child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-
            of-home providers, and any other person who may
            significantly affect the child;

            (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child
            or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for
            the maturity of the child;

            (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the
            child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
            children services agencies or private child placing agencies
            for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month
            period, or the child has been in the temporary custody of one
            or more public children services agencies or private child
            placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive
            twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1)
            of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was
            previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency
            in another state;

            (d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement
            and whether that type of placement can be achieved without
            a grant of permanent custody to the agency;

            (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this
            section apply in relation to the parents and child.

      {¶13} R.C. 2151.414(E) provides, in relevant 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 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
                                            6

Case No. 2023-T-0058
            parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with
            either parent:

            (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. 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.

            ***

            (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward
            the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate
            with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing
            an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for
            the child;

            ***

            (11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily
            terminated with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this
            section or section 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code,
            or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state,
            or the United States that is substantially equivalent to those
            sections, and the parent has failed to provide clear and
            convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior
            termination, the parent can provide a legally secure
            permanent placement and adequate care for the health,
            welfare, and safety of the child.

            ***

            (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

      {¶14} Here, on the first day of the permanent custody hearing, held on May 8,

2023, Trumbull County CSB presented the testimony of its caseworkers who had been

                                            7

Case No. 2023-T-0058
involved in the present case and the testimony of a caseworker from Mahoning County

CSB who had been involved in cases involving Mother’s older children.

       {¶15} Testimony from the caseworkers indicated that, as a child, Mother

experienced significant trauma and ultimately entered the foster care system. Mother

suffered from mental health issues during adolescence that persisted into adulthood.

Prior to emancipating, Mother gave birth to her first two children, who were placed in the

custody of paternal relatives. Mahoning County CSB became involved with Mother’s six

subsequently born children beginning in 2018, when police removed the children from

Mother’s home after responding to a report that Mother had assaulted the father of three

of her children with a brick. Mother’s case plan goals included addressing housing,

parenting, and mental health concerns, completing random drug testing, and resolving

criminal charges. Mother progressed on her case plan, and, in 2020, the children were

returned to Mother under a protective supervision order. However, five months later, two

incidents occurred where Mother left the children, the oldest being seven years old, at

home unsupervised and police were called. After the second of these incidents, in

February 2021, the children, who appeared abused and neglected, were removed by

officers. Mother was charged with and convicted of child endangerment and sentenced

to five years of nonreporting probation.

       {¶16} While custody proceedings were pending in Mahoning County, Mother

moved to Trumbull County, where she gave birth to the children at issue in this case.

Trumbull County CSB obtained temporary custody of the children shortly after their births.

Trumbull County CSB reviewed information gathered during the Mahoning County cases

to refine a case plan for Mother. Mother’s case plan goals included: engaging in mental

                                            8

Case No. 2023-T-0058
health counseling; completing a psychological assessment; completing a substance

abuse assessment; maintaining housing with working utilities; maintaining verifiable

employment; refraining from engaging in criminal activity; remaining compliant with

probation; signing releases; and complying with all recommendations from assessments.

        {¶17} With respect to her mental health, Mother consistently engaged in

counseling twice per month with a therapist at Coleman Professional Services

(“Coleman”). However, Mother’s mental health was concerning to the caseworkers due

to certain periods of instability. In January 2022, Mother was involuntarily committed to

Generations Behavioral Health Hospital (“Generations”) after expressing “religious

delusions” during which she referred to herself as the voice of God and the next Jesus

Christ. En route to the hospital, Mother jumped from a moving vehicle. On her release

from Generations, Mother was prescribed the medication Abilify for treatment of her

mental health conditions. However, Mother delayed filling her prescription and then

discontinued use of the medication when she became pregnant with R.C. In March 2023,

Coleman reached out to CSB indicating that Mother was experiencing a mental health

crisis. The next day, Mother arrived at a visitation for the children at issue in this case,

and she began yelling about sovereign citizenship, indicated that she had a “declaration,”

and expressed that she would be the first black president of the United States. This

behavior persisted for approximately 30 to 45 minutes at the agency before Mother left,

and the visit did not occur. The following weekend, Mother crashed her vehicle into a

tree.   When police arrived, Mother appeared delusional, and Mother was again

involuntarily committed. After this commitment, Mother was again prescribed medication

                                             9

Case No. 2023-T-0058
to assist in treating her mental health conditions. Mother had remained on the medication,

and it appeared to be assisting her.

       {¶18} In connection with the Trumbull County CSB case, Mother attended a

psychological evaluation, but she refused to speak about the children during the

evaluation, and she spent some time during the evaluation pretending to sleep. The

evaluator recommended that Mother engage in trauma therapy known as eye movement

desensitization redirection (“EMDR”). To CSB’s knowledge, Mother had not engaged in

EMDR.

       {¶19} Two caseworkers testified as to certain incidents relative to Mother’s verbal

aggression and/or lack of impulse control. The Mahoning County CSB caseworker and

one of the Trumbull County CSB caseworkers indicated that Mother had verbally

threatened them.      The Mahoning County caseworker further testified that, at one

visitation, Mother became disruptive in the waiting room by insisting on speaking with an

agency employee who was unavailable. In addition, a Trumbull County caseworker

testified that there were occasions when Mother would make aggressive remarks about

the staff during the visits with the children at issue in this case.

       {¶20} With respect to substance abuse, the caseworkers indicated that Mother

had reported that she had a medical marijuana card, but Mother admitted to purchasing

marijuana off the street because the dispensary was too expensive. Mother consistently

tested positive for marijuana at her drug screens. In January 2022, she tested positive

for a particular opioid that she was not prescribed, and, in February 2022, Mother tested

positive for amphetamines. Further, when R.C. was born, both R.C. and Mother tested

positive for cocaine, despite Mother’s denial of having used cocaine.       Caseworkers

                                              10

Case No. 2023-T-0058
expressed concerns with Mother purchasing marijuana off the street, which might not be

distributed in the appropriate dosage and could be adulterated. Although Mother did not

attend a substance abuse assessment scheduled through the Mahoning County CSB,

Mother did attend a substance abuse assessment scheduled by Trumbull County CSB.

After the substance abuse assessment, it was recommended that Mother complete an in-

patient program, which she refused, or an intensive out-patient program, which she also

refused.

       {¶21} With respect to her parenting abilities, Mother complied with her case plans

in completing parenting classes.       However, Mother was unable to demonstrate

appropriate parenting skills during her supervised visitations with the children at issue in

the Mahoning County case. During visits, Mother would gravitate to the youngest child

present, leaving the oldest child to take charge of the remaining children. Agency aides

had to intervene numerous times due to the chaos of the visitations.             On cross-

examination, the Mahoning County CSB caseworker affirmed that one-on-one visitation

with the children was never discussed as an option. Of Mother’s six children with whom

Mahoning County CSB was involved, three had been placed in the legal custody of their

father, two were in the permanent custody of Mahoning County CSB, and one was in the

temporary custody of Mahoning County CSB, with a permanent custody hearing

scheduled.

       {¶22} With respect to the children at issue here, Mother’s visitations generally

went well; although Mother focused most of her attention on R.C. In addition, one

Trumbull County caseworker indicated that, at certain visitations, Mother failed to

demonstrate an understanding of the developmental needs and appropriate parenting of

                                            11

Case No. 2023-T-0058
the children. For example, Mother had left R.C. on the changing table unattended and

had expected L.C. to follow her verbal directions, although he was only approximately

one year old at the time.

      {¶23} In regard to other case plan goals, Mother had established housing in April

2022, and she had maintained it since that time. Mother had been employed at different

locations during CSB involvement, but she was unemployed as of the first day of hearing

on the permanent custody motion in the present case. Mother had her own car, but she

did not have a valid driver’s license. Mother was compliant with attending her mental

health counseling on a biweekly basis at Coleman, and Mother’s therapist had reported

that Mother was engaged and responsive during the sessions. Mother was compliant

with her probation. Mother had refused a parental assessment recommended in the

Trumbull County case, but a caseworker acknowledged that the assessment was to be

scheduled with a doctor located in Canton, Ohio, whose office is approximately 40 to 45

minutes away.

      {¶24} With respect to whether the children at issue here could be returned to

Mother’s care within a reasonable time, one caseworker from Trumbull County CSB

indicated that, although Mother had made progress on some of her case plan goals, she

was concerned for the safety R.C. and L.C. if they were returned to Mother’s care due to

Mother’s mental instability, substance use, and failure to understand the developmental

needs and abilities of the children. Accordingly, the caseworker did not believe that the

children could be returned to Mother’s care within a reasonable time.

      {¶25} The other Trumbull County CSB caseworker, who had been assigned

Mother’s case in December 2022, testified that, although she had no concerns with

                                           12

Case No. 2023-T-0058
Mother’s interactions with the children at the visits she had observed, she had concerns

regarding Mother’s mental health due to Mother’s unstable behavior in March 2023, just

two months prior to the hearing. The caseworker was primarily concerned that if the

children were returned to Mother’s custody, and Mother ceased taking her medication,

she may experience a similar episode of instability while caring for the children.

Accordingly, the caseworker did not believe that the children could be reunified with

Mother within a reasonable time and recommended that the children be placed in the

permanent custody of CSB.

        {¶26} On the second day of the permanent custody hearing, held on June 21,

2023, Trumbull County CSB offered exhibits which were admitted into evidence without

objection. First, Trumbull County CSB submitted a decision of the Seventh District Court

of Appeals, affirming the Mahoning County Juvenile Court’s decision to place two of

Mother’s children in the permanent custody of Mahoning County CSB. The next exhibit

consisted of a judgment entry issued by the Mahoning County Juvenile Court from which

the appeal was brought. Further, Trumbull County CSB submitted the mental health

evaluation it had conducted, and this exhibit was admitted by stipulation.

        {¶27} After admission of the exhibits, Mother, mother’s counselor, and the GAL

testified.

        {¶28} Mother addressed certain testimony elicited during the first day of the

permanent custody hearing. Mother testified that she had just obtained employment in a

factory. Mother’s testimony then focused on the Mahoning County CSB proceedings,

which, as previously set forth, pertain to children not at issue in the present case. First,

Mother denied being the aggressor in the domestic violence incident alleged by the

                                            13

Case No. 2023-T-0058
Mahoning County CSB caseworker during her testimony. After Mahoning County CSB

removed the children at issue in that case from her custody, Mother complied with her

case plan goals of maintaining stable housing, drug screening, parenting classes, and

counseling, and the children were returned to her. However, Mother felt as though the

system set her up for failure, because she received no resources or assistance when the

children were returned to her. Mother admitted to leaving the children home alone,

resulting in the children’s removal a second time by Mahoning County CSB. Mother then

acknowledged the “chaotic” nature of her visits with the children in Mahoning County.

Mother explained that having all of the children present at the same time in a small room

was not conducive to spending quality time with them.

      {¶29} With regard to Mother experiencing religious “delusions,” she explained that

she is a Jehovah Witness, and she could not recall what she had said during these

episodes other than that she was a prophet of Jehovah, and she would “scream that God

got me and my kids back.” (Sic.) Mother testified that she did not really believe that she

was Jesus Christ. Although Mother denied being mentally unstable, she acknowledged

that the issues with her children were affecting her emotional and mental well-being.

      {¶30} With respect to the mental health evaluation performed by Trumbull County

CSB, Mother explained that she did not attempt to sleep during the mental health

evaluation but was instead very sad to speak about her children. She explained that she

was uncomfortable with the evaluation because she had already done a mental health

evaluation through Coleman, and she felt that the agency was attempting to make the

process more difficult for her. She also believed that the system was racially biased

against black people, and she did not believe that the majority of people she had

                                           14

Case No. 2023-T-0058
encountered during this process, who were white, had her children’s best interests as a

priority. Mother further maintained that Trumbull County CSB was using her past issues

from the Mahoning County case against her and disregarding the progress that she had

made with parenting classes, drug and alcohol assessments, drug screens, counseling,

housing, and employment.

       {¶31} With respect to her current mental health treatment, Mother explained that

she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety.

Regarding her involuntary commitment in January 2022, Mother acknowledged that she

was having a mental breakdown at the time and was talking about “Jehovah and

sovereignty, probably talking crazy,” when the police arrived to perform a welfare check.

With regard to the March 2023 auto accident, Mother maintained that she was driving

herself to the hospital to get help because she was having a mental breakdown. On the

way to the hospital, Mother crashed into a tree. On cross-examination, Mother clarified

that the car accident was likely a result of bad brakes, and she had no intention to harm

herself.   Mother maintained that she has continued to attend counseling through

Coleman, and she has continued to take the medication prescribed by Coleman following

the March 2023 incident.

       {¶32} With respect to her marijuana use, Mother testified that she has a medical

marijuana card, and she currently purchases marijuana through a dispensary. Mother

acknowledged that, during an evaluation, she reported that she smoked “six to eight

blunts a day.” On cross-examination, Mother indicated that she now smokes “probably

like three or four” blunts per day. Although Mother testified that she now purchases

                                           15

Case No. 2023-T-0058
marijuana from a dispensary, it was not clear from her testimony as to whether Mother

continued to purchase any marijuana off the street.

      {¶33} In regard to the alleged threats made to the caseworkers, Mother did not

recall threatening the Trumbull County CSB caseworker, but Mother acknowledged that

she “probably did cuss her out.” Mother recalled that she had “got into it” with the

Mahoning County CSB caseworker after Mother learned that the caseworker had called

her counselor to inquire as to the counselor’s race and because her children were being

given medication without her approval.

      {¶34} Following Mother’s testimony, a therapist from Coleman testified that

Mother has been her client since May 2021. The therapist indicated that Mother has been

diagnosed with major depression, anxiety, as well as generalized anxiety, and she is

bipolar with psychotic features at times. Regarding the psychotic features, the therapist

explained that Mother had been hospitalized two or three times due to religious or

ideological statements such as her being “the female God” and maintaining that she was

going to be the “first woman President.” The therapist believed these episodes likely

occurred in connection with a triggering event such as a court proceeding, because

Mother did not normally display psychotic features. The therapist recalled a telehealth

session in spring 2023, during which Mother seemed to be “very high strung” and stated

that CSB did not know that she was God and then continued making such statements

before hanging up the call, prompting the therapist to cause her agency to initiate a

wellness check.

      {¶35} The therapist testified that she believed Mother was honest with her in

therapy. The therapist indicated that Mother is supposed to be a biweekly client, and she

                                           16

Case No. 2023-T-0058
tries to provide sessions to Mother on at least a monthly basis. She believed Mother

could benefit from weekly sessions; however, the therapist was unable to see Mother

weekly due to the therapist’s commitments to other clients. The therapist explained that

she and Mother review methods of healthy, assertive communication at the sessions,

because Mother has difficulty with impulse control and regulating her emotions; although

Mother had reported that her current medications were assisting in her feeling better and

clearer minded.

      {¶36} On cross-examination, the therapist testified that she believed Mother

would benefit from EMDR therapy to address her childhood trauma.           The therapist

indicated that she had discussed EMDR therapy with Mother, and Mother was willing to

engage in that therapy, but the only counselors that performed this therapy in the area

had significant waiting lists, and mental health resources in Trumbull County are

somewhat strained. The therapist acknowledged that she had never viewed Mother with

her children and was unable to speak about Mother’s parenting abilities. The therapist

further indicated that Mother’s lack of impulse control is apparent when conversations

involve CSB, and the therapist believed that Mother’s issues with CSB were fueled by her

own experiences as a child.

      {¶37} Last, the GAL testified that she recommended permanent custody be

granted to CSB. The GAL based her opinion on the severity of Mother’s mental health

issues that had resulted in her involuntary commitment only a couple of months prior to

the hearing. The GAL acknowledged that she had observed only one visit between

Mother, L.C., and R.C., to which Mother arrived late. During the hour that the GAL

observed the visit, Mother continuously fed R.C., and she paid little attention to L.C.

                                           17

Case No. 2023-T-0058
When Mother did interact with L.C., she entirely ignored R.C. Thus, the GAL opined that

Mother had difficulty handling both children at the same time. Further, the GAL referred

to the testimony indicating that Mother may benefit from EMDR therapy, but such therapy

could take years to prove beneficial, and the GAL did not believe the children’s best

interests would be served in waiting such a significant period for potential reunification.

       {¶38} In the magistrate’s decision, with respect to the R.C. 2151.414(B) factors,

the magistrate determined that R.C. could not be placed with either parent within a

reasonable time and had been abandoned by his biological father and family. The

magistrate concluded that L.C. had been in the temporary custody of a public services

agency twelve or more months since adjudication out of the past twenty-two-month period

and also had been abandoned by his biological father and family.

       {¶39} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the magistrate found that, following the

placement of the children outside of Mother’s home and notwithstanding CSB’s efforts,

Mother had continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the problems that caused the

children’s removal. Mother had not assisted in determining paternity of the children, and

no male had appeared to request DNA testing to establish paternity or seek custody. The

magistrate determined that Mother failed to engage in the CSB case plan to create a safe

placement for the children because (1) she had not stopped abusing drugs, and, as of the

date of her assessment, she had not stopped purchasing marijuana off the street and

smoked six to eight blunts per day; (2) Mother had not complied with drug screens when

requested; (3) Mother had no driver’s license when she was in her car accident in March

2023, and she continues to drive without a license; (4) Mother suffers from unresolved

PTSD due to a traumatic childhood experience; (5) Mother can only manage one child at

                                             18

Case No. 2023-T-0058
a time; (6) Mother has no impulse regulation; (7) Mother continues to have unresolved

issues with substance abuse and mental health and is verbally aggressive; (8) Mother

has engaged in counseling with Coleman for two years but has not improved; and (9)

“Mother has a pattern of unstable mental health, which affects her ability to parent,” and

“creates serious safety concerns for the children.” The magistrate found that Mother had

declined additional services for mental health counseling; a mental health assessment by

MEDSOM; treatment for her bipolar disorder, depression, and PTSD; additional parenting

classes; and use of a case manager to help her establish basic skills, obtain a driver’s

license, and engage in community services to maintain independent income and housing.

With respect to Mother’s need for additional parenting classes, the magistrate stated that

Mother “yells [at] and demeans the children during visits.”

       {¶40} The magistrate further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), there

existed a “lack of commitment” by Mother because “she has not used offered resources

as noted above despite years of offered services by TCCSB and MCCSB over a four (4)

year period of time.”      Further, the magistrate found that Mother “continues to use

marijuana bought ‘on the street’ despite the obvious adulterations in the mix that she is

buying and showing up in drug screens.”

       {¶41} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), the magistrate noted the “involuntary

termination of parental rights in Mahoning County (March 2023) and affirmed on appeal

(June 2023).” The magistrate found that, by clear and convincing evidence, the parents

had not utilized the services offered to them to address the current problems in their

inability to care for the children.

                                            19

Case No. 2023-T-0058
        {¶42} Further, the magistrate found that Mother’s interaction with the children was

poor, and the children needed the opportunity to enjoy being part of a family that would

permanently care for them as their children, and termination of Mother’s parental rights

was the only path that could provide the children with a safe, secure, and permanent

home.

        {¶43} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D), the magistrate stated that all factors were

considered, and it was in the best interests of the children to grant permanent custody to

Trumbull County CSB.

        {¶44} Based upon these findings, the magistrate determined that parental rights

should be terminated and permanent custody of the children should be granted to CSB.

As previously discussed, Mother’s counsel did not object to the magistrate’s decision, and

the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.

        {¶45} On appeal, Mother appears to argue that her trial counsel was deficient for

failing to object to the following factual findings. First, Mother challenges the magistrate’s

findings that she “has terrible PTSD from a childhood experience” that is unresolved and

that Mother has no impulse control. Mother cites to her counselor’s testimony affirming

that Mother was willing to engage in further services that were not presently available in

the community and that her current medications were assisting in stabilizing her mental

health.    However, this testimony does not negate the magistrate’s findings. Thus, we

cannot say that trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to these findings.

        {¶46} Mother next challenges the magistrate’s finding that she does not drug

screen when requested. Mother maintains that the testimony indicated she had complied

with drug screens. We agree with Mother that the testimony at the hearing did not

                                              20

Case No. 2023-T-0058
establish that Mother currently fails to comply with drug screens, as this portion of the

magistrate’s decision appears to rely on a finding made in L.C.’s adjudicatory order.

Nonetheless, even had counsel objected to this finding, it is undisputed that Mother

consumes marijuana, and Mother testified that she continues to smoke several “blunts”

per day. It does not appear that purported noncompliance with drug screening was a

decisive factor in the magistrate’s decision, and thus, even had counsel objected to the

finding, Mother has not established a reasonable probability that the outcome would have

been different.

       {¶47} Mother next challenges the magistrate’s findings that “Mother has spent two

years with Coleman for mental health counseling, and has not advanced,” and “Mother

has a pattern of unstable mental health, which affects her ability to parent, which creates

serious safety concerns for the children.” Mother further disputes the magistrate’s finding

that Mother has declined treatment for her mental health diagnoses. In support, Mother

cites the testimony of her counselor, who indicated that she would like to see Mother more

often, but her caseload does not permit it. Further, the counselor maintained that Mother

was amenable to the EMDR treatment that was not presently available, and there were

staffing shortages for mental health services in the community. However, again, Mother’s

challenges, while possibly explaining the magistrate’s findings, do not negate the findings.

Accordingly, we cannot say trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to these

findings.

       {¶48} Mother further challenges the magistrate’s finding that she yells at and

demeans the children during visits. In support, Mother cites the testimony of the second

Trumbull County CSB caseworker, who indicated that Mother was appropriate and loving

                                            21

Case No. 2023-T-0058
during visits with the children and she had no concerns about the visits. However,

assuming that the magistrate’s finding in this regard was error, Mother has not

demonstrated a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had

trial counsel objected.

       {¶49} For the reasons discussed above, Mother has not established ineffective

assistance of counsel with respect to trial counsel’s failure to object to the magistrate’s

findings. Further, to the extent that Mother argues that trial counsel should have objected

on the weight of the evidence establishing that the children’s best interests were served

by granting permanent custody to Trumbull County CSB, Mother has not advanced an

argument as to how the outcome would have been different, and, given the testimony

presented at the hearing, we cannot say that there exists a reasonable probability that

the trial court would have sustained such an objection.

       {¶50} Accordingly, Mother’s first assigned error lacks merit.

       {¶51} In her second assigned error, Mother maintains:

       {¶52} “The Trumbull County Family Court plainly erred by not appointing a

guardian ad litem for the mother.”

       {¶53} R.C. 2151.281(C) provides that “[i]n any proceeding concerning an alleged

or adjudicated delinquent, unruly, abused, neglected, or dependent child in which the

parent appears to be mentally incompetent or is under eighteen years of age, the court

shall appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interest of that parent.” Similarly, Juv.R.

4(B)(3) provides that “[t]he court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests

of a child or incompetent adult in a juvenile court proceeding when * * * [t]he parent is

under eighteen years of age or appears to be mentally incompetent.”

                                             22

Case No. 2023-T-0058
       {¶54} Here, neither Mother nor her attorney requested the trial court to appoint

Mother a GAL. Accordingly, Mother has forfeited her challenge in this regard to all but

plain error. “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts must

proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare civil

cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest

miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have

a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial

proceedings.” (Citations omitted.) Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121, 679

N.E.2d 1099 (1997). “‘In an appropriate case, however, a reviewing court can find plain

error when the trial court has failed to appoint a guardian ad litem and such failure results

in prejudice to the party in need of a guardian.’” In re Amber G. & Josie G., 6th Dist. Lucas

No. L-04-1091, 2004-Ohio-5665, ¶ 8, quoting In re Holmes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

77785, 2001 WL 128007, *3 (Feb. 15, 2001).

       {¶55} Here, Mother is over the age of majority, and thus she relies on R.C.

2151.281(C)’s provision for a court to appoint a guardian ad litem where it appears the

parent is mentally incompetent. “The statute’s language is mandatory and requires the

appointment of a guardian ad litem even when it just appears that the parent is less than

mentally competent. Indeed, it is the appearance of incompetence and not an actual

finding of such that triggers the requirement of an appointment of a guardian ad litem.”

(Internal citation omitted.) Holmes at *2.

       {¶56} In her brief, Mother maintains that the trial court committed plain error when

if failed to appoint a GAL for her as it is undisputed that Mother suffers from mental health

issues, and the magistrate found that she was delusional and involuntarily committed after

                                             23

Case No. 2023-T-0058
her car accident.   However, “[m]ental incompetence means that the person cannot

understand and participate in the proceedings.” In re C.C., 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2016-

T-0050, 2016-T-0058, 2016-Ohio-7447, ¶ 122.         At the permanent custody hearing,

Mother’s testimony indicated that she understood and participated in the proceedings.

Further, during Mother’s counselor’s testimony, she indicated that Mother had discussed

these proceedings with her, and Mother specifically told her this case pertained to her two

babies that were both removed from her at the hospital shortly after their births, and

Mother explained to the counselor that this was a permanent custody hearing which could

terminate her parental rights.

       {¶57} Moreover, Mother was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.

“‘Even where a parent’s attorney was appointed solely as counsel and not specifically for

the dual purpose of serving as guardian ad litem, the parent does not suffer prejudice if

counsel safeguards the parent’s rights and advocates for reunification in accordance with

the parent’s wishes.’” In re K.R., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0008, 2015-Ohio-2819,

¶ 32, quoting In re M.T., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-09-1197, 2009-Ohio-6674, ¶ 17. Although,

in some cases, the role of the GAL and of counsel may conflict, here, Mother was

appointed counsel who advocated against CSB’s motion for permanent custody, and she

was not prejudiced by any failure of the trial court to appoint a GAL on her behalf. See

Amber G. at ¶ 35-36.

                                            24

Case No. 2023-T-0058
      {¶58} Accordingly, Mother has failed to establish error, much less plain error, and

her second assigned error lacks merit.

      {¶59} The judgment is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

                                          25

Case No. 2023-T-0058