Court Opinion

ID: 9386562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 20:06:42.098121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.452927
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re S.P., 2023-Ohio-1208.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                       STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF S.P.                        :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                             :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                             :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                             :
                                             :
                                             :       Case No. 2022CA00139
                                             :
                                             :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                     Pleas Family Court Division, Case
                                                     No. 2021JCV00408

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    April 11, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH                               PAUL M. GRANT
402 2nd Street SE                                    209 S. Main Street
Canton, OH 44708                                     8th Floor
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                      2

                                                   Akron, OH 44038

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Appellant Father appeals the September 29, 2022 judgment entry of the

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

rights and granting permanent custody of his child S.P. to the Stark County Department

of Job and Family Services (SCJFS).

                              Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} J.P. is the father ("Father") of S.P. who was born December 16, 2020.

SCJFS became involved with the family shortly thereafter due to concerns involving drug

use by both parents, active warrants for both parents, Mother J.B.'s history with social

service agencies involving the removal of three other children from her custody, and

Mother's poorly-managed epilepsy.

       {¶ 3} SCJFS initially attempted to put a safety plan in place which included using

maternal grandmother as a safety plan monitor. However, Mother, Father, and

Grandmother all tested positive for methamphetamines. As a result, an emergency

shelter care hearing was held on February 2, 2021 wherein the trial court found probable

cause for the involvement of SCJFS, that SCJFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent

the removal of S.P. from the home, and that S.P.'s continued residence with parents was

not within S.P.'s best interests. The trial court granted temporary custody of S.P. to the

SCJFS. Neither Mother nor Father attended the hearing.

       {¶ 4} On April 30, 2021, Father appeared for the first time and requested counsel.

Due to statutory time constraints, the complaint was dismissed and refiled the same day.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                          3

The concerns outlined in the initial complaint were identical to those outlined in the refiled

complaint. S.P. remained in the temporary custody of SCJFS.

       {¶ 5} On May 3, 2021, a second emergency shelter care hearing was held with

the same concerns and results as the first. The trial court found SCJFS had made

reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of S.P. from the home. S.P. was continued in

the temporary custody of SCJFS.

       {¶ 6} On May 26, 2021, an adjudicatory hearing was held. The trial court set the

matter for evidence on July 8, 2021.

       {¶ 7} On July 8, 2021, S.P. was adjudicated dependent. On the same day, a case

plan for parents was approved and adopted. The plan required both parents to complete

a parenting assessment, substance abuse treatment, and follow through with all

treatment recommendations. The trial court found SCJFS had made reasonable efforts

to finalize permanency planning and compelling reasons existed to preclude a filing for

permanent custody. The court further found both parents were using drugs, both had

active warrants for their arrest, and neither were cooperating with non-court services.

       {¶ 8} Both Mother and Father completed their parenting assessments with Dr.

Aimee Thomas. Dr. Thomas' concerns for Father's ability to safely parent S.P. included

his criminal activity and substance abuse, both of which had been concerns for Father

since the age of 10 or 11. Thomas also found Father's "unstable and immature" lifestyle

concerning for safe parenting.

       {¶ 9} Thomas recommended Father engage in weekly aftercare classes, twelve-

step meetings, maintain sobriety, find a sober sponsor, cooperate with random drug
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                      4

screens, engage in individual counseling, and successfully complete home-based

parenting classes.

       {¶ 10} Thomas recommended Mother also engage in weekly aftercare classes,

twelve-step meetings, maintain sobriety, cooperate with random drug screens, and

engage in individual counseling. Additionally, Mother was to engage with a neurologist to

stabilize her seizure disorder. Because Mother has a full-scale IQ of 77 she required a

structured approach to parenting-skill training with more repetition. For that reason, the

Goodwill Parenting program was specifically recommended for Mother.

       {¶ 11} Both Mother and Father were required to demonstrate nine months of

sobriety before reunification with S.P.

       {¶ 12} On July 22, 2021 the court reviewed the case plan, found SCJFS had made

reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of S.P. from the home, and ordered status quo.

       {¶ 13} On November 30 2021, SCJFS filed a motion to extend temporary custody

for six months. Parents had moved to a different county and needed time to locate and

utilize providers relevant to their case plan.

       {¶ 14} On December 28, 2021 the trial court reviewed the matter, approved and

adopted the case plan, and found SCJFS had made reasonable efforts to finalize the

permanency planning, had made intensive efforts to identify and engage kinship

caregivers for S.P. and ordered status quo. The motion to extend temporary custody was

set for evidence on January 27, 2022. The court found Father had been discharged from

substance abuse treatment due to positive drug screens and non-compliance. The court

further found Mother was not engaged in substance abuse treatment and neither parent

was engaged in individual counseling.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                         5

       {¶ 15} On January 27, 2022, Parents stipulated to the motion to extend temporary

custody and the trial court granted the same. The trial court that SCJFS had made

reasonable efforts, and ordered SCJFS to begin seeking permanency for S.P.

       {¶ 16} On June 21, 2022, SCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of S.P. The

motion alleged in part that S.P. could not be placed with Parents within a reasonable

amount of time, that S.P. had been in the continuous custody of SCJFS for 12 or more

months in a consecutive 22-month period, and that permanent custody was within S.P.'s

best interests.

       {¶ 17} On June 28, 2022, the trial court reviewed the matter, found reasonable

efforts by SCJFS to finalize permanency planning, engage willing kinship caregivers for

S.P., ordered status quo, and found there were no compelling reasons to preclude a

request for permanent custody. The trial court specifically found Parents had failed to

follow through with mental health counseling, had not completed substance abuse

treatment, had refused drug testing since December 2021, and struggled with both stable

housing and consistency during visits with S.P. Parents were staying with family members

or in hotels. At the time of the review they were staying with Father's aunt in Pennsylvania.

       {¶ 18} On September 19, 2022, the assigned Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) filed her

final report. In it the GAL noted her concerns surrounding Parents ability to safely parent

S.P. and recommended the trial court grant SCJFS's motion for permanent custody.

       {¶ 19} The permanent custody hearing was held on September 28, 2022. SCJFS

caseworker Nicole Hadden was assigned to this case. She testified she became involved

in the matter nearly two years before the hearing due to concerns including drug use by

both parents, active warrants for both parents, Mother's extensive history of losing
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                        6

custody of other children, and both parents failing to cooperate with non-court case plan

services. Hadden testified the initial complaint had been filed on February 2, 2021 and

that S.P. had been in the continuous temporary custody of the SCJFS since that date.

       {¶ 20} Hadden described the case plan for Mother and Father. She stated while

Father was on probation, he initially complied with substance abuse treatment, but as

soon as he was released from probation he stopped participating. As of the date of the

hearing, Father had not participated in substance abuse treatment for nine months.

Father further failed to engage in twelve-step meetings, find a sober sponsor, or engage

in home-based parenting classes. Father had failed to comply with random drug testing

since December of 2021 when he tested positive for methamphetamine and

buprenorphine. He struggled with stable housing and employment throughout the case.

       {¶ 21} Hadden testified that Parents moved to a different county and failed to

complete most of the requirements of their case plan. They did complete the Triple P

parenting program in Mahoning County. Hadden attempted to secure drug testing for

parents when they moved out of county, and offered screening on the multiple occasions

they came to Stark County to visit S.P. but parents still failed to comply. Mother failed to

comply with substance abuse counseling and refused multiple drug screens. She tested

positive for methamphetamines in November and December of 2021 and refused testing

thereafter. Mother further failed to complete Goodwill Parenting classes and made no

progress in individual counseling. Mother was incarcerated for a portion of the life of this

matter. She participated in the Triple P parenting programming while incarcerated.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                          7

       {¶ 22} Hadden testified that despite reasonable efforts by SCJFS parents failed to

successfully complete their case plan services. She therefore believed there were

compelling reasons to grant SCJFS's motion for permanent custody.

       {¶ 23} Father testified on his own behalf. As of the date of the hearing, Father had

been living in Pennsylvania with his aunt for six months and his relationship with Mother

was on and off. Father stated he has had long periods of sobriety but admitted he relapsed

in October or November of 2021. He blamed the relapse on the fact that SCJFS had

requested a six-month extension of temporary custody and claimed he never would have

relapsed if S.P. had been returned to him and Mother within six months. Father also

claimed the drug tests administered by SCJFS were inaccurate.

       {¶ 24} Father also blamed his inconsistent employment on SCJFS stating he had

to decline employment since the agency scheduled visits with S.P. in the middle of the

week. He further stated SCJFS made no attempt to find services for him once he moved

out of county. He stated he therefore engaged in two parenting programs on his own

volition. Father testified that he felt no matter what he did, SCJFS planned to keep S.P.

       {¶ 25} As to best interests, Hadden testified that parents visited S.P. regularly and

the visits went well for the most part. She noted S.P. was bonded with her foster parents,

but not Mother and Father. On one occasion parents brought developmentally

inappropriate food to the visit. When the matter was discussed with them, parents became

defensive. Hadden explored two potential kinship placements, only one of which was a

possibility. S.P.'s foster family was willing to adopt S.P.

       {¶ 26} Father testified he and Mother visited S.P. in Stark County at least 60 times

requiring two hours of driving round trip. Father believed S.P. was bonded with he and
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                        8

Mother, was aware of who her parents are, and that her best interests were served by

being with he and Mother. Father added that if there was an issue with Mother's past that

he would assume full responsibility for S.P.

       {¶ 27} The GAL testified that parents had a lot of time, support, and options to get

sober and to engage in counseling but have failed to take advantage of those

opportunities. The GAL added that while parents complain SCJFS did not find a drug

testing facility in Pennsylvania for them, parents had the opportunity to take a drug screen

each time they visited S.P. but failed to do so. The GAL also opined uprooting S.P. who

has special needs challenges and is non-verbal would be detrimental to her wellbeing.

The GAL therefore felt granting SCJFS's motion for permanent custody was in S.P.'s best

interests.

       {¶ 28} After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court granted SCJFS's

motion for permanent custody.

       {¶ 29} Father filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. He raises three assignments of error as follow:

                                               I

       {¶ 30} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT

GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY TO SUMMIT [SIC] COUNTY CHILDREN

SERVICES AND DENIED FATHER’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION AS THE TRIAL

COURT’S DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING

EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

                                               II
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                         9

       {¶ 31} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY NOT

CONDUCTING THE ADJUDICATORY HEARING WITH [SIC] THE MANDATORY SIXTY

DAYS."

                                             III

       {¶ 32} "THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY

OF THE CHILDREN TO STARK COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES SHOULD BE

REVERSED, BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO

REUNIFY THE CHILDREN. [sic]"

                                              I

       {¶ 33} Under the first assignment of error, we must first note that despite its

caption, there was no issue raised or argued by Father involving the denial of a motion

for an extension of time.

       {¶ 34} In his first assignment of error, father argues the trial court's decision to

grant permanent custody to SCJFS is not supported by clear and convincing evidence

and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Father argues the trial

court erred in granting SCJFS's motion for permanent custody because S.P. had not been

in SCJFS custody for 12 of the past 22 months. We disagree.

                                     Manifest Weight

       {¶ 35} On review for manifest weight, the standard in a civil case is identical to the

standard in a criminal case: a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                          10

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and

determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or finder of fact] clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction

[decision] must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d

172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). In State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,

678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990), the Supreme

Court of Ohio explained the following:

              Weight of the evidence concerns "the inclination of the greater

              amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of

              the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the

              party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on

              weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater

              amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be

              established before them. Weight is not a question of mathematics,

              but depends on its effect in inducing belief." (Emphasis sic.)

       {¶ 36} In weighing the evidence however, we are always mindful of the

presumption in favor of the trial court's factual findings. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio

St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517.

                            Permanent Custody Determination
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                            11

       {¶ 37} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states in relevant part that permanent custody may be

granted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best

interest of the child and:

              (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned * * * 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.

              ***

              (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 * *

              *.

       {¶ 38} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will provide in the

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established."

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the

syllabus. See In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985).

"Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a

reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had

sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof." Cross at 477.

       {¶ 39} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determining whether a

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

be placed with the parents. The section states in relevant part:
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                    12

           (E) 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 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
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                       13

              parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them

              to resume and maintain parental duties.

              ***

              (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

                                    Best Interests

       {¶ 40} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court shall consider in

determining the best interest of a child:

              (D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held

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

              (A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415

              of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors,

              including, but not limited to, the following:

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

              parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home

              providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the

              child;

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

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

              of the child;

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

              been in the temporary custody of one or more public children
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                         14

              services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or

              more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *;

              (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.

                                 Father's argument

       {¶ 41} Father challenges only the trial court's finding that S.P. had been in the

temporary custody of SCJFS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-

month period.

       {¶ 42} For the purposes of the "twelve of twenty-two" determination contained in

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the section states: "a child shall be considered to have entered the

temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant

to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of

the child from home." Emphasis added.

       {¶ 43} SCJFS filed its dependency/neglect complaint on February 2, 2021. An

emergency shelter care hearing took place and S.P. was placed into the temporary

custody of SCJFS the same day. Sixty days from February 2, 2021 was April 3, 2021.

SCJFS filed its motion requesting permanent custody on June 21, 2022, well in excess

of 12 months. Accordingly, the trial court correctly found that S.P. had been in the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                          15

temporary custody of SCJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month period.

See In the Matter of D.V. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2022CA00109, 2023-Ohio-238, ¶¶ 27-32.

       {¶ 44} A finding that a child has been in the temporary custody of a public children-

services agency for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone, in

conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent

custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118, 2008-Ohio-5458 ¶ 45. Father

does not challenge the trial court's best interests finding and in fact states there is no

reason to examine the best interests finding. Father's brief at 16. We therefore find the

trial court's decision is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶ 45} The first assignment of error is overruled.

                                              II

       {¶ 46} In his second assignment of error, Father argues his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to object to the trial court holding the adjudicatory hearing

outside of the 60-day time frame set forth in R.C. 2151.28. We disagree.

       {¶ 47} The test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases,

announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d

674 (1984), also applies in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary

termination of parental rights. Jones v. Lucas Cty. Children Services Bd., 46 Ohio App.3d

85, 86, 546 N.E.2d 471 (1988). A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a

two-prong analysis. The first inquiry is whether counsel's performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonable representation involving a substantial violation of any of

defense counsel's essential duties to appellant. The second prong is whether the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                       16

appellant was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. Strickland, supra; State v. Bradley,

42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).

       {¶ 48} In determining whether counsel's representation fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness, judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly

deferential. Bradley at 142, 538 N.E.2d 373. Because of the difficulties inherent in

determining whether effective assistance of counsel was rendered in any give case, a

strong presumption exists counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable

professional assistance. Id.

       {¶ 49} In order to warrant a reversal, the appellant must additionally show he was

prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. "Prejudice from defective representation

sufficient to justify reversal of a conviction exists only where the result of the trial was

unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair because of the performance of trial

counsel." State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558, 1995-Ohio-104, citing Lockhart v.

Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 370, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993).

       {¶ 50} Father faults his counsel for failing to object to the adjudication hearing

being held on July 8, 2021 instead of on or before the deadline of June 29, 2021.

       {¶ 51} We note Father did not appeal the adjudication of S.P. as a dependent child.

As the Eighth District has found:

              "An adjudication by a juvenile court that a child is 'neglected' or

              'dependent ' * * * followed by a disposition awarding temporary

              custody to a public children services agency * * * constitutes a 'final

              order' within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02 and is appealable to the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                     17

             court of appeals * * *." In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d

             1169 (1990), syllabus. Furthermore, "an appeal of an adjudication

             order of abuse, dependency, or neglect of a child and the award of

             temporary custody to a children services agency pursuant to R.C.

             2151.353(A)(2) must be filed within 30 days of the judgment entry

             pursuant to App.R. 4(A)." In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-

             6810, 900 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 18. Although the parent still retains the right

             to appeal any award of permanent custody to a children services

             agency, that appeal is limited to issues that arose after the

             adjudication order. Id.

      {¶ 52} In re S.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102611, 2015-Ohio-4766, ¶ 14,

emphasis added.

      {¶ 53} Because Father failed to file a timely appeal, we are without jurisdiction to

consider the ineffective assistance of counsel issue he now raises. See In the Matter of

Blackburn, Butler App. No. CA92-09-174, 1994 WL 18163 (Jan. 24, 1994) at *1.

      {¶ 54} The second assignment of error is overruled.

                                           III

      {¶ 55} In his final assignment of error, Father argues the trial court's decision to

grant permanent custody to SCJFS should be reversed because SCJFS failed to employ

reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of S.P. We find Father's reasonable efforts

argument inapplicable to the permanent custody hearing in this matter.

      {¶ 56} In 2007, the Supreme Court of Ohio found:
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                      18

       [E]xcept for some narrowly defined statutory exceptions, the state must

       make reasonable efforts to reunify the family before terminating parental

       rights. If the agency has not already proven reasonable efforts, it must do

       so at the hearing on a motion for permanent custody. However, the specific

       requirement to make reasonable efforts that is set forth in R.C.

       2151.419(A)(1) does not apply in an R.C. 2151.413 motion for permanent

       custody.

       {¶ 57} In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 4.

       {¶ 58} The Court in C.F. further stated "[i]f the agency has not established that

reasonable efforts have been made prior to the hearing on a motion for permanent

custody, then it must demonstrate such efforts at that time." Id. at ¶ 43.

       {¶ 59} According to the record in this matter the magistrate made reasonable

efforts findings on six occasions prior to the permanent custody hearing, specifically, May

3, 2021, July 8, 2021, July 22, 2021, December 28, 2021, January 27, 2022, and June

28, 2022. The same finding was made on February 2, 2021 before the case was

dismissed and refiled. Father never objected to any of the magistrate's seven findings of

best efforts.

       {¶ 60} Even if that were not true, at the permanent custody hearing, Hadden, the

assigned SCJFS caseworker, testified that when she received the case plans were

developed and approved with the goal of parents complying with the case plan to

demonstrate they could safely parent and provide stability for S.P. Transcript of
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00139                                                     19

permanent custody hearing (T.) 10-11. Among the biggest concerns was Father's drug

use. While Father complied with the requirement of drug counseling while he was on

probation, he failed to comply thereafter. T. 12. Instead of taking responsibility for his

continued drug use, Father blamed SCJFS for his relapse and stated the agency failed

to direct him to a facility where he could be drug screened in Pennsylvania. T. 87-88. But

Father refused to comply with requests by SCJFS for drug screens on the many

occasions he traveled to Stark County to visit S.P. T. 15-16, 86-87, 117. Father further

failed to attend twelve-step meetings, identify a sober sponsor, or maintain employment

and stable housing, all things Father could have accomplished no matter where he

decided to live, and without any further prodding from SCJFS. 15-16, 117. In short, Father

was provided with many opportunities and failed to take advantage of those opportunities.

       {¶ 61} Because SCJFS was not required to make a reasonable efforts showing

during the permanent custody hearing, and because Father never objected to seven

previous findings by the court of reasonable efforts, the final assignment of error is

overruled.

       {¶ 62} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas Family Court

Division is affirmed.

By King, J.,

Gwin, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.

AJK/rw