Court Opinion

ID: 9966245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 15:10:35.890049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:55.877321
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.O., 2024-Ohio-1732.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                        WARREN COUNTY

 IN RE:                                        :

          B.O., et al.                         :    CASE NOS.      CA2023-11-102
                                                                   CA2023-11-104
                                               :                   CA2023-11-105
                                                                   CA2023-11-106
                                               :                   CA2023-11-107

                                               :

                                               :
                                                              OPINION
                                                               5/6/2024

            APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                               JUVENILE DIVISION
             CASE NOS. 22-D000003; 22-D000004; 22-D000005; 22-D000006

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Mark W. Raines, for appellant, Mother.

KL Hurd Law, LLC, and Kenyatta Hurd, for appellant, Father.

CASA, and Brooke L. Logsdon, guardian ad litem.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellants, the biological mother and father of B.O., A.O., H.O., and C.O.,
                                                                     Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                       CA2023-11-104 thru 107

appeal from a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,

granting permanent custody of their children to appellee, Warren County Children's

Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the juvenile court's

decision.

                                            The Parties

       {¶ 2} As set forth above, the four children subject of this appeal are: B.O., born

on May 18, 2010; A.O., born on May 1, 2014; H.O., born on May 13, 2019; and C.O., born

on March 3, 2021. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, appellants had been

married for more than 15 years; however, Mother intended to file for a divorce from Father

due to his mental health problems. Both Mother and Father are admitted cocaine users

who have struggled to maintain any stability since the children's removal from Mother's

care. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, Father was incarcerated in the county

jail after failing to comply with the conditions of his intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC").

According to Father, he was granted ILC after he was charged with felony possession of

cocaine and faced 11 months in jail if he was found guilty of the felony charge.

       {¶ 3} Due to positive drug screens and a lack of cooperation with the Agency,

appellants' visitation with the children was suspended and was never reinstated. As a

result, neither Mother nor Father had seen the children since March 10, 2023. At the time

of the permanent custody hearing, A.O., H.O., and C.O., lived together in a foster home

and B.O. lived with a family friend. The children are doing well in their placements,

although B.O. has faced some challenges due to the separation from his siblings. The

families with whom the children are placed intend to adopt the children if permanent

1. Pursuant to App.R. 3(B), we sua sponte consolidate these appeals for purposes of writing this single
opinion.
                                                   -2-
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

custody is granted to the Agency.

                              Facts & Procedural History

       {¶ 4} The Agency became involved with the family in 2020 after learning the

family's housing was unsafe and that Father had been using drugs in front of the children.

At that time, Mother and Father tested positive for cocaine, and agreed to pursue a

START case with the Agency. The START case did not require court involvement, and

was a voluntary case focused on substance abuse. The case was successfully closed in

December 2020, when Mother was pregnant with C.O.

       {¶ 5} Approximately 13 months later, on January 24, 2022, the Agency filed

complaints alleging the children were dependent. The complaints stemmed from an

altercation in the home, during which Father threatened physical harm to everyone in the

family while wielding a butcher knife. The complaints alleged that during the altercation,

Father stabbed holes in the wall, punched a hole in the wall, and spit on Mother. Father

also threatened Mother and the children that, if they called the police, they would "leave

in a body bag." The police were called and Father was arrested.

       {¶ 6} Upon Father's release, Mother rejected the Agency's recommendation that

she seek a protection order restraining father from having contact with her or the children.

According to Mother, she refused to obtain any order to protect herself or her children

from Father at that time because she had been married to Father for 15 years and was

not afraid of him. The Agency found this concerning given the violent threats Father made

toward Mother and the children.

       {¶ 7} After an emergency shelter care hearing, the juvenile court placed the

children in the protective supervision of the Agency and appointed a Court Appointed

Special Advocate ("CASA") for the children. The Agency implemented an in-home safety

                                             -3-
                                                            Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                              CA2023-11-104 thru 107

plan where the children remained in Mother's custody while she and Father engaged in

case plan services. The safety plan required Father to move out of the marital home and

prohibited any unsupervised contact between Father and the children. Although the

Agency hoped that Mother's capacity to protect the children could be increased after

engagement in case plan services, the safety plan did not identify Mother as an

appropriate supervisor for Father. The safety plan was disrupted when Mother allowed

Father around the children without a supervisor and Father was arrested from the family

home on two occasions. According to Mother, she needed Father because she had no

other help, and she wanted her children to have a relationship with him.

      {¶ 8} In March 2022, the children were adjudicated dependent.             After a

dispositional hearing on April 14, 2022, the children remained in Mother's custody with

the protective supervision of the Agency.

      {¶ 9} Thereafter, in July 2022, while the children were in Mother's custody, an

Agency caseworker discovered Father in the home with Mother and the children. There

were multiple empty bottles of whiskey in the home, including two that were within reach

of the children. Father refused a drug screen and was very threatening and acted

aggressively toward the caseworker, Mother, and the children. Father fled the home after

the caseworker indicated she planned to call the police. The following day, Father

informed the caseworker that Mother had been using drugs. Mother ultimately submitted

to a drug screen, which was positive for cocaine.

      {¶ 10} As a result of the above, the children were removed from Mother's care and

the juvenile court granted temporary custody of the children to the Agency on July 13,

2022. The oldest child, B.O., was placed in the home of a neighborhood friend, while the

younger three children were placed with maternal grandmother.          Due to maternal

                                            -4-
                                                             Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                               CA2023-11-104 thru 107

grandmother's inability to meet the needs of the younger three children, the children were

removed from her care less than one month later and together placed in a foster home.

      {¶ 11} After the children's removal from Mother's care, the Agency implemented

an amended case plan with a goal of returning the children to the parents' care. The

amended case plan required Mother and Father to, among other things, make themselves

available to the Agency; submit to a mental health and drug and alcohol assessment and

follow all recommendations; attend parenting classes; provide for their basic needs; and

submit to random drug screens.       The amended case plan also required Mother to

complete domestic violence education and for Father to complete a batterer's intervention

program.

      {¶ 12} In May 2023, the Agency moved for permanent custody of the children,

alleging that the children could not be placed with their parents within a six-month period

and that an award of permanent custody to the Agency was in the best interests of the

children. The matter was set for a hearing on August 21, 2023, however, due to the

inability to perfect service upon Father, it was continued until October 23, 2023. Father

was incarcerated at the time of the rescheduled hearing but was permitted to attend and

testify via telephone. The juvenile court also heard testimony from Mother and an Agency

caseworker.

      {¶ 13} The Agency caseworker testified that she had been providing ongoing

services to the family since February 2022. Throughout the case, Mother completed

several of her case plan objectives, including taking parenting classes and domestic

violence classes, as well as engaging in mental health counseling. Notwithstanding

Mother's progress in some areas of her case plan, the Agency remained concerned with

Mother's substance abuse throughout the case and her continued indifference to Father's

                                             -5-
                                                            Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                              CA2023-11-104 thru 107

threatening behavior.

       {¶ 14} Regarding the parents' substance abuse, the Agency was initially

concerned with Father, as Mother had no diagnoses or recommendations related to

substance abuse after her assessment at Talbert House.       This changed in July 2022

when Mother tested positive for cocaine and later made concerning comments regarding

her alcohol use. Thereafter, in November 2022, the Agency learned that Mother had

overdosed on fentanyl. Mother claimed the overdose was "accidental," and that her friend

"gave [her] the wrong thing," when she gave Mother fentanyl instead of Tylenol. Mother

was taken to the hospital and declined to release her records to the Agency. After

investigating the situation, the caseworker learned that Mother and Father had been

associating with known drug users and that Mother was using cocaine prior to her

overdose.

       {¶ 15} After her overdose, the Agency's concerns regarding Mother's substance

abuse continued to increase. Mother was reassessed at Talbert House where they added

alcohol use disorder to her diagnoses and recommended treatment. According to Mother,

the diagnosis stemmed from her admission that she liked to have a drink "every once in

a while," meaning three or four times a month. Around this time, December 2022, Mother

began refusing multiple drug screens, did not disclose the extent of her cocaine use, and

was difficult to contact.

       {¶ 16} In January 2023, Father suffered a heart attack. The caseworker testified

that, at that time, things "went off the rails" with Mother, Father, and the Agency. The

caseworker explained that, in the months following Father's heart attack, neither Mother

nor Father submitted to drug screens, were available or responsive to the Agency, or

provided records to the Agency. In April 2023, Mother admitted to using cocaine with

                                            -6-
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

Father after he "bullied" her to use with him.

       {¶ 17} Beginning in May 2023, the caseworker testified that Mother and Father

"f[e]ll off the map." The caseworker could not reach Mother or Father and was unsure of

their whereabouts at that time. Eventually, in July 2023, the caseworker made contact

with Mother through Facebook after informing Mother that the case was moving toward a

permanent custody trial. At that point, Mother responded that Father had graduated from

treatment, and they were both working at Frisch's.

       {¶ 18} The caseworker attempted to meet with Mother and Father to complete a

drug screen but was unable to do so until August 2023. Between August 2023 and

September 2023 Mother consistently tested positive for cocaine. Mother claimed all the

positives were from a single use of cocaine in mid-August. The caseworker testified that

she discussed Mother's theory with Forensic Fluids, who did not agree with Mother, and

informed the caseworker that such a number of positives over such a long time period

would require more than a single use one month previously. The caseworker later

obtained a negative drug screen for Mother on October 4, 2023, just 19 days before the

permanent custody hearing.

       {¶ 19} Regarding Father, the caseworker testified that, although Father had

completed some requirements of his case plan, he was incarcerated at the time of the

hearing, had no housing, no employment, and had recently relapsed. The caseworker

testified that Father was difficult to communicate with throughout the case, and because

of those difficulties, she had only administered three drug screens for Father. Each of

those screens was positive for cocaine.          Father also failed to follow up with the

recommendations of his mental health assessment.

       {¶ 20} The caseworker also discussed Mother's and Father's lack of visitation with

                                             -7-
                                                               Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                 CA2023-11-104 thru 107

the children throughout the case. After the children's removal from Mother's care, Mother

and Father had supervised visitation with the children for two hours, once a week. The

parents initially attended visitation with the children consistently and interacted in a

"generally positive" manner with the children. Around the time of Mother's overdose, the

parents' visitation was slightly restricted after Father became threatening toward the

children's foster parents, including making statements that he had located their home on

Google and was aware of what vehicle they drove. These restrictions were intended to

prevent any interaction between Mother, Father, and the foster parents.

       {¶ 21} The parents' visitation never progressed beyond the two-hour weekly visit

and was ultimately suspended in March 2023. The caseworker testified their visitation

was suspended after Mother refused four drug screens; Father refused three drug

screens; they refused to provide any documentation relating to Father's recent

hospitalization and discharge; and they cancelled visits at the last minute for reasons like,

"[Father] has to do laundry."     According to the caseworker, the missed visits were

upsetting for the children. The caseworker informed the parents that, in order to have

their visitation reinstated, the Agency required clean drug screens, for the parents to

stabilize, and to re-engage with the Agency. The parents' visitation was never reinstated.

       {¶ 22} The caseworker testified that neither Mother nor Father had remedied the

conditions which caused their children to be removed from their care. As such, the

caseworker believed that granting permanent custody of the children to the Agency was

in the children's best interest. Regarding Mother, the caseworker testified that overall,

Mother had not demonstrated a commitment to working on the case plan requirements.

Mother continued to downplay Father's threats to kill her family, and minimized her

cocaine use and drinking problem.        Mother's biggest impediment, according to the

                                              -8-
                                                             Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                               CA2023-11-104 thru 107

caseworker, was herself. The caseworker testified that Mother remained unable to be

honest with her issues, absent which the Agency could not make the situation safe for the

children. The caseworker was particularly concerned that Mother refused to accept any

accountability for the children's removal and would not separate from Father. Although

Mother indicated she was done with Father, the caseworker struggled to believe Mother

based on the history of the case.

       {¶ 23} Regarding Father, the caseworker testified that he had not maintained

sobriety for any length of time and failed to demonstrate any awareness of the Agency's

concerns. Instead, Father consistently gave excuses for his missteps. The caseworker

testified Father has no willingness to change or address his or Mother's problematic

behavior, and like Mother, had not demonstrated a commitment to reunifying with his

children.

       {¶ 24} During Mother's testimony, she discussed her progress on her case plan

requirements. Regarding employment, Mother was employed at Frisch's until August

2023 when she was terminated due to staffing issues. Mother started a new job the week

before the permanent custody hearing, however, her employer was unaware of her recent

positive screens or past drug use.

       {¶ 25} Mother testified she did not have suitable housing for the children, but that

her caseworker was helping her complete applications for housing. After losing her home

in July 2022, Mother and Father lived in a hotel room until the room became too

expensive. After leaving the hotel room, Mother and Father lived in Father's van. After

Mother's termination from Frisch's, she moved into a friend's condo in Mason while Father

was in jail. The condo housed six adults, all of whom had not been identified to the

Agency and did not want to be involved with Mother's ongoing case.

                                             -9-
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

       {¶ 26} Mother discussed her refusal of several drug screens, which she attributed

to her job and the fact that her phone was off at times. After refusing screens throughout

February and March 2023, Mother admitted to cocaine use in April 2023. When asked

about the caseworker's inability to locate Mother for screens in May, June, July and early

August 2023, Mother testified the caseworker "knew [Mother] was at the hotel" and that

"[the caseworker] knew where [Mother] worked."

       {¶ 27} Despite acknowledging that she could lose her children as a result of the

permanent custody hearing, Mother testified she used cocaine on August 15, 2023, less

than one week before the initial permanent custody hearing date. Mother proceeded to

test positive for cocaine on August 17, 21, and 25, 2023. Mother also tested positive on

September 15 and 21, 2023. Mother claimed each of the foregoing positives stemmed

from a single use on August 15, 2023, and noted "that was the first time [she] had used

in a while, so."

       {¶ 28} As part of Father's testimony, he discussed his progress throughout the

case. Despite Father's testimony that he had completed the requirements of his case

plan, he later acknowledged that he had not secured housing or employment by the time

of the permanent custody hearing and was still using illegal substances. Regarding

housing, Father and Mother were living "off and on" out of his van. Father testified that

the children could not live out of a van, but, in "today's economy," it was very hard to get

a house.

       {¶ 29} Regarding his mental health and substance abuse, Father testified he was

initially diagnosed with bipolar disorder and severe alcohol use. Father's diagnoses were

updated twice in 2022 to include generalized anxiety disorder and cocaine use disorder.

Father participated in more than 10 dual treatment programs throughout the case, several

                                             - 10 -
                                                             Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                               CA2023-11-104 thru 107

of which he had successfully completed, including one program in July 2023.

       {¶ 30} Notwithstanding his completion of numerous treatment programs, Father

testified he became depressed after his heart attack in January 2023, which led him to

use cocaine again. Father admittedly "messed up" and used again in early October 2023,

and had used cocaine as recently as the Thursday prior to the hearing. Father explained

during his testimony that "most of the time [he] tried to be dirty" when he entered certain

treatment facilities because, if someone is clean, the facility "won't let you in."

Additionally, Father claimed that his drug use throughout the case was linked to his

anxiety, and that relapse is a part of recovery.

       {¶ 31} Father blamed his missteps on the heart attack he suffered in January 2023,

in addition to his various incarcerations and rehab stays since then. Although Father

acknowledged he knew he could not have the children, he believed they should be placed

with Mother. According to Father, he was Mother's "downfall."

       {¶ 32} After receiving the foregoing testimony, the juvenile court noted, on the

record, that the CASA had filed a report and was present during the hearing. The parties

declined to question the CASA, but counsel stated on CASA's behalf that it believed

granting permanent custody to the Agency was in the children's best interest.

       {¶ 33} On November 2, 2023, the juvenile court issued a decision granting

permanent custody of the children to the Agency.          Mother and Father separately

appealed, each raising one assignment of error. This court consolidated the appeals for

review and disposition.

                          Two-Part Permanent Custody Test

       {¶ 34} Before addressing the specific arguments raised on appeal, we will discuss

the applicable standard of review. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court may

                                             - 11 -
                                                               Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                 CA2023-11-104 thru 107

terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a children services

agency if the court makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. In re G.F., 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2013-12-248, 2014-Ohio-2580, ¶ 9; In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-

5102, ¶ 18. First, the juvenile court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the

agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors set forth in R.C.

2151.414(D). In re D.K.W., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶

21. Second, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e), the juvenile court must find that

any of the following apply: (1) the child is abandoned; (2) the child is orphaned; (3) the

child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a

consecutive 22-month period; (4) where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child

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

either parent; or (5) the child or another child in the custody of the parent from whose

custody the child has been removed, has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or

dependent child on three separate occasions.           In re C.B., 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2015-04-033, 2015-Ohio-3709, ¶ 10. Only one of these findings must be met to satisfy

the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test. In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette

No. CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio-3188, ¶ 12; In re H.G., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2023-06-

069, 2023-Ohio-4082, ¶ 58.

       {¶ 35} Before a parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and

custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state must prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the above statutory standards for permanent custody have been

met. In re K.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-124, 2015-Ohio-4315, ¶ 11, citing

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). "Clear and convincing

evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere 'preponderance

                                              - 12 -
                                                                 Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                   CA2023-11-104 thru 107

of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such certainty as is required 'beyond a reasonable

doubt' in criminal cases, and which will produce 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 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

       {¶ 36} "Because R.C. 2151.414 requires that a juvenile court find by clear and

convincing evidence that the statutory requirements are met, 'the 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 E.V., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2023-09-018, 2024-Ohio-192, ¶ 25, quoting In re Z.C.,

Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 11. Although not explicit, Mother and Father argue

the juvenile court's decision finding it was in the children's best interest to grant the

Agency's motions for permanent custody was not supported by sufficient evidence and

was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶ 37} Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy to determine if the

evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a decision, while weight of the evidence relates to

the issue of persuasion and the effect of the evidence in inducing belief. In re Z.C. at ¶

13; Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 19. Although sufficiency

and manifest weight are distinct legal concepts, a finding that a judgment is supported by

the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding that sufficient evidence

supports the judgment. In re L.B., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 19AP-644 and 19AP-645,

2020-Ohio-3045, ¶ 29.

       {¶ 38} In determining whether a juvenile court's decision to grant a motion for

permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court

                                               - 13 -
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

"'weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be

reversed and a new trial ordered.'" In re S.M., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-08-088

thru CA2018-08-091 and CA2018-08-095 thru CA2018-08-097, 2019-Ohio-198, ¶ 16,

quoting Eastley at ¶ 20. "In weighing the evidence, there is a presumption in favor of the

findings made by the finder of fact and evidence susceptible to more than one

construction will be construed to sustain the [decision]." In re M.A., 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2019-08-129, 2019-Ohio-5367, ¶ 15.

       {¶ 39} Regarding the second part of the two-part permanent custody test, the

juvenile court determined that the children had been in the temporary custody of the

Agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) and that the children could not be placed with Mother or Father within

a reasonable time or should not be placed with either of them pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a). Neither Mother nor Father contest these determinations and instead

focus their arguments on the juvenile court's best interest determination under R.C.

2151.414(D). Although the parents do not challenge the juvenile court's determination

that the children had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months

of a consecutive 22-month period, we decline to resolve this appeal on that basis because

the motion did not allege as a basis for permanent custody that the children had been in

the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month

period.

       {¶ 40} As indicated above, only one of the findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)

to (e) must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test. In

                                             - 14 -
                                                               Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                 CA2023-11-104 thru 107

re J.L-H, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-01-002, 2020-Ohio-3321, ¶ 8. Accordingly, the

juvenile court's finding that the children cannot be placed with Mother or Father within a

reasonable period of time or should not be placed with Mother or Father is another

statutory basis upon which the juvenile court may appropriately award permanent custody

to the Agency. In re M.K., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2011-07-003, 2012-Ohio-36, ¶ 64.

Because neither parent challenges on appeal the juvenile court's finding that the children

cannot be placed with them within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed

with them, we affirm the juvenile court's decision with regard to the second part of the test

without conducting any further analysis. See In re D.S., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2021-

10-030 and CA2021-10-031, 2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 66.

       {¶ 41} We now turn our focus to what is actually in dispute on appeal; that being,

whether the juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to the

Agency was in the children's best interest.

                                     Mother's Appeal

       {¶ 42} Mother raises the following assignment of error:

              THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT WARREN
              COUNTY    CHILDREN'S   SERVICES  PERMANENT
              CUSTODY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
              CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 43} As noted above, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in determining an

award of permanent custody to the Agency was in the best interest of the children.

       {¶ 44} The first part of that two-part permanent custody test requires the juvenile

court to find the grant of permanent custody to be in the children's best interest. In re

D.K.W., 2014-Ohio-2896 at ¶ 21. This is generally done by utilizing the best-interest

factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). In re S.W., 12th Dist. Preble Nos. CA2022-08-

013 and CA2022-08-014, 2023-Ohio-118, ¶ 19. These factors include, but are not limited

                                              - 15 -
                                                               Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                 CA2023-11-104 thru 107

to: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the children with the children's parents; (2)

the wishes of the children, as expressed directly by the children or through the children's

guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the children; and (4) the children's need for

a legally secure permanent placement. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(d). These factors also

include whether any of the circumstances listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply. In

re G.A., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-11-079, 2023-Ohio-643, ¶ 41, citing R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(e).

       {¶ 45} Mother first argues the juvenile court erred in finding it was in the children's

best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency because R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)

and (b) weigh heavily against terminating Mother's parental rights. Specifically, Mother

claims the Agency failed to present evidence of the impact severing the relationship with

Mother would have on the children. In support, Mother cites a case from the Ninth District

Court of Appeals where the court reversed a grant of permanent custody. In re A.W., 9th

Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009631, 2010-Ohio-817. In A.W., the court of appeals reversed

after finding a "paucity" of evidence demonstrating that permanent custody was in the

child's best interest. Id. at ¶ 12. The court observed that most evidence in the record

weighed towards preserving the family relationship. Id. at ¶ 14.

       {¶ 46} A.W. is distinguishable. Here the juvenile court considered the CASA's

report, which discussed the children's bond with Mother and states that B.O. and A.O.

would like the family to be together, while H.O. "clearly wants his Mother and Father."

There was also testimony presented that described the stress B.O. felt while living away

from his siblings and that A.O. misses and loves her family. The juvenile court weighed

this evidence against other, substantial, evidence in the record that Mother could not

commit to the case plan's reunification requirements and had "all but abandoned the

                                              - 16 -
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

children" since March 2023. The record reflects Mother was aware that the reinstatement

of her visits was conditioned upon negative drug screens, but Mother continued to use

cocaine and minimize that use until October 2023, the month of the rescheduled

permanent custody hearing. As a result of her noncompliance, Mother could not visit her

children for several months.

       {¶ 47} Even though three of the children expressed their desire for reunification of

the family, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) is but a single best interest factor to be considered and

weighed in conjunction with the other factors. By the time the permanent custody motion

had been filed, the children had been in placement for approximately ten months, the

parents had gone months without contact with the children, had failed to address their

substance abuse issues, and did not have housing appropriate for the children. The

Agency had been involved with the family in one way or another since 2020 and despite

Agency efforts to maintain the children in the home during the pendency of the case, their

removal became necessary due to Mother's failure to protect the children from having

contact with Father. Despite wanting to return home, the children are doing well in their

placements with families who would adopt them and provide them with a permanent home

should permanent custody be granted. Thus, allowing for the children's wishes for

reunification, the totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly supported permanent

custody.

       {¶ 48} Mother also argues that this case is comparable to one where this court

reversed a decision granting permanent custody to a family services agency. In re

Knuckles, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2003-01-004 and CA2003-01-005, 2003-Ohio-4418.

In Knuckles the lower court granted permanent custody largely because the parents failed

to attend visits with their children and failed to complete case services. Id. at ¶ 21, 25.

                                             - 17 -
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

This court reversed, finding that the record revealed that the parents did not attend visits

or complete case services because of transportation issues. Id. at ¶ 26. The record

further reflected that the agency failed to assist the parents with their transportation

needs. Id. at ¶ 27. The visits the parents could attend demonstrated that the family was

well-bonded. Id. at ¶ 23. In sum, we found that the record did not clearly and convincingly

demonstrate that the parents could not provide their children with a legally secure

placement. Id. at ¶ 33.

       {¶ 49} In this case, however, the record established that Mother failed to resolve

many of the issues that led to the children's removal and that the Agency did provide

necessary assistance to Mother to help her resolve those issues. The evidence at the

hearing was that the Agency worked with Mother on her case plan services, but Mother's

dedication to reunifying with the children decreased as the case progressed. After Father

suffered a heart attack in January 2023, Mother became completely uncooperative with

the Agency and stopped communicating with her caseworker regarding the Agency's

concerns. This was despite the extensive efforts taken by the caseworker to stay

connected with Mother and Father throughout the case.

       {¶ 50} We also disagree with Mother that her completion of some case plan

services "shows she can provide a permanently secure permanent placement for her

children soon." We note that it is well established that the completion of certain case plan

requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody. In re Mraz, 12th Dist.

Brown Nos. CA2002-05-011 and CA2002-07-014, 2002-Ohio-7278, ¶ 13. Instead, a case

plan is merely a means to a goal and not a goal in itself. In re S.U., 12th Dist. Clermont

No. CA2014-07-047, 2014-Ohio-5166, ¶ 35.

       {¶ 51} Here, despite Mother's assertion that she is progressing in her drug and

                                             - 18 -
                                                                Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                  CA2023-11-104 thru 107

alcohol treatment, as well as her mental health treatment, and is allegedly no longer in a

relationship with Father, serious concerns remained at the time of the hearing. The

caseworker testified that Mother was recommended to mental health treatment to support

her in her relationship with or separation from Father. This included learning to hold

Father accountable for his anti-social behavior. During her testimony, Mother claimed

she planned to file for divorce from Father due to his mental health, but nonetheless

continued to minimize his behavior throughout the case. The evidence also revealed that

Mother consistently prioritized Father's medical treatment over her case plan services

and would cancel visits with the children if Father was unavailable. When considering the

testimony offered at trial, Mother has not shown that she takes the Agency's concerns

seriously or has learned to hold Father accountable for his actions. This evidence reflects

that Mother lacks the capacity to protect herself and the children from Father.

       {¶ 52} Concerning Mother's recent progress in her drug and alcohol treatment, the

testimony at the hearing established that Mother had only recently tested negative for

illegal substances and was prone to relapsing. Mother also has had difficulty admitting

the severity of her cocaine use, thus raising the very real possibility that Mother may

relapse again. These children's lives are not an experiment that can be left to chance. In

re R.D., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2021-05-017 and CA2021-05-018, 2021-Ohio-3780,

¶ 39. That is, stated differently, "'[t]he law does not require the court to experiment with

a child's welfare to see if the child will suffer great detriment or harm.'" (Internal brackets

omitted.) In re B.C., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-03-024 and CA2018-03-027, 2018-

Ohio-2673, ¶ 30, quoting In re R.S.-G., 4th Dist. Athens No. 15CA2, 2015-Ohio-4245, ¶

53.

       {¶ 53} Despite opportunities to do so, Mother has not shown over the history of the

                                              - 19 -
                                                             Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                               CA2023-11-104 thru 107

case that she is committed or able to care for and protect the children. Based upon the

evidence presented at the hearing, it is clear that Mother's substance abuse problem, lack

of commitment to the case plan, and failure to put her children's needs ahead of her own

and Father's prevented Mother from providing the children with a safe and stable

permanent living environment.     Even after the Agency's initial involvement in 2020,

Mother has continued to place herself in unsafe situations, primarily by turning to illegal

substances and refusing to separate from Father.           As this court has previously

recognized, "[a] child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security." In re M.G., 12th Dist. Warren No.

CA2020-10-070, 2021-Ohio-1000, ¶ 44. The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent

custody of the children to the Agency provides this for the children. Accordingly, we find

the juvenile court's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is

therefore supported by sufficient evidence. Mother's assignment of error is overruled.

                                    Father's Appeal

       {¶ 54} As noted above, Father also appeals from the juvenile court's decision and

raises the raises the following assignment of error:

              THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO TERMINATE THE
              PARENTS' PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT PROVEN BY
              CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 55} Like Mother, Father argues the juvenile court erred in determining it was in

the children's best interest to award permanent custody to the Agency. In support, Father

claims that he and Mother are bonded with the children; the juvenile court did not fully

consider the wishes of the children; and that because Mother had completed a majority

of her case plan services, an award of permanent custody to the Agency was not

necessary.

                                            - 20 -
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

       {¶ 56} Regarding the weight given to the children's bond with their parents, Father

argues the testimony at the hearing shows he and Mother have a history of taking care

of the children and are bonded with them. Therefore, Father claims this factor weighs in

favor of Mother and Father. Contrary to Father's claims, the testimony at the hearing

revealed that Mother and Father struggled to meet the children's various academic,

behavioral, and medical needs prior to their removal, and that during the case, Mother

refused to approve necessary medical intervention for H.O. without court involvement.

Mother and Father had not visited with the children since March 2023, which prevented

expanded or unsupervised visitation, as well as any opportunity for Mother and Father to

demonstrate their current abilities to care for the children. Father also described his bond

with B.O. as complicated, and that he had made a lot of mistakes with his oldest child.

Nonetheless, even if Mother and Father share a strong bond with the children, it is well

settled that simply because a child is bonded with his or her parents does not render an

award of permanent custody to a children's services agency against the child's best

interest. In re R.B., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-03-032, 2023-Ohio-3145, ¶ 21.

       {¶ 57} Father next argues the juvenile court erred when it solely relied on the

recommendation of the CASA without addressing the wishes of the children in its opinion.

We note that R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) "unambiguously gives the [juvenile] court the choice

of considering the child's wishes directly from the child or through the guardian ad litem."

In re C.F., 113 Ohio St. 3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 55. Here, the CASA filed a written

report and orally recommended permanent custody to the Agency at the hearing. As

discussed in Mother's appeal, the CASA's report specifically notes the children's

individual wishes. Thus, we disagree with Father's claim that the juvenile court did not

address the children's wishes, as it is evident the juvenile court considered the children's

                                             - 21 -
                                                              Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                CA2023-11-104 thru 107

wishes as expressed through the CASA, including that the older three children wished to

return home.

       {¶ 58} Turning to Father's final argument, that Mother had largely completed her

case plan services and was capable of reunifying with the children at the time of the

hearing, we disagree with Father's interpretation of the evidence. As discussed above in

Mother's appeal, the bulk of the evidence presented at the hearing established that,

although Mother had completed some of her case plan services, she failed to remedy the

conditions that initially led to the children's removal. At the time of the hearing, Mother

continued to struggle with her sobriety, did not have suitable housing for the children, and

was inconsistent with her treatment providers and the Agency throughout much of the

case. Mother neglected to prioritize her visitation or reunification with the children, and

instead, focused on her relationship with Father and his medical and legal ailments.

       {¶ 59} Father has likewise failed to remedy the Agency's concerns that led to the

children's removal. As testified by the caseworker, the record reveals that Father has

largely failed to demonstrate any awareness of or accountability for the Agency's

concerns. Despite completing several treatment programs, Father failed to maintain

sobriety for any length of time and was incarcerated multiple times throughout the case

as a result. At the time of the hearing, Father was in jail, but was unemployed and living

out of his van prior to his most recent incarceration. Father has not demonstrated any

commitment to reunifying with his children or changing his habits.         Instead, Father

acknowledged during the hearing that he was the biggest impediment to Mother, and that,

although the children could not be placed with him, they should be placed with Mother.

       {¶ 60} Per Mother's own testimony, she was aware that she still had "a lot to do

with the case plan and stuff," but was "willing to keep doing that." Notwithstanding

                                             - 22 -
                                                                  Warren CA2023-11-102 and
                                                                    CA2023-11-104 thru 107

Mother's assertion that she could, eventually, be a suitable parent for the children, a

parent "'is afforded a reasonable, not an indefinite, period of time to remedy the conditions

causing the children's removal.'" In re A.M.L., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-01-010,

2013-Ohio-2277, ¶ 32, quoting In re L.M., 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2010-A-0058, 2011-

Ohio-1585, ¶ 50. The Agency has most recently been involved with the children since

early 2022. Thus, at the time of the permanent custody motions, Mother and Father had

been given approximately 16 months to remedy the Agency's concerns. Mother and

Father have failed to demonstrate that they can provide a safe and stable environment

for the children. It is not in the children's best interest to gamble on the possibility that

their parents may be able to obtain stability in the future. This is especially true where

the children are now thriving in stable and secure environments.

       {¶ 61} Based on the above, we find no merit to any of the arguments raised herein

by Father. The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody was supported by

clear and convincing evidence and was otherwise not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Father's assignment of error is overruled.

                                        Conclusion

       {¶ 62} Mother and Father both contest the juvenile court's decision that the

children's interests were best served by placing them in the permanent custody of the

Agency. For the reasons set forth above, we find Mother's and Father's arguments to be

without merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

       {¶ 63} Judgment affirmed.

       BYRNE, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

                                             - 23 -