In re G.H. , 2022 Ohio 4496 ( 2022 )

[Cite as In re G.H., 2022-Ohio-4496.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
IN RE G.H., D.K., & D.H. :
: Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026
: 2022 CA 00027
: 2022 CA 00028
:
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
Nos. F2018-0769, F2018-0770, F2018-
0840
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 13, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For LCDJFS-Appellee: For Father-Appellant:
WILLIAM C. HAYES CAROLYNN E. FITTRO
LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR 35 S. Park Place, Suite 202
Newark, OH 43055
J. BRANDON PIGG
65 E. Main Street, 3rd Floor For Mother-Appellant:
Newark, OH 43055
ROBIN LYN GREEN
P.O. Box 157
Newark, OH 43058
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Mother-Appellant, J.H. appeals the April 6, 2022 judgment entry of the
Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division awarding permanent custody
of G.H., D.K., and D.H. to the Licking County Department of Job and Family Services-
Appellee.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
The Children
{¶2} Mother-Appellant, J.H. is the biological mother of G.H., born in January
2005; D.K. born in September 2007; and D.H., born in December 2018.
{¶3} Father, M.S. is the biological father of D.H. Father and Mother are not
married. Father filed a separate appeal of the April 6, 2022 judgment entry in In re D.H.,
5th Dist. Licking Case No. 2022 CA 00025.
{¶4} The putative fathers of G.H. and D.K. have not appeared in any of the
juvenile court or appellate court proceedings.
Complaints for Dependency
{¶5} Since 2017, there had been three investigations by the Licking County
Department of Job and Family Services-Appellee (“LCDJFS”) with Mother due to
allegations of Mother’s drug use. The cases were investigated and closed. In September
2018, LCDJFS again became involved with Mother and Father based on a series of
incidents of domestic violence between the two. Mother was seven months pregnant with
1
In her appellate brief, Mother only included as her Statement of Facts pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(6) the
“Court’s Statement (Findings) of Facts is set forth in Appendix Exhibit ‘A’.” Mother attached the April 6,
2022 judgment entry as Exhibit A.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 3
D.H. at the time of the investigation. G.H. witnessed the domestic violence. On October
4, 2018, Father was indicted on one count of Domestic Violence, a fifth-degree felony.
{¶6} On October 22, 2018, Father allegedly attacked Mother and G.H.
intervened. Father choked G.H. resulting in Mother stabbing Father in the back with
cuticle scissors. Both Mother and Father were arrested and placed in jail. Father was
charged with Intimidation of a Witness, a third-degree felony; Attempted Felonious
Assault, a third-degree felony; Domestic Violence, a fifth-degree felony; and Domestic
Violence, a first-degree misdemeanor. The Intimidation charge was based on Father’s
attempts to persuade Mother not to pursue charges against him.
{¶7} Mother was released from jail. After she was released, Mother refused to
file a civil protection order against Father for herself and G.H. She also refused services
from LCDJFS. While Father was ordered to have no contact with Mother, Father and
Mother continued to communicate with each other. It appeared Mother had no
independent source of income and there were concerns about her drug use.
{¶8} On November 9, 2018, LCDJFS filed a motion for a temporary order
granting LCDJFS emergency shelter care and custody of G.H. and D.K. LCDJFS
simultaneously filed complaints for dependency alleging that G.H. and D.K. were
dependent children. The Licking County Juvenile Court granted LCDJFS emergency
shelter care of G.H. and D.K. A Guardian ad Litem was appointed for the children.
{¶9} On December 11, 2018, the juvenile court granted an emergency ex parte
order of removal for D.H. LCDJFS filed a complaint for dependency for D.H. on December
12, 2018. Pending adjudication, LCDJFS was granted emergency shelter care custody of
D.H.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 4
{¶10} An uncontested adjudicatory hearing was held on January 9, 2019, where
the juvenile court adjudicated G.H., D.K., and D.H. as dependent children. Mother and
Father were present at the adjudicatory hearing and represented by counsel. An
uncontested dispositional hearing was held on February 25, 2019, where the children
were placed in the temporary custody of LCDJFS.
{¶11} The matter proceeded to a five-day hearing before the Magistrate, starting
on January 29, 2021, where the Magistrate took evidence on the following motions:
a. A.S. (“Paternal Great Aunt”) Motion for Legal Custody as to D.H.
b. LCDJFS Motion for Permanent Custody as to D.K. and D.H. filed on
October 9, 2020.
c. LCDJFS October 9, 2020 Motion to Modify Disposition as to G.H. to a
Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (“PPLA”).
d. Mother’s Motion for Extended Visitation.
e. Mother’s Motion for Return of Legal Custody.
f. LCDJFS March 3, 2021 Motion for Permanent Custody and Motion to
Withdraw Motion to Modify Disposition as to G.H.
g. LCDJFS April 20, 2021 Motion to Withdraw Permanent Custody and Motion
to Modify Disposition for PPLA as to G.H.
h. LCDJFS May 12, 2021 Motion to Consider Permanent Custody and PPLA
as alternative pleadings.
{¶12} The following evidence was adduced at the hearing.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 5
Mother’s Case Plan
{¶13} LCDJFS created a case plan for Mother and Father. There were challenges
working with Mother and Father based on Mother and Father’s threats of violence against
their case workers and Mother’s failure to communicate with specific case workers.
{¶14} Mother’s case plan objectives were to address the concerns that led to the
removal of the three children. She was to complete a substance abuse assessment and
follow all recommendations; complete random drug and alcohol screens; do not associate
with persons who abuse substances or engage in criminal conduct; participate in
counseling services, including domestic violence support groups; and obtain and maintain
independent housing and legitimate income sufficient to meet the needs of the children.
{¶15} Mother initially engaged in mental health treatments at the National Youth
Advocacy Program in November 2018. She transferred to The Woodlands in January
2019, and then returned to the National Youth program in May 2019. Mother engaged in
counseling from May 28, 2019 to June 8, 2020. Mother was diagnosed with Adjustment
Disorder, Other Specified Trauma, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety, and
Depression. LCDJFS could not monitor Mother’s participation in mental health treatment
because Mother refused to sign releases of information. During her mental health
treatment, Mother did not fully discuss the breadth of the domestic violence between her
and Father. Mother continued to have telephone contact with Father while they were
incarcerated, as a result of which the calls were recorded. Mother stated they discussed
the children and legal matters. A review of the phone calls showed that Mother and Father
stated their love for each other, the desire to have another child, and screaming
arguments.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 6
{¶16} Mother completed a substance abuse assessment and received substance
abuse education. A random drug screen tested positive for cocaine and opiates. Mother
denied her substance abuse or abusing alcohol, despite being observed to be extremely
intoxicated. During the recorded phone calls, Mother admitted to purchasing heroin for
her mother.
{¶17} At the time of the children’s removal, Mother was not working and
experiencing housing instability. In May 2019, Mother had obtained an apartment in
Zanesville, Ohio. She remained unemployed, however, working sporadically at
construction jobs with her brother. Mother obtained employment at Speedway, which
ended in March 2020. Mother relocated to her mother’s home, but there were concerns
that housing was not stable. Further, the police had been called to the mother’s home
due to their disputes, which resulted in Mother’s arrest on July 18, 2021 for allegedly
punching and biting her mother. The police also found a 12-gauge, sawed-off shotgun in
the home. When Mother was arrested, the arresting officer observed Mother to be
intoxicated. She was screaming, hostile, and verbally abusive to the officers. Mother was
hospitalized and sedated.
{¶18} On July 30, 2020, Mother was indicted on one count of Felonious Assault
(F2) and one count of Unlawful Possession of Dangerous Ordnance-Illegally
Manufacturing or Processing Explosives (F5). After a jury trial where Mother represented
herself and her mother did not appear as a witness, the jury found Mother guilty of
Unlawful Possession of Dangerous Ordnance. Mother was sentenced to 300 days in jail
(with jail time credit of 242 days) and two years of community control sanctions. Mother
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 7
objected and requested to be sentenced to jail rather than community control sanctions,
which the trial court sustained. She was scheduled to be released on May 14, 2021.
Father’s Case Plan
{¶19} Father’s case plan was to address the concerns that led to the removal of
D.H. He was to complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all
recommendations; complete random drug and alcohol screens; do not associate with
persons who abuse substances or engage in criminal conduct; participate in counseling
services, including The Woodlands’ Batter’s Intervention Program; and obtain and
maintain independent housing and legitimate income sufficient to meet the need of the
child.
{¶20} Father was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder Type II and prescribed
medication.
{¶21} Father was initially placed in the community subject to pre-trial bond
conditions at which time he pursued reunification. He completed a substance abuse
assessment and was deferred for service. Father relapsed on heroin in approximately
January or February 2019. He then pursued treatment at Muskingum Behavioral Health.
He did not participate in The Woodlands’ Batter’s Intervention Program due to his pending
criminal matters.
{¶22} On July 15, 2019, Father plead guilty and was convicted of domestic
violence, intimidation of a witness, domestic violence (F5), domestic violence (F5), and
domestic violence (M1). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 18 months
incarceration. He was in prison during the COVID-19 pandemic where the programming
was limited, but he attended a faith-based substance abuse program.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 8
{¶23} Father and Mother regularly communicated with each other by telephone
while Father was incarcerated, so the calls were recorded. The phone calls were hostile
and manipulative; at other times, they expressed their love for each other. It was during
these phone calls Father and Mother made threats of violence against their case workers.
{¶24} Father was released from prison on November 8, 2020. Father made efforts
to reengage his case plan. He engaged in parenting education through Forever Dads in
Zanesville, pursued mental health counseling, and obtained housing. As a condition of
Father’s parole, he was not to have any contact with Mother or unsupervised contact with
D.H. By November 23, 2020, Father was incarcerated again due to a parole violation after
he continued daily telephone contact with Mother.
{¶25} Father was released from prison on January 8, 2021. He was arrested
shortly thereafter due to his continued prohibited contact with Mother. In one recorded
incident, Father contacted Mother during a video visit on January 13, 2021, while Mother
was incarcerated at the Licking County Justice Center. A third-party appeared on the
screen, moving his mouth, while Father remained out of camera view and spoke directly
to Mother.
{¶26} The Adult Parole Authority recommended that Father serve a sanction of
160 days in prison for the violation. Father’s parole officer found Father to be non-
compliant with parole and borderline aggressive. Father made statements to his parole
officer that he understood why people like him committed mass shootings.
Foster Placement, Visitation, and Parental Relationships
{¶27} Upon G.H.’s removal, he was placed in a family foster home with D.H. and
D.K. On September 27, 2019, G.H. was placed at the Mohican Young Star Academy
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 9
because of an incident of theft. While in this residential placement, G.H. assaulted a peer
and was found to purposefully “cheek” his mental health medication. G.H. improved, was
discharged from the facility, and placed in a family foster home in November 2020. He
began attending bi-weekly therapy. He at first wanted to return to Mother’s care or to be
placed with relatives in Louisiana, then he expressed a desire to be adopted. On March
18, 2021, G.H. ran away from his foster home. On April 18, 2021, G.H. was arrested and
charged as a juvenile with Aggravated Robbery with a gun specification (F1) and Theft of
a Motor Vehicle (F4). Since his arrest, G.H. was incarcerated at the Multi-County Juvenile
Detention Center.
{¶28} D.K. was placed in a family foster home with D.H. and G.H. D.K. relocated
in July 2019 and remained in her second family foster home until July 9, 2020. The second
foster family became unavailable due to marital discord and D.K. was placed with a third
family foster home from July 9, 2020 to December 11, 2020. While at the third foster
home, Mother was contacting D.K., which correlated to D.K.’s increased negative
behaviors and mental health. In December 2020, D.K. chose to be placed with G.H.’s
foster family. Then G.H. ran away from the foster home. D.K. remained with the foster
family who has expressed an interest in maintaining their relationship and possibly
adopting her. D.K. attended weekly counseling and was improving.
{¶29} D.H. has also had multiple foster family placements. He left his initial
placement in February 2019 and remained with the second foster family home until April
6, 2021, when the foster father experienced mental health issue. D.H. resides in a foster
to adopt home, but it is unknown whether he will be adopted. Due to his age and custodial
history, D.H. was not bonded with his siblings, Mother, or Father.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 10
{¶30} Father attended supervised bi-weekly visitation sessions with D.H. Father
visited D.H. on May 10, 2019 and was then incarcerated. Father attended a supervised
visitation with D.H. on November 20, 2020. This was Father’s last visitation with D.H.
{¶31} Prior to Mother’s incarceration, she attended supervised biweekly visitation
with the children. She was a vocal advocate for the care of the children during visitation
but was argumentative with the LCDJFS staff. Mother last saw all three children together
on March 2, 2020. Mother had difficulty complying with the COVID-19 regulations for
visitation. In May 2020, Mother was prohibited from visiting with D.K. because Mother
would not comply with the rules, and she hid money in D.K.’s backpack.
{¶32} After Mother moved to the Zanesville apartment in May 2019, Father
reported to LCDJFS that G.H. was not at his foster home, but with Mother at her
apartment. There were concerns that G.H. would remove D.H. from his foster home.
During Mother’s supervised visitation with G.H. and D.H., LCDJFS sat in the room
because of the flight concerns. Mother denied that G.H. was with her, but on May 12,
2021, Mother admitted that G.H. and his friend were in her apartment.
{¶33} Mother’s last contact with D.H. was in July 2020. Mother’s last contact with
G.H. was June 2020, via Zoom, while G.H. was attending the Mohican Young Star
Academy. Mother pursued unauthorized contact with D.K. and G.H. while Mother was
incarcerated by sending letters to the children under the name of a different inmate.
{¶34} The juvenile court conducted in camera interviews with G.H. and D.K. D.H.
was too young to participate. The children expressed they did not want contact with Father
because they were afraid of him.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 11
Kinship Placements
{¶35} Paternal Great Aunt moved for legal custody of D.H. She had never met
D.H. and no relationship with him. She did not have a relationship with Mother but
remained in contact with Father and identified as his support person. The LCDJFS
Kinship Care Coordinator found Paternal Great Aunt to have a significant Children’s
Services history. In January 2019, the eight-month-old infant granddaughter of Paternal
Great Aunt was found severely injured in her home that she shared with the father of the
infant. Paternal Great Aunt returned home from work and discovered the infant had
difficulty breathing. She took the infant to the emergency room and the infant was
diagnosed with nine fractured ribs, three skull fractures, a lacerated spleen, and a
lacerated liver. The perpetrator of the abuse was not identified, but the Franklin County
Children’s Services approved Paternal Great Aunt to supervise visitation between the
infant and her parents. In 2016, Paternal Great Aunt lost custody of her child for nine
months due to the child’s domestic violence and drug abuse. Paternal Great Aunt stated
she stopped using marijuana in 2020. Paternal Great Aunt failed to file the Statement of
Understanding related to her pursuit of legal custody. Mother objected to Paternal Great
Aunt’s motion for legal custody due to the unknown cause of the infant’s injuries. LCDJFS
found Paternal Great Aunt to be an inappropriate placement.
{¶36} LCDJFS explored other kinship placements but found them to be
inappropriate. The paternal great grandmother of D.K. resided in Louisiana and was
considered to be a viable placement for D.K. and G.H., but there were concerns that when
Mother lived with the paternal great grandmother and the father of D.K., they engaged in
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 12
drug use. The process for Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children was initiated
but not completed at the time of the hearings.
Best Interests
{¶37} LCDJFS testified it was in the best interests of the G.H., D.K., and D.H. to
be placed in the permanent custody of LCDJFS. The GAL recommended the termination
of parental rights.
{¶38} D.K. and G.H. both expressed a desire to remain together. They wanted to
live with their current foster family or be placed in the custody of paternal great
grandmother. Neither expressed a desire to reside with Mother.
Magistrate’s Decision, Objections, and Final Judgment
{¶39} The 32-page Magistrate’s Decision was filed on September 16, 2021,
granting permanent custody of G.H., D.K., and D.H. to LCDJFS. The Magistrate denied
the motions for legal custody of Mother and Paternal Great Aunt. The motion for a PPLA
for G.H. was also denied. The trial court approved and adopted the Magistrate’s Decision
on September 16, 2021.
{¶40} Mother and Father filed objections to the Magistrate’s Decision. By
judgment entry filed on April 6, 2022, the juvenile court overruled Mother and Father’s
objections in a thoroughly written decision. The juvenile court modified the Magistrate’s
Decision in part, first finding that Mother had abandoned D.H. and the parental rights of
Mother and Father of D.H. should be terminated based upon their abandonment of the
child. Second, the juvenile court modified the Magistrate’s Decision to order that all
visitations and contact between Mother and Father with the children should be terminated
immediately.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 13
{¶41} It is from this judgment that Mother now appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶42} Mother raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶43} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S ENTRY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY
TO THE AGENCY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
ANALYSIS
{¶44} We recite in full the argument Mother raises in support of her Assignment
of Error:
The Appellant believes that portions of the transcript show that not all
the essential elements of this case were found against her. The manifest
weight of the evidence is in favor of Appellant and thus the trial court’s
decision should be reversed.
It is the Appellant’s request that The Fifth District Court of Appeals review
the entire record and transcript of the cases and determine independently
as to whether the lower Court’s Entry granting permanent custody is against
the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial.
(Appellant’s Brief, July 11, 2022). We find Mother’s appellate brief to be minimally
compliant with App.R. 16(A)(7) in that she does not cite to the parts of the record in
support of her argument. She instead states to the Court that “portions of the transcript
show that not all the essential elements were found against her.” “If an argument exists
that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this court's duty to root it out.” Fifth Third
Bank, National Association v. Hillman, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22-CAE-06-0050, 2022-
Ohio-4338, 2022 WL 17413722, ¶ 22 quoting Thomas v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 14
08CA17, 2009-Ohio-3299, ¶ 14, quoting State v. Carman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90512,
2008-Ohio-4368, ¶ 31.
Standard of Review
{¶45} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re
Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must
be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). 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). “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.” Id. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all
the essential elements of the case supports the trial court's judgment, an appellate court
must affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E.
Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶46} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d
77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is
“crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties'
demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77
Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 15
{¶47} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when
deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court
schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody
of a child by a public children services agency.
{¶48} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court may grant permanent
custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing, by clear and
convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody
of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the
following apply:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the temporary
custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child
placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-
month period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more
public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, as
described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the
child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in
another state, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's
parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's
parents.
(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
able to take permanent custody.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 16
(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.
(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from
whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an
abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any
court in this state or another state. * * * *.
{¶49} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not
be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all
relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter
such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the
child's parents.
{¶50} R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must
apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, a trial court will usually
determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)
through (e) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 17
the child. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), in determining the best interest of a child in a
permanent custody proceeding, the court shall consider all relevant factors.
Twelve Out of Twenty-Two Months
{¶51} The juvenile court determined that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d),
G.H., D.K., and D.H. were in the temporary custody of LCDJFS for twelve months of a
consecutive twenty-two-month period. Mother does not dispute this fact. This Court has
adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more
months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent
custody. Matter of O.M., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 20CA0017, 2021-Ohio-1310, 2021 WL
1424200, ¶ 33 citing In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF
050040, 2013-Ohio-4018. Therefore, a finding that grounds existed for permanent
custody cannot be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Matter of L.G., 5th Dist.
Stark No. 2020-CA-00139, 2021-Ohio-743, ¶ 36.
The Judgment is Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶52} After reviewing the record, Mother’s limited arguments on appeal, and the
thoroughly analyzed and well written September 16, 2021 Magistrate’s Decision and April
6, 2022 Judgment Entry, we find the juvenile court’s determination to award permanent
custody of G.H., D.K., and D.H. to LCDJFS was supported by competent, credible
evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It was in the best interests
of the children to be placed in a legally secure and stable placement.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00026, 2022 CA 00027, 2022 CA 00028 18
CONCLUSION
{¶53} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, Earle, P.J. and
Wise, John, J., concur.