In re C.T. , 2024 Ohio 330 ( 2024 )

[Cite as In re C.T., 2024-Ohio-330.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
C.T. (D.O.B. 11/12/15) : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
C.T. (D.O.B. 8/29/18) : Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
:
:
: Case Nos. 2023CA00123
: 2023CA00124
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Family Court Division, Case
Nos. 2022 JCV 00707 & 2022 JCV
00708
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 31, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Father For Appellee Agency
RICHARD D. HIXSON BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH
3808 James Court, Suite 2 402 2nd Street SE
Zanesville, OH 43701 Canton, OH 44702
For Mother Guardian ad Litem
KATHALEEN O'BRIEN TODD KOTLER
116 Cleveland Avenue NW, Suite 303 4580 Stephen Circle NW, Suite 100
Canton, OH 44702 Canton, OH 44718
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 2
King, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant father, C.T., appeals the August 23, 2023 judgment entries of the
Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Family Court Division, terminating his
parental rights and granting permanent custody of his children to appellee agency, Stark
County Department of Job and Family Services ("SCDJFS"). We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On June 29, 2022, SCDJFS filed complaints alleging two children, C.T. born
November 2015 and C.T. born August 2018, to be dependent and/or neglected. Father
of the children is appellant herein; mother is S.M. A shelter care hearing was held on
June 30, 2022, and the children were placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS.
{¶ 3} On July 27, 2022, both father and mother stipulated to dependency. By
decisions filed same date, the trial court found the children to be dependent and continued
the children's temporary custody with SCDJFS. The trial court approved and adopted the
case plans.
{¶ 4} On May 17, 2023, SCDJFS filed motions for permanent custody of the
children. A hearing was held before the trial court on August 21, 2023. By judgment
entries filed August 23, 2023, the trial court terminated all parental rights and granted
permanent custody of the children to SCDJFS. Findings of fact and conclusions of law
were filed contemporaneously with the judgment entries.
{¶ 5} Father filed appeals and assigned the following errors in each case:
I
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 3
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT
AND COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH FATHER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND
FAILING TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY AS A RESULT."
II
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY
WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN, AS SUCH A FINDING WAS
UNSUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
III
{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT STARK COUNTY
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES MADE REASONABLE AND DILIGENT EFFORTS."
IV
{¶ 9} "THE TRIAL COURT APPLIED AN IMPROPER STANDARD WHEN IT
DETERMINED A FINDING THAT THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT AND COULD NOT BE
PLACED WITH FATHER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WAS MANDATORY
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)."
{¶ 10} Mother filed her own appeals and is not a part of this opinion.1 For ease of
discussion, we will address father's assignments of error out of order.
III
{¶ 11} In his third assignment of error, father claims the trial court erred in finding
SCDJFS made reasonable and diligent efforts to reunite the family. We disagree.
1Appellate Case Nos. 2023CA00118 and 2023CA00119.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 4
{¶ 12} A public children services agency must make reasonable efforts "to prevent
the removal of the child from the child's home, to eliminate the continued removal of the
child from the child's home, or to make it possible for the child to return safely home."
R.C. 2151.419(A)(1). It is the agency's burden to prove that it has made those reasonable
efforts. Id. "Reasonable efforts" is not statutorily defined, but has been construed to
mean "that a children's services agency must act diligently and provide services
appropriate to the family's need to prevent the child's removal or as a predicate to
reunification." In re A.J., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1038, 2010-Ohio-4206, ¶ 37. "In
determining whether the agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the
child from the home, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but
whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under the statute." In re
Lewis, 4th Dist. Athens No. 03CA12, 2003-Ohio-5262, ¶ 16. As stated by our colleagues
from the Third District in In re Evans, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-01-75, 2001 WL 1333979, *3
(Oct. 30, 2001):
Case plans are the tool that child protective service agencies use to
facilitate the reunification of families who, for whatever reason, be it abuse,
neglect or otherwise, have been temporarily separated. Case plans
establish individual goals, concerns and the steps that the parent and
agency will take in order to achieve reunification. R.C. 2151.412
establishes the guidelines for case plans and according to R.C.
2151.412(E)(1) all parties to the plan are bound by the terms of the
journalized case plan.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 5
{¶ 13} As held by the Supreme Court of Ohio in In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73,
2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 42-43:
To the extent that the trial court relies on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) at a
permanency hearing, the court must examine the "reasonable case
planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents" when
considering whether the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent
within a reasonable time. However, the procedures in R.C. 2151.414 do
not mandate that the court make a determination whether reasonable efforts
have been made in every R.C. 2151.413 motion for permanent custody.
Therefore, we hold that R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) does not apply in a
hearing on a motion for permanent custody filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.413.
However, except for some narrowly defined statutory exceptions, the state
must still make reasonable efforts to reunify the family during the child-
custody proceedings prior to the termination of parental rights. If 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.
{¶ 14} SCDJFS filed a case plan for the parents on July 27, 2022. Concerns for
father were his substance abuse and he was around children as a registered sex offender.
The plan called for father to complete substance use and risk assessments, follow all
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 6
recommendations including treatment and/or counseling if needed, comply with the
SCDJFS's drug screening color code system, remain clean for four to six months to
receive additional referrals, and obtain and maintain stable employment and housing.
Father was to receive diagnostic services, case management services, and counseling
services. He was to visit his children under supervision. His progress was to be reviewed
at monthly home visits, family team meetings, and case reviews and semi-annual reviews.
A case plan review on December 29, 2022 changed his risk assessment to a parenting
practices assessment and follow all recommendations. An annual review was held on
May 26, 2023; father had made insufficient progress.
{¶ 15} The trial court found SCDJFS was making reasonable efforts on June 30,
July 29, and December 29, 2022, and May 26, 2023.
{¶ 16} We find SCDJFS established its case planning and efforts were reasonable
and diligent prior to the hearing on the motion for permanent custody.
{¶ 17} Assignment of Error III is denied.
IV
{¶ 18} In his fourth assignment of error, father claims the trial court applied an
improper standard in finding the children could not be placed with him within a reasonable
time or should not be placed with him under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). We disagree.
{¶ 19} R.C. 2151.414(E) lists several factors for a trial court to consider by clear
and convincing evidence in its determination whether a child cannot be placed with either
parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. The first factor
is found in subsection (E)(1) and states in part:
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 7
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. (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 20} The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that father "has failed to
remedy the conditions" that caused the children to be placed. Judgment Entry filed
August 23, 2023. Father argues the trial court failed to make a finding using the
emphasized language of the statute. He argues while he has not remedied the conditions,
he was making progress and did not fail "continuously and repeatedly." Appellant's Brief
at 24.
{¶ 21} We agree the trial court did not use the language as cited in the statute and
we encourage the trial court to do so. But the trial court also found father did not have
appropriate housing under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) ("The parent has demonstrated a lack of
commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the
child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an
adequate permanent home for the child"). Father did not permit the caseworker to visit
his home and he admitted to the caseworker that the home was not appropriate for the
children. T. at 28. SCDJFS tried to help father obtain suitable housing but after a year,
he had made no progress on housing. Id.Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 8
{¶ 22} The trial court made an additional finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) in support
of its conclusion that the children could not be placed with father within a reasonable time
or should not be placed with father; father did not contest this finding. Any one of the
findings under subsection (E) is sufficient for the trial court to determine the children
cannot be placed with father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with father.
{¶ 23} Upon review, we find the trial court met the requirements of R.C.
2151.414(E).
{¶ 24} Assignment of Error IV is denied.
I, II
{¶ 25} In his first assignment of error, father claims the trial court erred in finding
the children could not be placed with him within a reasonable time and should not be
placed with him and abused its discretion in failing to grant an extension of temporary
custody as a result.
{¶ 26} In his second assignment of error, father claims the trial court's finding that
permanent custody was in the best interests of the children was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 27} We disagree with both assignments of error.
{¶ 28} 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
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
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 9
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.)
{¶ 29} 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.
{¶ 30} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states 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.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 10
(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.
(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 * * *.
(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.
{¶ 31} 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.
{¶ 32} 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 either parent. Said section states in pertinent part the following:
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 11
(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 parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to
resume and maintain parental duties.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 12
(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the
child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when
able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an
adequate permanent home for the child;
(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶ 33} 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 services
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 13
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.
{¶ 34} During the hearing, the trial court heard from the ongoing family caseworker
and father's psychological evaluator, Stephen Dean, Ph.D. The guardian ad litem
submitted reports. As explained by our brethren from the Second District in In re A.J.S.
& R.S., 2d Dist. Miami No. 2007CA2, 2007-Ohio-3433, ¶ 22:
Accordingly, issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the
weight to be given the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. In this
regard, "[t]he underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the
trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view
the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections,
and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered
testimony." Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77,
80, 461 N.E.2d 1273. Finally, an appellate court must adhere to every
reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's judgment and findings of
fact. In re Brodbeck, 97 Ohio App.3d 652, 659, 647 N.E.2d 240, citing
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 14
Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 1994-Ohio-432, 638
N.E.2d 533.
{¶ 35} Further, " 'the discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining
whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child should be
accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the
court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned.' " In re Mauzy
Children, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073, *2 (Nov. 13, 2000),
quoting In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist.1994).
{¶ 36} The caseworker testified SCDJFS first became involved with mother in
November 2021. T. at 9-10. Concerns with father's substance use arose in April 2022.
T. at 12. Based upon SCDJFS's concerns, the children were placed in the agency's
temporary custody on June 30, 2022. Both father and mother stipulated to dependency
on July 27, 2022. Case plans were approved and adopted.
{¶ 37} As stated above, initial concerns for father were his substance abuse and
he was around children as a registered sex offender. The plan called for father to
complete substance use and risk assessments (later changed to a parenting practices
assessment), follow all recommendations including treatment and/or counseling if
needed, comply with the SCDJFS's drug screening color code system, remain clean for
four to six months to receive additional referrals, and obtain and maintain stable
employment and housing. Father was to receive diagnostic services, case management
services, and counseling services.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 15
{¶ 38} Father argues he "consistently tested negative for substances, completed
the parenting assessment but did not have adequate time to follow through with the
recommendations of that assessment, and maintain[ed] steady employment since
December of 2022 so that he could obtain appropriate and independent housing."
Appellant's Brief at 12-13. He argues he was making progress and should have been
granted more time.
{¶ 39} The caseworker testified father did not complete a substance use
assessment even though the agency gave father places to call for assessments and tried
to have him set up appointments.2 T. at 25. Because he failed to obtain the assessment,
he did not engage in any treatment and was not recommended for any parenting classes.
T. at 25, 29-30. The caseworker admitted father consistently tested negative for drug use
for five months, but tested positive for Suboxone in June 2023. T. at 26. The caseworker
was concerned because she could not "assume that he would maintain sobriety." T. at
26, 32. Father did complete the parenting assessment, although late to complete any
recommended services. T. at 26-27, 33. He was employed at Kentucky Fried Chicken
since December 2022. T. at 31. As stated above, father did not permit the caseworker
to visit his home and admitted the home was not appropriate for the children. T. at 28.
SCDJFS tried to help father obtain suitable housing but after a year, he had made no
progress on housing. Id. Father arrived late for his supervised visitations with the
children. T. at 29. He engaged in rough play with the older child and fought with mother
2Joint Exhibit 1 indicates father obtained a substance use assessment dated June 5,
2023, after the filing of the motion for permanent custody; the assessment noted he did
not have a problem and was stable. This joint exhibit was added to the record after the
hearing but before the trial court's determination. The caseworker explained once the
decision to file for permanent custody is made, services stop. T. at 33-34.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 16
in front of the children. Id. The caseworker opined father did not make significant
progress on the case plan. T. at 30. She did not believe a four-month extension would
help given the lack of progress at the time of the hearing. T. at 31.
{¶ 40} Dr. Dean testified he conducted a psychological assessment on father,
administered testing, and had four sessions with father. T. at 44-45. Dr. Dean
recommended a substance use assessment. T. at 46. Although he did not recommend
that father needed to do a mental health evaluation, he opined father lacked the ability "to
kind of fulfill the normal responsibilities of life." T. at 47. Father indicated he was
depressed and struggled with anxiety. T. at 46-47. Dr. Dean diagnosed father with
unspecified anxiety disorder and testified father exhibited "paranoid anti-social personality
traits." T. at 49. Testing indicated father would need support in parenting. T. at 47.
Father looked to outside factors or people to blame for his problems therefore it was less
likely he would change. T. at 48-49. Dr. Dean recommended a drug and alcohol
assessment, a parenting education class, individual weekly therapy "to begin seeing
himself as being the source of his problems and doing something about it," and obtain
adequate housing. T. at 49-50; Dean Report, SCDJFS Exhibit 1.
{¶ 41} The guardian ad litem filed a report recommending permanent custody to
SCDJFS. Guardian ad Litem's Interim Report filed October 25, 2023. At the conclusion
of the hearing, the guardian ad litem stated he would stand by his report, but he was
"ambivalent, given the fact that there has been a four-month gap between the time that
the services were recommended, with respect to Father." T. at 72. But the guardian
noted father was not proactive with the agency and did not have adequate housing. T. at
72-73.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 17
{¶ 42} Under R.C. 2151.415(D), a trial may extend temporary custody for up to six
months "if it determines at the hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
extension is in the best interest of the child, there has been significant progress on the
case plan of the child, and there is reasonable cause to believe that the child will be
reunified with one of the parents or otherwise permanently placed within the period of
extension." In this case, four months of the six-month extension period remained. T. at
31.
{¶ 43} In its August 23, 2023 judgment entries, the trial court found notwithstanding
reasonable case planning and SCDJFS's diligent efforts, father "has failed to remedy the
conditions" that caused the children to be placed. The children could not "be placed with
either parent at this time or within a reasonable period of time" and "should not be placed
with either parent." The trial court made extensive findings of fact relative to the factors
under R.C. 2151.414. August 23, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions at 7-12. The
trial court noted father's psychological testing indicated he would need support and
guidance to adequately parent and struggles to take responsibility for his behavior; he
has a criminal history involving sexual battery, assault, battery, and driving under the
influence. The trial court also noted father has refused a home visit and his home was
not adequate for the children. Father has not made significant progress on his case plan
and if an extension were granted, there was not enough time to engage and complete
services.
{¶ 44} Based upon the cited testimony, we find there was clear and convincing
evidence to support the trial court's findings that the children could not be placed with
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 18
father within a reasonable time and should not be placed with father; the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying an extension.
{¶ 45} During the best interest portion of the hearing, the caseworker testified the
children had several different placements due to the older child exhibiting some troubling
behaviors with other children. T. at 59-62. The two children were currently in different
places. T. at 62. The younger child is doing very well and is bonded to everyone in the
home. Id. The family is interested in adoption. Id. The older child is doing okay and the
agency would like to discuss placing that child back with the younger child to keep them
together. T. at 63. The caseworker opined the benefit of permanent custody would
outweigh any negatives because of the parents' lack of significant progress on the case
plans. T. at 63-64. She believed permanent custody was in the best interest of the
children. Id.{¶ 46} As for best interests, the trial court made findings and determined "the harm
caused by severing any bond with the parent is outweighed by the benefits of
permanence" and the children deserve to be "in a stable, loving environment." August
23, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
{¶ 47} Based upon the testimony presented, we find clear and convincing evidence
to support the trial court's decisions. We do not find the trial court lost its way in making
the decisions to terminate father's parental rights and grant permanent custody of the
children to SCDJFS; we do not find any manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶ 48} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
{¶ 49} The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Family
Court Division, are hereby affirmed.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2023CA00123 & 2023CA00124 19
By King, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.