In re C.M. , 2022 Ohio 4707 ( 2022 )

[Cite as In re C.M., 2022-Ohio-4707.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: C.M. JUDGES:
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 &
2022 CA 00030
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case
No. 2021 AB 35
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee - State of Ohio For Appellant – J.M. (Father)
R. KYLE WITT DAVID TAWNEY
Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney 117 West Main Street – Suite #208
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
GENYLYNN COSGROVE
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For Appellant – M.M. (Mother)
239 West Main Street – Suite #101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130 WILLIAM HOLT
2140 Lancaster-Newark Road, N.E.
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 2
Guardian ad Litem For C.M.
THOMAS GORDON ROSSIA MERANDA
3135 Sun Valley Drive 33 West Main Street
Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Newark, Ohio 43055
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 3
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA29, appellant JM (“Father”) appeals the July 8,
2022 Judgment Entry/Orders on Objection to Magistrate’s Decision entered by the
Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which overruled his
objections to the magistrate’s May 18, 2022 decision, upheld said decision, terminated
Father’s parental rights with respect to his minor child (“the Child”), and granted
permanent custody of the Child to appellee Fairfield County Child Protective Services
(“FCPS”). In Fairfield App. No. 22CA30, appellant MM (“Mother”) appeals the same with
respect to the termination of her parental rights as to the Child.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of the Child. Paternity was
presumed as Mother and Father were married at the time of the Child’s birth. On March
16, 2021, FCPS filed a complaint, alleging the Child was dependent and requesting the
trial court order protective supervision of the Child to FCPS or, in the alternative, award
temporary custody of the Child to FCPS.
{¶3} FCPS filed the complaint after receiving a report Mother and other adults
were using opiates in the family home. The Child had access to drugs and drug
paraphernalia. The Child was reported to have used an electronic tablet immediately
after Mother snorted a substance off of it. Additional concerns included Mother’s sleep
patterns interfering with her ability to parent and supervise the Child; the Child being
developmentally delayed; the Child missing an excessive number of days of school; and
the Child eating food out of a dumpster. In addition, Mother had a history of involvement
with FCPS relative to the Child and another child, who is now an adult. Father, who had
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 4
an extensive criminal history, was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the complaint on
drug related charges and was scheduled to be released on September 11, 2022.
{¶4} The trial court conducted a shelter care hearing on March 17, 2021, and
placed the Child in the temporary shelter court-ordered protective supervision of FCPS.
Following an adjudicatory hearing on May 28, 2021, the trial court found the Child to be
dependent and placed the Child in the temporary custody of FCPS. The trial court
conducted review hearings on September 15, and December 14, 2021, and maintained
the status quo. FCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on February 17, 2022.
{¶5} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on May 10, 2022. Father
appeared virtually although his attorney was present in the courtroom. Prior to
commencement of the hearing, counsel for Parents requested a continuance on behalf
of their clients to allow Parents additional time to work on their case plan services. The
trial court denied the request, noting, if the facts as testified to at the hearing supported
Parents’ positions, the trial court would find such and deny FCPS’s motion for permanent
custody.
{¶6} The following evidence was presented at the hearing:
{¶7} Lacey Carrel, a treatment service coordinator with the Recovery Center,
testified she completed an assessment of Mother on June 17, 2021. Although Carrel
scheduled a follow-up appointment, Mother did not present for the meeting. Based upon
the assessment, Carrel recommended Mother engage in an education group and
complete a re-assessment upon completion of the group program. Mother began the
education group on July 13, 2021, and completed it on August 17, 2021. Mother failed to
attend the scheduled re-assessment appointment on September 1, 2021. Carrel’s
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 5
attempts to re-engage Mother were unsuccessful. Carrel eventually closed Mother’s
case.
{¶8} Rachel Marshall, an intake supervisor with FCPS, testified FCPS received
an initial report regarding the Child on January 21, 2021. The initial concerns were
neglect and physical abuse of the Child perpetrated by Mother. FCPS conducted an
investigation and, as a result, sought and received a shelter care order. At the time of the
investigation, Mother admitted to daily methamphetamine use. Mother completed an on-
site screen at the agency, which was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”). FCPS implemented a safety plan with
Mother’s mother, but she was only able to care for the Child for a limited period of time.
The initial concerns did not involve Father. Marshall explained Father was incarcerated
during the course of FCPS’s investigation.
{¶9} Austin Miller, a felony probation officer, supervised Father while he was on
community control. Miller explained Father had two separate cases, both of which
involved drug-related offenses. Father received judicial release in June, 2021. Miller
began supervising him in July, 2021, at which time Father failed to report. A warrant was
issued and Father was arrested on August 17, 2021. Father served a seven-day jail
sentence. He was released on August 24, 2021. Father reported to Miller for two weeks,
then failed to report on September 17, 2021.
{¶10} Father was arrested on February 10, 2022. Miller subsequently filed a
motion to revoke Father’s community control based upon the following violations: failure
to report on September 17, 2021; failure to maintain total sobriety (Father admitted using
methamphetamines on February 24, 2022); and failure to comply with counseling orders
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 6
(Father failed to follow the recommendations from Lancaster Recovery Services and was
unsuccessfully terminated from counseling). Following a hearing, Father was continued
on community control with orders to enter and successfully complete the Northwest
Community Corrections Program. Father was engaged in the program at the time of the
hearing.
{¶11} Ashton Clark, the ongoing caseworker assigned to the family, detailed
Mother and Father’s case plan requirements. Mother’s case plan required her to meet
with her FCPS caseworker in person at least once a month; complete an AOD (alcohol
and other drugs) assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health
assessment and follow all recommendations; and participate in the random call and
screen program through Averhealth. Parent education services were subsequently
added to Mother’s case plan.
{¶12} Between May, 2021, and September, 2021, Mother successfully met with
Clark at least once a month. In October, 2021, Clark had contact with Mother through
unannounced face-to-face attempts at her home or through telephone calls. Between
November, 2021, and January, 2022, Clark met with Mother either at her home or at the
agency. Clark was unable to make contact with Mother in February, and April, 2022.
{¶13} Mother completed her AOD assessment at the Recovery Center. Mother
engaged in group counseling as part of a group education class. Upon completion of the
group, Mother was to be re-assessed. Mother did not present for the follow-up
assessment and was subsequently discharged as of result. Clark stated Mother re-
engaged in counseling in March, 2022, through Integrated Services. Mother is involved
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 7
in both group and individual counseling, and is compliant with the expectations of her
treatment program.
{¶14} Clark indicated Mother “was for the most part consistent with her random
drug screens,” but added “there were periods of time where she was not consistent or did
not participate in any random call and screens.” Transcript of May 10, 2022 Permanent
Custody Hearing at 62. Mother had negative screens from March 24, through June 3,
2021, from June 16, through August 2, 2021, on August 20, 2021, and from September
1, through September 17, 2021. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines on June
7, August 11, August 16, and September 28, 2021, and positive for alcohol on June 13,
2021. Mother did not present for randomly selected screens from October 4, through
November 30, 2021. As a result, Mother was discharged from the program. Mother re-
engaged in the call and screen program, beginning on March 10, 2022. Mother was
consistent with her screens throughout the month of March, 2022, except for one no-show
on March 25, 2022. Mother’s screens were negative during this period.
{¶15} Clark explained, due to the Child’s needs, FCPS attempted to engage
Mother in parenting education through the Fairfield County Board of Developmental
Delays (“FCBDD”). FCBDD did not respond to FCPS’s inquiries.
{¶16} With respect to Father’s case plan, Clark testified Father was required to
meet with his FCPS caseworker in person at least once a month; complete an AOD
assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and
follow all recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; parenting
education; and complete a batterer intervention assessment.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 8
{¶17} While Father was incarcerated between April and June, 2021, Clark met
with Father via video calls. Clark was unable to locate Father from August through
November, 2021. Clark met with Father in December, 2021, during Father’s visit with the
Child. Father declined a private face-to-face meeting with Clark at that time. Clark was
unable to locate Father in January, 2022. Between February and April, 2022, Clark met
with Father while he was held at the Fairfield County Jail. Clark met with Father at
Northwest Community Corrections in May, 2022.
{¶18} Father declined the mental health assessment, telling Clark he did not have
any mental health concerns. Father completed his substance AOD at Lancaster
Recovery Services. Father’s last contact with Lancaster Recovery services was
September 8, 2021. He was discharged for noncompliance in October, 2021.
{¶19} Because Clark was unable to locate Father, Father did not engage in the
random call and screen program while he was not incarcerated. Father was participating
in random screens at the correctional institution. Father initially stated he did not need
parenting education, but subsequently agreed to complete any program FCPS
recommended. Father was unable to complete parenting education due to his
incarceration.
{¶20} FCPS had concerns regarding Father perpetrating violent and controlling
behavior towards Mother, and requested he complete a batterer intervention assessment.
Due to Clark’s inability to locate Father, FCPS was unable to refer him to a provider to
complete the assessment.
{¶21} Clark noted FCPS still had concerns regarding Parents. With respect to
Father, FCPS continued to have concerns with Father’s use of illegal and non-prescribed
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 9
substances, his parenting practices, and his potential for violent and controlling behavior
towards Mother. With respect to Mother, FCPS continued to have concerns about
Mother’s ability to maintain long-term sobriety and behavioral changes. FCPS had not
been able to assess Mother’s current housing situation. Clark opined neither Mother nor
Father had remedied the conditions which caused the Child to be removed from their
care.
{¶22} Clark described the Child’s mental and physical needs. The Child was
diagnosed with autism. The Child is considered high-functioning as she is verbal and
able to communicate. The Child is currently placed in a licensed foster home. The Child
has been with the foster family since March 22, 2021. Clark noted the Child has “adjusted
incredibly well.” At 69. When the Child was initially placed, there were significant
behavioral concerns. The Child threw tantrums, struggled to deescalate, and lied. The
Child was not toilet trained although the Child was 8 years old.
{¶23} Clark stated the Child had made significant strides since being placed in the
foster home. Clark emphasized the Child deserved permanency. Clark added it is
important for the Child to know where she is going to lay her head and where she is going
to return to each day, explaining it is important for the Child to have this knowledge given
her diagnoses. The Child wishes to be adopted by the foster parents. The Child loves
her actual parents and engages well with them.
{¶24} Tom Gordon, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”), testified he submitted a written
report recommending permanent custody of the Child be granted to FCPS. The GAL
stated Parents failed to remedy the conditions which caused the Child to be removed
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 10
from their home. The testimony presented at the hearing did not change his opinion in
favor of granting permanent custody of the Child to FCPS.
{¶25} Via Decision filed May 18, 2022, the magistrate recommended Parents’
parental rights be terminated and permanent custody of the Child be granted to FCPS.
The magistrate found the Child could not and should not be placed with either Mother or
Father within a reasonable time. On May 31, 2022, and June 1, 2022, Father and Mother
filed their respective objections to the magistrate’s decision. FCPS filed separate
memorandum contra on June 3, and 6, 2022. Father filed a supplemental memorandum
on July 5, 2022. Mother filed a memorandum in support on July 6, 2022.
{¶26} Via Judgment Entry filed July 8, 2022, the trial court overruled Parents’
objections and upheld the decision of the magistrate. The trial court terminated Parents’
parental rights and ordered the Child be placed in the permanent custody of FCPS.
{¶27} It is from this judgment entry Parents separately appeal.
{¶28} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA29, Father raises the following assignments of
error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HAVING A HEARING ON THE
LEGAL CUSTODY MOTION TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE STATUTORY
DEADLINE FOR THIS MATTER TO BE TRIED BY THE COURT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING A
CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL AS REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT
TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR APPELLANT TO COMPLY WITH
THE CASE PLAN.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 11
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MINOR
CHILD COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE APPELLANT WITHIN A
REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME.
{¶29} In Fairfield App. No. 22CA30, Mother raises the following assignments of
error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
FINDING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN AN
ORDER AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF [THE CHILD] TO
FAIRFIELD COUNTY PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE
APPLICATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE SEC. 2151.414 IN VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶30} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
FATHER
I, II
{¶31} Because Father’s first and second assignments of error challenge the trial
court’s failure to provide him with additional time to work on his case plan, we shall
address said assignments of error together. In his first assignment of error, Father asserts
the trial court erred in conducting the hearing on FCPS’s motion for permanent custody
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 12
ten months before the statutory deadline. In his second assignment of error, Father
contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue.
{¶32} Although Father does not cite a specific statute in his first assignment of
error, we presume Father is referring to the twenty-two month period set forth in R.C.
2151.414(B). This time period is a factor the trial court may consider in determining
whether to grant permanent custody, not a prescribed time in which a parent is permitted
to work on his or her case plan.
{¶33} Once an agency files a motion for permanent custody, the trial court by R.C.
2151.414(A)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
The court shall hold a trial court shall hold the hearing scheduled
pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section not later than one hundred twenty
days after the agency files the motion for permanent custody, except that,
for good cause shown, the court may continue the hearing for a reasonable
period of time beyond the one-hundred-twenty-day deadline.
R.C. 2151.414(A)(2).
{¶34} FCPS filed its motion for permanent custody on February 17, 2022. The
trial court conducted the hearing on the motion on May 10, 2022. As discussed, infra,
good cause was not shown for continuing the hearing beyond the 120-day period.
{¶35} Juv.R. 23 provides, “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative
to secure fair treatment for the parties.” “The power of the trial court in a juvenile
proceeding to grant or deny a continuance under Juv.R. 23 is quite broad and is reviewed
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 13
under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Jordan B., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–06–1161,
2007–Ohio–2537, ¶ 16. An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court's attitude was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,
219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶36} Prior to the commencement of the hearing, counsel for both Mother and
Father requested a continuance of the hearing in order for their individual clients to have
more time to work on their case plans. The trial court advised the parties, “[I]f I hear
testimony that I feel if they need more time, I will grant that, but I’m not going to grant the
continuance ahead of time.” Tr. at 9.
{¶37} The testimony established, throughout the pendency of the matter, Father
was either incarcerated or otherwise avoided interaction with FCPS. Father was
incarcerated between April and June, 2021. FCPS was unable to locate Father from
August through November, 2021, and again in January, 2022. Between February and
April, 2022, Father was held at the Fairfield County Jail, and was subsequently transferred
to Northwest Community Corrections.
{¶38} Father’s actions while the case was pending belie his position he needed
additional time to work on his case plan. Father took few, if any, steps towards completing
his case plan when he was out of jail. There was no record evidence to suggest he would
comply should he be given additional time.
{¶39} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in conducting the permanent
custody hearing before any alleged statutory deadline. We further find the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s request for a continuance.
{¶40} Father’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 14
FATHER
III
MOTHER
I, II
{¶41} We elect to address Father’s third assignment of error and Mother’s first
and second assignments of error together. In his third assignment of error, Father argues
the trial court erred in finding the Child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable
time or should not be placed with Father. In her first assignment of error, Mother
maintains the trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to support its
decision to award permanent custody of the Child to FCPS. In her second assignment of
error, Mother submits the trial court violated her due process rights in its application of
R.C. 2151.414.
{¶42} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent
and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v.
Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA5758. Accordingly, judgments supported by
some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not
be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v.
Foley Constr. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578.
{¶43} 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 or private child
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 15
placing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long
term foster care.
{¶44} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to
grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to
grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (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; (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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of
one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March
18, 1999.
{¶45} Therefore, 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, the trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
{¶46} We find there was sufficient and substantial competent evidence to support
the trial court's grant of permanent custody to FCPS.
{¶47} Father’s case plan required him to meet with his FCPS caseworker in
person at least once a month; complete an AOD assessment and follow all
recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and follow all
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 16
recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; parenting
education; and complete a batterer intervention assessment. Father was incarceration
in Fairfield County Jail between April and June, 2021, and February and April, 2022. Clark
met with Father during these periods and in May, 2022, when Father was incarcerated at
the Northwest Correctional Institution. Clark was unable to locate Father from August
through November, 2021, and then again in January, 2022. Clark met with Father in
December, 2021, during Father’s visit with the Child.
{¶48} Father declined the mental health assessment, denying he had any mental
health concerns. Father completed his AOD assessment at Lancaster Recovery
Services, but was discharged for noncompliance in October, 2021. Because FCPS was
unable to locate Father, Father did not engage in the random call and screen program
while he was not incarcerated. Father initially stated he did not need parenting education,
but subsequently agreed to participate in a program. However, Father was unable to
complete parenting education due to his incarceration. Father was asked to complete a
batterer intervention assessment after FCPS learned Father had perpetrated violent and
controlling behavior towards Mother. Because FCPS could not locate Father, he was not
referred for services.
{¶49} Mother’s case plan required her to meet with her FCPS caseworker in
person at least once a month; complete an AOD assessment and follow all
recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and follow all
recommendations; participate in the random call and screen program; and participate in
parent education services.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 17
{¶50} Mother met with Clark each month from May, 2021, through January, 2022.
These meetings were either in person or through telephone calls. Mother did not meet
with Clark in February, and April, 2022. Mother completed her AOD assessment at the
Recovery Center and engaged in group counseling. Mother completed the group
counseling, but failed to present for her reassessment and was subsequently discharged.
Mother re-engaged in counseling in March, 2022, and was involved in both group and
individual counseling and was compliant with her treatment plan.
{¶51} Mother had negative drug screens from March 24, through June 3, 2021,
from June 16, through August 2, 2021, on August 20, 2021, and from September 1,
through September 17, 2021. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines on June 7,
August 11, August 16, and September 28, 2021, and positive for alcohol on June 13,
2021. Mother did not present for randomly selected screens from October 4, through
November 30, 2021, and was discharged as a result. Mother re-engaged in the call and
screen program, beginning on March 10, 2022. Mother was consistent with her screens
throughout the month of March, 2022, except for one no-show on March 25, 2022.
Mother’s screens were negative during this period. FCPS attempted to engage Mother in
parenting education through FCBDD, but FCBDD did not respond to FCPS’s inquiries.
{¶52} The record establishes the following with respect to best interest. The Child
is mildly autistic and considered high-functioning. The Child is verbal and able to
communicate. The Child has been in the same foster home since March 22, 2021, and
has adjusted well. When the Child was initially placed, there were significant behavioral
concerns. The Child threw tantrums, struggled to deescalate, and lied. The Child was not
toilet trained. The Child had made significant strides in foster placement. Clark testified
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 18
the Child deserved permanency, adding it was important, given her diagnoses, for the
Child to know where she was going to lay her head and where she was going to return to
each day. The Child wishes to be adopted by the foster parents. The Child loves Parents
and engages well with them.
{¶53} Mother makes a blanket assertion the trial court violated her due process
rights in its application of R.C. 2151.414. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record
in this matter, including a reading of the complete transcript, and find no violation of
Mother’s due process rights. The trial court complied with the procedures set forth in R.C.
2151.414.
{¶54} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court’s decision to grant
permanent custody of the Child to FCPS is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. We also find the trial court's findings the Child could not and should not be
placed with Parents within a reasonable period of time and it was in the Child's best
interest to grant permanent custody to FCPS are not against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00029 & 2022 CA 00030 19
{¶55} Father’s third assignment of error, and Mother’s first and second
assignments of error are overruled.
{¶56} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Wise, Earle, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur