In re A.C.

[Cite as In re A.C., 2023-Ohio-602.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
A.C. (DOB 9-11-21) :
:
MINOR CHILDREN : Case No. 2022CA00129
: 2022CA00130
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court
of Common Pleas, Family Court
Division, Case Nos. 2021JCV01059
and 2021JCV010060
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 28, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH BERNARD L. HUNT
Stark County JFS 2395 McGinty RD NW
402 2nd Street SE Canton, Ohio 43720
Canton, Ohio 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant K.C. appeals from the September 13, 2022 Judgment Entries of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, terminating his parental
rights and granting permanent custody of his children A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) and A.C. (DOB
9-11-21) to appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family Services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} Appellant K.C. is the biological father of A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) (“A.C. 1”) and
A.C. (DOB 9-11-21) (“A.C. 2”). K.W. is the biological mother.1 Appellee’s initial concerns
regarding A.C. 1 and A.C. 2 arose when mother was using methamphetamine while
pregnant with A.C. 2. In addition, appellee had concerns regarding the dynamic between
appellant and mother, concerns regarding appellant’s drug use, and concerns that A.C.
1 had been dropped “quite frequently,” which appellee suspected was due to her parents
being under the influence of drugs.
{¶3} Appellee initially attempted to work a “non-court case” with appellant by
putting a safety plan in place in which the maternal and paternal grandparents would
supervise. However, due to the appellant’s refusal to acknowledge his substance use
despite positive drug screens, and continuous violations of the safety plan, the appellee
ultimately sought court intervention.
{¶4} On October 20, 2021, the appellee filed a Complaint as to each child
alleging dependency and neglect in which it sought temporary custody of the children. In
addition, the appellee filed a Motion for Pre-Adjudicatory Order as to each child seeking
an order for the following: that appellant arrange for and proceed with a parenting
1
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of K.W., who has not appealed.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 3
assessment to be completed by the adjudicatory hearing, and follow all
recommendations; that appellant receive an assessment for drug and alcohol abuse; that
appellant begin any recommended drug or alcohol treatment; and, that appellant submit
to a urinalysis within 48 hours of the order. The trial court granted the motion. In addition,
the trial court issued a Judgment Entry ordering the appellee to take the children into
shelter care custody, and scheduled an emergency shelter care hearing for October 21,
2021.
{¶5} The emergency shelter care hearing proceeded on October 21, 2021, at
which time the appellant stipulated that probable cause existed for the issuance of the
emergency shelter care order and placement of the children in shelter care pending
further hearing. The trial court found that removal of the children was necessary to prevent
immediate harm, and that continued residence in the home would be contrary to the
children’s best interests. The trial court further found that the appellee had made
reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement, and ordered that the children be
placed in the temporary custody of the appellee. Finally, the trial court also reaffirmed the
orders for drug and alcohol assessment and drug and alcohol urine screening, and
ordered visitation at the appellee’s discretion.
{¶6} The matter was set for a review hearing on November 17, 2021, and a
guardian ad litem (“GAL”) was appointed. The appellee worked with the appellant and
prepared a Family Case Plan for each child which was filed just prior to the scheduled
hearing. In addition, the GAL investigated the matter and filed a GAL Report just prior to
the hearing in which she recommended that the children remain in the temporary custody
of the appellee while the appellant worked his case plan services. The GAL
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 4
recommended further that the appellant needed to demonstrate the ability to maintain
sobriety and comply with parenting evaluations and parenting classes.
{¶7} The appellant failed to appear for the hearing, but counsel for mother
requested discovery, and the trial court set the matter for adjudication on January 13,
2022. The appellee had investigated possible placement with relatives, but no appropriate
relatives could be found. The children were therefore placed with a foster family, who
ensured that their needs were met during the pendency of the case.
{¶8} Following the November 17, 2021 hearing, the appellee undertook efforts
to work with appellant on the items set forth in the Family Case Plan (“Plan”.) The Plan,
the goal of which was reunification, was jointly developed with and agreed to by the
appellant. Items of concern that were addressed in the Plan were as follows:
{¶9} 1. Appellant was to establish paternity for A.C. 2; 2
{¶10} 2. Appellant was to obtain and maintain stable housing that was safe, clean,
and free from environmental hazards, and provide documentation showing that rent and
utilities were being paid and that he was in compliance with housing agreements;
{¶11} 3. Appellant was to maintain stable employment/source of income and
demonstrate his ability to meet his own needs and the needs of the children, and to
provide documentation of the same;
{¶12} 4. Appellant was to ensure that he could provide for the children’s basic
needs at all times;
2
Appellant subsequently signed A.C. 2’s birth certificate, thus establishing paternity.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 5
{¶13} 5. Appellant was to complete parenting evaluations and assessments at
Lighthouse Family Center to determine his level of functioning and need for additional
services in order to safely and successfully parent the children;
{¶14} 6. Appellant was to follow any and all recommendations from Lighthouse
service providers, and attend and participate in all appointments;
{¶15} 7. Appellant was to sign a release of information to be in effect for the
duration of the case.
{¶16} 8. Appellee was to make a referral to Lighthouse, provide any background
and/or collateral information, authorize payments as ordered, and maintain contact with
service providers to monitor progress;
{¶17} 9. Appellant was to complete a drug and alcohol assessment as ordered by
the court at CommQuest Recovery Services;
{¶18} 10. Appellant was to remain substance free, gain insight and knowledge
regarding the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol on family functioning, and provide a
safe and drug free living environment for the children and ensure no person involved with
drug activities are around or providing care for the children;
{¶19} 11. Appellant was to submit to random drug screens as requested by
appellee;
{¶20} 12. Appellee was to engage in written and oral communication with
appellant, as well as service providers, to monitor and determine progress; and,
{¶21} 13. Appellant had the opportunity for supervised visitation with the children
for two hours two times per month.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 6
{¶22} The adjudication hearing went forward on January 13, 2022 with all parties
and their counsel present, as well as the GAL, and evidence was presented. The trial
court found that appellant needed to complete both the parenting assessment with
Lighthouse and substance assessment with CommQuest; that appellant had not signed
the necessary releases of information and appellee was therefore unable to speak with
service providers to monitor and determine his progress; that the children were placed
with foster parents who were ensuring that their needs were met; that appellant visited
the children every other week at the agency, interacted well with the children and brought
them food and toys; that appellee attempted several safety plans prior to removal; that
appellee sought relatives for possible placement; that the GAL was pleased with the
children’s placement, and would observe the parents’ visit soon; and, that counsel for
appellee requested the appellant be ordered to sign the releases and submit to a drug
screen that day.
{¶23} The trial court found further that the appellee had engaged in reasonable
efforts to prevent the need for placement and/or make it possible for the children to return
home, and that the appellee had engaged in intensive efforts to identify and engage
kinship caregivers for the children. Finally, the trial court found that the children, having
previously been determined dependent, should be placed in the temporary custody of the
appellee, and ordered the appellant to submit to a drug screen and sign the appropriate
releases that day. A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for April 19, 2022, and a
twelve-month review hearing was scheduled for September 16, 2022.
{¶24} The dispositional review hearing went forward on April 19, 2022. The
appellant failed to appear for the hearing. He was represented by counsel. The trial court,
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 7
after hearing all the evidence, found that appellant had not complied with a parenting
assessment at Lighthouse and, while appellant had completed a CommQuest
assessment and was referred to a substance abuse treatment program, he had not
followed through with an outpatient treatment program and was not truthful about his
substance use. In addition, the appellant was not compliant with random drug screens,
and needed independent housing and employment. The trial court also found that while
the appellant visited the children, he was historically not on time for the visits and no-
showed a number of times. Accordingly, the appellee required him to appear for the visit
before the children would be transported.
{¶25} The GAL reported that the children were doing well in foster care and
recommended that the placement continue. The trial court held that reasonable efforts
were made to finalize the permanency planning in effect; that appellee had utilized
intensive efforts to identify and engage appropriate and willing kinship caregivers for the
children; approved and adopted the Case Plan Review Packet; and, ordered the status
quo be maintained. A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for September 16,
2022.
{¶26} On July 6, 2022, the appellee filed a motion for permanent custody.
Appellee’s motion was based upon the appellant’s continuous and repeated failure to
substantially remedy the conditions that led the award of temporary custody to the
appellee; the appellant’s chemical dependency, which was so severe that he was unable
to provide an adequate permanent home for the children and it was not anticipated that
he could do so within one year after the court held the R.C. 2151.414(A) hearing; the
appellant’s failure to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the children when able
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 8
to do so; the appellant’s unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the
children; the appellant’s abandonment of the children by failing to visit or maintain contact
with the children for more than ninety days; and, the appellant’s unwillingness to provide
food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the children. A hearing on the
motion was scheduled for September 12, 2022.
{¶27} On August 16, 2022, the appellee filed an Amended Case Plan which added
an additional afterborn child as a plan participant. Appellant did not jointly develop and
agree with the amended plan, as he was no longer engaging in the case plan in any way.
{¶28} The permanent custody proceedings went forward on September 12, 2022.
The appellant failed to appear for the hearing. He was represented by counsel. Testimony
of the case worker was presented at the hearing which established that the appellant
failed to complete the parenting assessments and, while he completed the substance
abuse assessment with CommQuest through which the Moderate Outpatient Program
was recommended, he failed to comply with the recommendation and engage in
treatment. In addition, while the appellant averred that he was clean, he provided a urine
drug screen on the day of his assessment that tested positive for amphetamine. Further,
the appellant failed to engage in the required random drug screens. In fact, at the time of
the hearing the appellant’s last drug screen was from January 13, 2022, wherein he tested
positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine with levels of methamphetamine that
were “concerningly high.” The appellant continued to refuse drug screens, was
unemployed, and had no housing. Appellee sent the appellant numerous letters and
called him numerous times in an effort to engage him in services, but he was “very
resistive to any engagement.”
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 9
{¶29} Finally, the appellant had not seen the children since March 21, 2022. Thus,
the time period between the appellant’s last visit with the children and the filing of the July
6, 2022 Motion for Permanent Custody was in excess of ninety days.
{¶30} Although the appellant failed to appear for the permanent custody hearing,
his counsel argued that his housing was appropriate because it was structurally sound.
His counsel argued further that appellant had completed the substance abuse evaluation,
which was progress, and that he attended two of the three or four parenting evaluation
assessments. Finally, appellant’s counsel argued that appellant had visited the children
prior to March of 2022. 3
{¶31} The trial court then proceeded with the best interest portion of the
proceedings. The appellee provided the following testimony. The children had been with
an agency foster home since they came into the appellee’s custody on October 20, 2021,
and were happy and healthy. The appellee engaged in efforts to find a kinship placement,
including assessing the grandparents, sending out letters to other relatives, and going
through obituaries online, but was unable to find a suitable family member with whom the
children could be placed. The appellee provided evidence that the appellant’s last visit
with the children was on March 21, 2021, and that it did not appear that the children were
bonded with appellant. The appellee submitted that the children, who are adoptable,
3 The appellee contended that when the appellant did show up for visitation, the
visits were chaotic. He and K.W. would bicker and snap at one another, and appellant
would scratch at the sores on his face. The visits required a lot of redirection by the
case worker or visitation aide.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 10
deserve to have permanency, safety, and stability in their lives, and that permanent
custody was in their best interests.
{¶32} The appellant’s counsel cross-examined the appellee’s case worker,
arguing that when the appellant visited with the children they recognized him, he
interacted with them, and they did not cry when he held them. Appellant’s counsel called
no witnesses.
{¶33} The GAL made a statement at the conclusion of the proceedings, submitting
that it is hard to re-unify with parents who do not show up to visits and do not present with
clean urines, and that do not do much of anything on their case plan but continue to use
drugs. The GAL stated further that the children were happy, healthy, and well cared for
by the foster family, and agreed with the appellee that permanent custody was in the best
interests of the children.
{¶34} The trial court issued separate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
each child on September 13, 2022 in which it found, inter alia, that the appellant had
abandoned the children due to his lack of contact with them for more than ninety days,
and that notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency the
appellant had failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed with
the agency. The court therefore found by clear and convincing evidence that the children
could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time nor should they be placed
with him.
{¶35} The trial court next considered the best interests of the children, and after
considering all relevant factors found that the harm caused by severing any bond with the
parents was outweighed by the benefits of permanence in the children’s lives, found the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 11
children to be adoptable, and found that it was in the children’s best interests to grant
permanent custody to appellee for purposes of adoption, terminating the appellant’s
parental rights.
{¶36} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶37} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) AND A.C.
(DOB 9-11-21) COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE FATHER WITHIN A
REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶38} The appellant contends that because he completed his CommQuest
assessment and two of his parenting evaluation appointments, had a “structurally sound”
place to live, and did not appear for visits with the children while intoxicated, that the
decision to terminate his parental rights and grant permanent custody to the appellee was
against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
BURDEN OF PROOF
{¶39} “[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), citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). A parent's interest in the care, custody
and management of his or her child is “fundamental.” Id., citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455
U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). The permanent termination of a
parent's rights has been described as, “* * * the family law equivalent to the death penalty
in a criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist. 1991).
Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 12
allows.” Id. An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and convincing
evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶40} The Ohio Supreme Court has defined “clear and convincing evidence” as
“[t]hat measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being
more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as required
beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.”
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E. 2d 118 (1954); In the Matter of: J.P.,
5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00119, 2019-Ohio-4972, ¶19.
{¶41} A court of appeals will affirm the trial court's findings “if the record contains
competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or
conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have
been established.” In re Adkins, 5th Dist. Nos. 2005AP06–0044 and 2005AP07–0049,
2006-Ohio-431, ¶ 17, citing Cross, supra. 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.
ANALYSIS
{¶42} 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 that 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 placing agency
that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 13
{¶43} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) 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, that 1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent
custody to the agency; and, 2) 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; or
(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
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 14
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.
{¶44} Thus, 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.
{¶45} R.C. 2151.011(C) provides:
For the purposes of this chapter, a child shall be presumed
abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain
contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the
parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.
{¶46} In the case sub judice, the trial court found, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the appellant had no contact with the children for more than ninety days
and had therefore abandoned them pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b). Competent,
credible evidence supports the trial court's findings. In this case, the appellee provided
uncontroverted testimony that the appellant had no contact with the children from March
21, 2022 to September 12, 2022, the day of the permanent custody proceedings, a time
period in excess of ninety days. Accordingly, we find no reversible error with regard to the
trial court's finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b), and the trial court's
decision that abandonment established the grounds necessary for an award permanent
custody to appellee SCDJFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 15
{¶47} A trial court's finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b)
satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody test, independent of a finding under
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) [Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time], allowing the
court to move on to the second prong of considering whether the grant of permanent
custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child. In re A.M., 5th Dist. Stark No.
2013 CA 00113, 2013-Ohio-4152. Despite the fact that the appellant’s abandonment of
the children satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody analysis rendering a
reasonable efforts determination unnecessary, we will nonetheless address the
appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in finding that the children could not be
placed with him within a reasonable period of time, as this argument must also fail.
{¶48} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining that a
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with the parents. R.C. 2151.414(E). The statute also provides that if the court makes a
finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(15), the court shall determine the child cannot or
should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot
be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent
upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one
factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a
reasonable time. In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 1996-Ohio-182, 661 N.E.2d 738.
{¶49} R.C. 2151.414(E) states in pertinent part:
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
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 16
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:
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.
Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual
disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is
so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate
permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 17
one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this
section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the
Revised Code;
* * *
(10) The parent has abandoned the child.
* * *
(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶50} As set forth above, the trial court's findings are based upon competent
credible evidence. The record includes the recommendation of the guardian ad litem for
the children, and the testimony of the case worker at trial. The trial judge was in the best
position to determine the credibility of the witness. The trial court found that the appellee
had made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal, to eliminate the continued removal,
or to make it possible for the children to return home safely to appellant's home.
{¶51} The record supports the trial court's finding that the appellant had not shown
consistent sustained progress necessary to have the children returned to his custody. In
fact, he had shown very little progress, and very little interest in working the care plan. He
continued to engage in drug abuse. It did not appear that he had been able to apply any
behavioral changes, and despite being offered numerous services, he was unable or
unwilling to mitigate the concerns that led to the children's removal. We find that there
was sufficient and substantial competent evidence that the appellant failed continuously
and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be
placed outside the home. This, combined with the appellant’s chronic drug use and his
abandonment of the children, satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(E). We
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 18
therefore find that there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's
determination that the children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable
time nor should they be placed with appellant.
{¶52} The second phase of the permanent custody proceedings involves a
determination regarding the best interests of the children. R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates
that the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the
following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents,
siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who
may significantly affect the child; (2) 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;
(3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) 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.
{¶53} The focus of the “best interest” determination is upon the children, not the
parent, as R.C. 2151.414(C) specifically prohibits the court from considering the effect a
grant of permanent custody would have upon the parents. In re: Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d
309, 315, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).
{¶54} This Court has held that a trial court is not required to specifically enumerate
each factor under R.C. 2151.414(D) in its decision. In re: Turner, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas
No. 2006-CA045, 2006-Ohio-6793, ¶ 34. Nevertheless, there must be some indication on
the record that all of the necessary factors were considered. Id.{¶55} In this case, the trial court made findings of fact regarding the children's best
interest. It is well-established that “[t]he discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 19
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 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In
re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).
{¶56} A review of the trial court's decision illustrates that it considered the best
interest factors. The court found that when the appellant did visit with the children the
visits were not successful, and found that the children had not bonded with appellant. The
trial court further found that the children, who reside together in the same foster home,
are healthy and happy, and have excellent bonded relationships with their foster parents
and all persons in their foster homes. In addition to the testimony, the trial court
considered the reports of the GAL. The trial court concluded the children's need for legally
secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to the
appellee. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court's
finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in the children's best interest.
{¶57} As already noted, in addition to abandoning the children, the appellant failed
to remedy the problems that initially caused the removal of the children from the home.
Very little has changed with respect to appellant's life choices since this case began. He
failed to acknowledge his drug use issues, failed to demonstrate any meaningful change
in his lifestyle during the pendency of the case, and failed to attend the April 19, 2022
dispositional hearing as well as the September 12, 2022 permanent custody hearing.
{¶58} Upon review of the record on appeal and the findings and conclusions of
the trial court, we conclude the grant of permanent custody of A.C. (DOB 8-09-20) and
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00129, 2022CA00130 20
A.C. (DOB 9-11-21) to appellee SCJFS was in the children's best interest and did not
constitute an error or an abuse of discretion under the circumstances presented.
CONCLUSION
{¶59} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court's decision awarding
permanent custody of the children to appellee SCJFS was in the children's best interest,
was based upon competent, credible evidence, and is not against the manifest weight or
sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶60} The evidence contained in the record supports the trial court's judgment.
We therefore overrule the appellant's sole assignment of error, and affirm the decision of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division.
{¶61} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
By: Baldwn, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.