In re M.G.

[Cite as In re M.G., 2023-Ohio-696.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
M.G. (D.O.B. 12/20/07) : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
J.G. (D.O.B. 09/21/11) :
M.G. (D.O.B. 06/27/13) :
: Case No. 2022CA00131
: 2022CA00132
: 2022CA00133
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Family Court Division,
Case Nos. 2020JCV00724, 2020JCV00725
& 2020JCV00726
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 7, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For-Appellant-Mother For-Appellee
BERNARD HUNT JAMES B. PHILLIPS
2395 McGinty Road N.W. 402 2nd Street S.E.
North Canton, OH 44720 Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant-Mother appeals the September 9, 2022 judgment entry of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, terminating her parental
rights and granting permanent custody of M.G.(1), J.G., and M.G.(2) to the Stark County
Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”).
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} B.G. is the mother (“Mother”) of M.G.(1), who was born on December 20,
2007, J.G., who was born on September 21, 2011, and M.G.(2), who was born on June
27, 2013. J.G. is the father (“Father”) of the children.
{¶3} On July 20, 2020, SCDJFS filed a complaint for dependency and/or neglect
with regards to M.G.(1), J.G., and M.G.(2). The complaint alleged in part: the agency
had previous non-court involvement with the family; in February of 2019, there were
concerns that Mother and her friends were using drugs with the children around while
Father was at work; Mother admitted using drugs while the children were home and was
arrested; the parents agreed to a home safety plan with a grandparent supervising
Mother’s contact with the children; Mother continued to abuse drugs and tested positive
for methamphetamines five times while the safety plan was in place; when Mother refused
to follow the safety plan, Father told the agency he would make sure Mother had no
unsupervised contact with the children; after the case was closed in 2019, new concerns
arose in 2020 that Mother was again using drugs when the children were home and had
been left unsupervised with the children; Father agreed to a safety plan with a
grandparent supervising Mother’s contact with the children, however, Mother would not
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 3
let the grandparent into the home; and Mother is not compliant with her criminal case
probation and has active warrants for her arrest.
{¶4} The trial court held a shelter care hearing on July 21, 2020. Father
appeared, and stipulated to probable cause. Mother did not appear. The court granted
protective supervision of the children to SCDJFS, but placement remained with Father.
A No Contact Order was put in place between Mother and the children.
{¶5} A pretrial was held on August 19, 2020, at which the guardian ad litem had
concerns about the children’s placement and living situation. At a pre-trial held on
September 9, 2020, Father was ordered to obtain a quote for a roll-off dumpster because
of the condition of the home.
{¶6} The trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on October 13, 2020. The
agency deleted the allegations of neglect. Mother did not appear for the hearing. Father
stipulated to a finding of dependency. In an October 14, 2020 judgment entry, the trial
court found M.G.(1), J.G., and M.G.(2) were dependent children. Further, the trial court
found SCDJFS made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement and/or make
it possible for the children to return home. The court continued the placement of the
children with Father, under the protective supervision of SCDJFS.
{¶7} On October 22, 2020, SCDJFS filed an ex parte motion for temporary
custody due to unsafe conditions in the home and the continued violation of the No
Contact Order between Mother and the children. The trial court granted the motion, and
placed the children into the temporary custody of SCDJFS.
{¶8} The trial court held a hearing on October 23, 2020. In an October 26, 2020
judgment entry, the trial court found it was in the best interest of the children for temporary
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 4
custody to be granted to SCDJFS. Further, the trial court found SCDJFS made
reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement and/or make it possible for the
children to return home. Specifically, the trial court noted the agency attempted services
with the children in the home, but the risk was not reduced.
{¶9} The trial court held a pre-trial on June 18, 2021. In a judgment entry issued
the same day, the trial court found the agency made reasonable efforts. Also, on June
18, 2021, the agency filed a motion to extend temporary custody. The trial court granted
the motion after a hearing. The agency filed a second motion to extend temporary
custody on November 30, 2021. The trial court granted the motion, and temporary
custody to the agency was extended to July 20, 2022.
{¶10} The trial court held dispositional review hearings on December 14, 2021
and June 14, 2022. In judgment entries issued after each of these hearings, the trial court
found SCDJFS made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan in effect.
{¶11} SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of M.G.(1), J.G., and M.G.(2)
on June 14, 2022. The motion outlined the issues remaining with Mother and Father,
including: Father is unwilling or unable to keep the children safe from Mother; Father
failed to have an appropriate plan for supervision of the children while he is at work; and
Mother continues to test positive for methamphetamines.
{¶12} On July 21, 2022, Mother and Father filed a joint motion to remove and
replace guardian ad litem Christine DiPietro for bias, as she purchased Christmas gifts
for the children. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing on August 9, 2022, and
found the gifts were de minimis.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 5
{¶13} The trial court conducted a trial on SCDJFS’ motion for permanent custody
on August 23, 2022.
{¶14} Zina Biehl (“Biehl”) is the caseworker assigned to the children. Biehl
confirmed the children have been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS since October 23,
2020, which is more than twelve out of the past twenty-two months. She also detailed
the non-court involvement the agency had with the family since 2019 to address Mother’s
drug use and the home conditions of Mother and Father’s home.
{¶15} Mother’s case plan required her to submit to drug screens, and to complete
an assessment at CommQuest and follow through with all recommendations. Mother
initially had a no-contact order with the children because she had two warrants out for her
arrest. Biehl met with Mother several times at the beginning of the case and encouraged
Mother to turn herself in. Biehl informed Mother that, in order to start to engage in case
plan services, Mother needed to take care of the warrants. However, Mother told Biehl
she was not going to turn herself in.
{¶16} Mother was arrested on a charge of aggravated possession of drugs in April
of 2021, and was sent to prison until October 21, 2021. Mother was judicially released in
October of 2021, and completed sixty days at Deliverance House. Mother struggled to
comply with services and had a conflict with her counselor while she was there. Mother
then went to Sober Living on December 23, 2021. From January of 2022 through mid-
February of 2022, Mother went to Betty’s House, a sober living home, but was released
due to non-compliance with house rules. From there, Mother went to the Country Inn
hotel until she was able to secure sober living at Coleman House.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 6
{¶17} Biehl reports Mother has not consistently kept appointments with her
outpatient mental health treatment providers, but has recently been attending
appointments.
{¶18} Prior to April of 2021, Mother was not completing any drug screens. Upon
her judicial release from prison, Mother has been on color code to complete random drug
screens. In May of 2022, Mother did not show for two screens. At the end of May of 2022
and on June 1, 2022, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines. Mother has
consistently tested positive for marijuana, and Mother lasted tested positive for marijuana
on August 10, 2022. Biehl testified that after two years, Mother is unable to demonstrate
sobriety.
{¶19} Biehl stated that Mother has gone for a period of time in excess of ninety
days without seeing the children, from October of 2020 through April of 2022.
{¶20} Biehl does not believe Mother can safely care for the children due to her
drug use and mental health. Two years into the case plan, Mother has not maintained
sobriety and is only semi-compliant with mental health treatment. Further, Biehl testified
Mother’s mental health professionals have concerns for Mother’s stability and her ability
to care for the children.
{¶21} Father’s case plan required him to engage in counseling services and
address the conditions of the home. Father has maintained stable employment
throughout the case. Biehl testified the home still has issues.
{¶22} Father did not start counseling until April of 2021. However, prior to that
time, Biehl found Father providers one street away from him that were willing to meet with
him on the week-end or in the evening. Since then, Father has consistently attended
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 7
appointments. Despite the counseling, Father has not been able to demonstrate he can
provide a safe and stable home. Father is not applying the information from counseling
to his daily life. Biehl has repeatedly told Father that, due to her drug use, Mother is not
in a position to take care of the children, so he has to be able to do it on his own. However,
after Father was told he could not leave the children with Mother, he left them with Mother.
Biehl testified that Father is still involved with Mother and, at this point, Father cannot
protect the children from Mother, or provide a safe and stable home for the children.
{¶23} Father works long hours and leaves early in the morning. Father was not
able to provide Biehl with a plan as to who would be taking care of the children while he
is at work. Father’s mother is involved, but is unable to watch them full-time due to her
own medical issues and needs. Father has supervised visits with the children every other
week for two hours.
{¶24} Biehl also testified in the best interest portion of the trial. Biehl does not
believe Mother has a bond with M.G.(1), and if there is any bond, the benefit of
permanency outweighs any harm of breaking the bond. As to M.G.(2) and J.G., Biehl
testified there was a bond with Mother at the beginning of the case; however, that
changed due to Mother’s continued drug use and inability to recognize what she has
done. The benefit of permanency outweighs any breaking of a bond Mother had with
M.G.(2) and J.G.
{¶25} Biehl testified Father’s visits have gone fairly well, and there is a bond
between him and the children. However, after two years, the goal of permanency
outweighs any harm that would come from breaking those bonds. The children have
been in the same foster placement since October of 2020. The foster parent is bonded
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 8
to each child. Each child has told Biehl they want permanency and that Mother and Father
are unable to take care of them.
{¶26} Biehl testified she believes is in the children’s best interest for permanent
custody to be granted to SCDJFS. Mother poses a risk to the children, has not completed
her case plan, and is unable to maintain her sobriety. Mother has not reduced the risk
she posed at the beginning of the case in any significant way. As to Father, Biehl stated
his risk to the children remains the same as it did at the beginning of the case, as he is
not able to demonstrate his ability to protect and care for his children independently.
{¶27} Gail Mager (“Mager”) is a licensed professional clinical counselor at
Lighthouse Family Center. She has been Father’s counselor since April of 2021. Father
has attended his counseling sessions consistently. Mager has been working with Father
to set up boundaries and space between himself and Mother, and separating himself from
Mother for the good of the children. Mager would be concerned if Father was seeing
Mother weekly, because Mager does not believe it is good for Father to remain engaged
to a level where he feels like he is helping her. When asked about Father’s progress in
counseling, Mager described it as “flat,” with very little progress because things were not
changing, and they were discussing the same issues over and over again. They would
discuss options, and Father would never tell her anything specific about how he will care
for the children full-time.
{¶28} Joseph Fisher (“Fisher”) is a licensed professional counselor at Child and
Adolescent Behavioral Health. Fisher is M.G.(1) and J.G.’s counselor. M.G.(1) is worried
about the possibility of returning to his parents’ home because, prior to their removal from
the home, M.G.(1) was taking care of his younger siblings. J.G. also expresses anxiety
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 9
about returning to the parents’ home. The children are both comfortable and well-
adjusted in their foster home, and they both feel safe in their current placement.
{¶29} Father works full-time, approximately 40-70 hours per week. Father feels
like counseling has been beneficial for him. Father is aware there is a No-Contact Order
between Mother and the children due to her substance abuse. Father admits he withdrew
his divorce complaint from Mother, but believes he still can enforce the No-Contact Order
between Mother and the children. Father believes he has established appropriate
boundaries with Mother because they are living separately. Father admitted to having
dinner with Mother within the last week prior to the trial.
{¶30} Mother admitted she did not get a good start on her case plan because of
the warrants for her arrest. Mother was arrested on April 10, 2021. She completed
counseling at Deliverance House when she was judicially released from prison. She is
currently seeing a counselor at CommQuest.
{¶31} Christine DiPietro is the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for the children. The GAL
admitted she did not review all of the children’s counseling records, but stated she based
her opinion on talking to the children directly and by talking with Biehl. The GAL spoke
to each child individually, and did not feel the oldest child was influencing the younger
ones such that they could not express their own opinions and make their own decisions.
The GAL believes it is in the best interest of the children for permanent custody to be
granted to SCDJFS.
{¶32} On September 1, 2022, the trial court held an in-camera interview with
M.G.(1) and J.G. J.G. reported that, when the children were under the protective
supervision of SCDJFS, Father said not to tell anyone that Mother was coming to the
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 10
marital residence. J.G. does not trust his parents to do what needs to be done. When
living with his parents, J.G. and his siblings had to fix their own meals and get themselves
to school. Though Father said he was cleaning up the house, J.G. stated the home
conditions kept getting worse and worse. J.G. loves Mother and Father, but does not
want to go home with them because “bad things would happen.” J.G. got mad when he
saw Father and Mother sitting together at M.G.(1)’s graduation. M.G.(1) stated that, when
he lived with Mother and Father, he was the parent, as he would cook, clean, and do
laundry.
{¶33} The trial court issued a detailed judgment entry containing findings of fact
and conclusions of law for each child on September 9, 2022, granting permanent custody
of the children to SCDJFS, and terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights. The trial
court went through the testimony in the case in detail. The trial court found as follows
with regard to each child: notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts
by the agency, Mother and Father have failed to remedy the conditions that caused the
children to be placed; the children have been abandoned by Mother due to her lack of
contact with them for a period greater than ninety (90) days; each of the children has been
in the temporary custody of the agency for more than twelve months of a consecutive
twenty-two month period; the children cannot be placed with either parent at this time or
within a reasonable period of time; and it is in the best interest of the children that
permanent custody be granted to SCDJFS.
{¶34} In the permanency portion of the judgment entry, the trial court found:
Mother has not demonstrated an ability to maintain sobriety; from October 2020 to April
2022, Mother had no contact with the children; even after two years, the home’s
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 11
conditions have not improved to a point where it is suitable for the children to return;
Father and Mother have resumed their relationship; Father’s inaction causes the children
to remain at risk; Father has not been able to come up with a plan for the children to be
cared for while he is at work; and Father’s progress in counseling is “flat.”
{¶35} The trial court stated it considered the best interest factors, and found it is
in the children’s best interest to grant permanent custody to SCDJFS. Specifically, the
trial court found: there is no bond between Mother and the children; there is a bond
between Father and the children, but the benefit of permanency outweighs the harm in
severing the bond; the children are happy in their foster home; and both older children
expressed a desire to stay at their foster home and not return to either Mother or Father.
{¶36} Mother appeals the September 9, 2022 judgment entry of the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, and assigns the following as error:
{¶37} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT THAT [THE CHILDREN] CANNOT
BE PLACED WITH MOTHER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”
Permanent Custody
{¶38} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re
Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 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).
{¶39} 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
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 12
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. If some competent and 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).
{¶40} 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, 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,
674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).
{¶41} 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 filing of a motion for permanent custody of a
child by a public children services agency.
{¶42} 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
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 13
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.
{¶43} 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, a 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.
I.
{¶44} In her assignment of error, Mother makes two separate arguments. First,
she contends the elements of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E) were not met because the
finding that the children could not or should not be placed with her within a reasonable
time was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
{¶45} We first note that the trial court determined, pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d), the children have been in the temporary custody of the agency for a
period of time in excess of twelve of the prior twenty-two consecutive months. Biehl
testified the children were placed into the temporary custody of SCDJFS on October 23,
2020, and were continuously in the temporary custody of SCDJFS until August 23, 2022,
the date of the trial. Thus, M.G.(1), J.G., and M.G.(2) have been in the custody of the
agency for more than twelve months out of the last twenty-two months.
{¶46} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are
alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the motion
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 14
for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2007 AP 0041, 2007-
Ohio-5805. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to
support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118,
2008-Ohio-5458.
{¶47} Further, the trial court found Mother abandoned the children pursuant to
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b). Specifically, the trial court found Mother had no contact with the
children from October 2020 to April 2022. Therefore, the trial court concluded Mother has
abandoned the children by failing to visit or maintain contact with the children for more
than ninety days. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.011(C), a child is “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.”
{¶48} We find competent and credible evidence supports the trial court’s findings.
Biehl testified Mother had gone for a period of time in excess of ninety days without seeing
the children, from October of 2020 through April of 2022. Incarceration does not rebut
the presumption of abandonment. In re Wright, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2003 CA 00347, 2004-
Ohio-1094. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the court’s finding of abandonment
under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b).
{¶49} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) are
alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the motion
for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2007 AP 0041, 2007-
Ohio-5805. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 15
support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118,
2008-Ohio-5458.
{¶50} Because Mother has not challenged the twelve of twenty-two-month finding
or abandonment finding, we would not need to address the merits of Mother’s claim with
regards to the trial court’s determination that the children could not or should not be placed
with her within a reasonable time. However, even if we consider Mother’s argument, we
find the trial court did not commit error in determining the children cannot be placed with
Mother at this time or within a reasonable period of time. 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.
{¶51} A review of the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the children
cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. Mother failed to start her case
plan services until she was judicially released from prison in October of 2021. Mother
has not consistently attended her outpatient mental health counseling. In May of 2022,
Mother failed to show up for two drugs screens. In late May of 2022 and early June of
2022, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines. Mother has consistently tested
positive for marijuana, with her last positive test for marijuana on August 10, 2022. After
two years, Mother is unable to demonstrate sobriety. Biehl testified Mother has not
reduced the risk she posed at the beginning of the case in any significant way.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 16
{¶52} In the second portion of her assignment of error, Mother argues SCDJFS
did not make reasonable efforts to assist Mother in remedying the problems leading to
the removal of the children; thus, the motion for permanent custody should be denied.
{¶53} First, the Ohio Supreme Court has held the trial court is not obligated by
R.C. 2151.419 to make a determination that the agency used reasonable efforts to reunify
the family at the time of the permanent custody hearing unless the agency has not
established that reasonable efforts have been made prior to that hearing. In re C.F., 113
Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816; see also R.C. 2151.419. The trial court
is only obligated to make a determination that the agency has made reasonable efforts to
reunify the family at “adjudicatory, emergency, detention, and temporary-disposition
hearings, and dispositional hearings for abused, neglected, or dependent children, all of
which occur prior to a decision transferring permanent custody to the state.” In re C.F.,
113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816; In the Matter of L.J., 5th Dist.
Licking No. 2019 CA 0079, 2019-Ohio-5231.
{¶54} In this case, the record reflects the trial court made reasonable-efforts
findings at various points throughout the case, as demonstrated in judgment entries after
the hearings held on October 23, 2020, June 18, 2021, December 14, 2021, and June
14, 2022. Consequently, the agency did not need to prove at the permanent custody
hearing that it made reasonable reunification efforts. Id.{¶55} In its September 9, 2022 judgment entry, the trial court found SCDJFS
made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Mother contends the efforts of SCDJFS
were not reasonable because they did not schedule follow-up counseling sessions
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 17
between Mother and the children, and the children should have had more contact with
Mother.
{¶56} We find there is competent and credible evidence to confirm that SCDJFS
made reasonable efforts to assist Mother in eliminating the need for the continued
removal of the children. Mother was provided with a case plan with services to reduce
the risk she posed to the children. However, despite Biehl urging Mother to turn herself
in so that she could begin her case plan, Mother did not do so. Thus, she could not begin
her case plan until after she was released from prison. The agency provided Mother with
case management services, and counseling for Mother and the children. However,
Mother did not attend the outpatient counseling consistently, and Mother continued to test
positive for methamphetamines and marijuana, thus preventing her from visiting the
children.
{¶57} The issue is not whether there was anything more the agency could have
done, but whether the agency’s case planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent
under the circumstances of the case. In the Matter of J.H., 5th Dist. Guernsey No.
19CA000025, 2019-Ohio-5184. We find there is competent and credible evidence to
support the trial court’s determination that SCDJFS’ efforts were reasonable and diligent
under the circumstances of the case.
{¶58} Based on the foregoing, Mother’s assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case Nos. 2022CA00131, 2022CA00132 & 2022CA00133 18
{¶59} The September 9, 2022 judgment entry of the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Delaney, J., concur
WSG:clw 0303