In re A.P.

2025 Ohio 5704

Opinion

[Cite as In re A.P., 2025-Ohio-5704.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: A.P. Case No. 2025 CA 0070

Opinion and Judgment Entry

Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2023 DEP 00045

Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: December 22, 2025

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, William B. Hoffman, Kevin W. Popham, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: Sarah E. Exten, Richland County Children Services, for Appellee; James L. Blunt, II, for Appellant OPINION

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Appellant J.C. (hereinafter “Mother”) appeals the judgment entered by the

Richland County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental rights

and granting permanent custody of her biological child A.P. to Appellee Richland County

Children Services (hereinafter “RCCS”).1

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In March of 2023, RCCS became involved with Mother due to concerns of

substance abuse, economic instability, and insufficient parenting skills. Mother’s case

plan required her to submit to a drug and alcohol assessment with random drug and

alcohol testing, complete a parenting course, and prepare to meet the basic needs of her

children with adequate housing and income through employment, public benefits, or a

combination of both.

{¶3} On November 20, 2024, RCCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights

as to A.P. and her sibling, C.P.2 The case proceeded to trial before a magistrate. The

magistrate found Mother substantially complied with the “basic needs” portion of the case

plan. She obtained and maintained employment and housing and visited the children

regularly. The magistrate found Appellant made progress in substance abuse treatment

in the six months immediately preceding the permanent custody hearing. However,

based on events occurring over the prior two years involving Mother’s use of alcohol and

drugs and questions about Mother’s credibility, the magistrate found substance abuse

1 A.P.’s biological father’s parental rights were also terminated. Father is not a party to this appeal. 2 C.P. is the subject of a separate appeal. treatment had not resolved Mother’s substance abuse problems. Although domestic

violence was not listed as a concern in the case plan, the magistrate noted Father was in

jail for domestic violence against Mother at the time of the hearing, and Mother was

involved in another abusive relationship which resulted in the incarceration of Mother’s

boyfriend for strangulation. The magistrate found Mother completed a parenting and

psychological evaluation as required by the case plan. However, the evaluator found

Mother demonstrated a desire to push through the process without dealing with her

underlying issues. The evaluator found Mother to be untruthful, and recommended

Mother demonstrate nine months of confirmed sobriety before reunification with her

children.

{¶4} The magistrate found pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) the children had

been in the custody of RCCS for thirteen of the prior twenty-two months. In the

alternative, the magistrate found pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) the children could

not be placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time. The magistrate found

permanent custody to be in the best interest of the children and recommended a grant of

permanent custody to RCCS.

{¶5} Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court

overruled Mother’s objections and adopted and approved the magistrate’s decision,

awarding custody of the children to RCCS. It is from the May 9, 2025, judgment of the

trial court Mother prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error: I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING

PERMANENT CUSTODY TO RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN

SERVICES.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT

APPELLANT FAILED TO [MAKE] SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THE

CASE PLAN TO AMELIORATE THE ISSUES WHICH CAUSED THE

CHILDREN TO BE REMOVED.

I., II.

{¶6} We address both assignments of error together, as Mother did in her brief.

Mother argues the trial court erred in awarding permanent custody of the children to

RCCS because she had completed her case plan. We disagree.

{¶7} 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 placing agency that has

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long term foster care.

{¶8} Following the hearing, 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, 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.

{¶9} While Mother argues the trial court's finding pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a) A.P. cannot be placed with her within a reasonable time is not

supported by the evidence, she does not challenge the trial court's finding pursuant to

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) A.P. has been in the temporary custody of RCCS for twelve or

more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. By virtue of the two-issue rule,

a decision which is supported by one or more alternate grounds properly submitted is

invulnerable to attack on one issue only. Freeport Lodge # 415 Free & Accepted Masons

of Ohio v. MC Mineral Company, 2018-Ohio-3783, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.). Because the trial court

need find only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court's finding

A.P. was in the custody of RCCS for thirteen of the prior twenty-months is dispositive

without regard to whether the trial court properly found A.P. could not be placed with

Mother within a reasonable period of time.

{¶10} Nevertheless, we find no error in the trial court’s finding A.P. could not be

placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time. Mother summarily argues she

completed her case plan. However, the trial court questioned Mother’s credibility

concerning her recent sobriety. The trial court did find Mother attended the services

recommended by the case plan, but the services did not solve her substance abuse

problem and relapse remained a significant concern. Magistrate’s Decision, 5/9/25, ¶¶16, 20. Mere completion of the case plan is insufficient to preclude termination of parental

rights. See, e.g., In re B.P., 2021-Ohio-3148, ¶ 57 (4th Dist.).

{¶11} Mother’s first and second assignments of error are overruled. The judgment

of the Richland County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Costs are

assessed to Mother.

By: Hoffman, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Popham, J. concur