[Cite as In re A.S., 2021-Ohio-3013.]
COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: A.S. JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, Case No. 20 JC 00156
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 31, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee – Tuscarawas County Job For Appellants & Family Services NICHOLAS A. DOUGHTY JEFF M. KIGGANS 401 Tuscarawas Street, W. – Suite #201 Tuscarawas County Job & Family Canton, Ohio 44702 Services 389 – 16th Street, S.W. For Mother New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 JOHN GARTRELL Guardian Ad Litem Assistant Public Defender P.O. Box 1026 GERRI DENHEIJER New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 222 W. Main Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Appellant Randy Shaffer, II (“Father”) appeals the March 26, 2021
Judgment Entry entered by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, which terminated his parental rights with respect to his minor child (“the Child”)
and granted permanent custody of the Child to appellee Tuscarawas County Job and
Family Services (“TCJFS”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Father and Bryce Minor (“Mother”)1 are the biological parents of the Child.
TCJFS became involved with Mother and her two older children in February, 2020
(Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2020JN00055) due to concerns
about Mother’s methamphetamine use and unstable housing, as well as her lack of
cooperation with TCJFS on a non-court basis. On June 23, 2020, Mother gave birth to
the Child.
{¶3} TCJFS filed a request for an emergency ex-parte order of removal of the
Child June 24, 2020. On the same day, the magistrate issued an ex-parte order placing
the Child in the emergency temporary custody of TCJFS. The trial court conducted a
shelter care hearing on June 25, 2020. Via Judgment Entry filed on June 29, 2020, the
trial court granted temporary custody of the Child to TCJFS, appointed Attorney Gerrit
Denheijer as Guardian ad Litem for the Child, and ordered Father have no visitation with
the Child as Father tested positive for THC and amphetamines on the day of the hearing.
{¶4} On June 26, 2020, TCJFS filed a complaint, alleging the Child was
dependent and seeking temporary custody of the Child. Father did not appear at the
1 Mother is not a party to this Appeal. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 3
adjudicatory hearing on August 20, 2020. Mother appeared and stipulated to the
complaint. The trial court adjudicated the Child dependent, continued temporary custody
with TCJFS, and adopted the case plan. The trial court continued its order of no visitation
between Father and the Child.
{¶5} On November 30, 2020, TCJFS filed a Motion to Modify Prior Disposition,
seeking permanent custody of the Child. Therein, TCJFS asserted Father was not
appropriate for custody as he had a serious drug problem and a significant criminal
history. TCJFS noted Father appeared at hearings early in the case, but had not had
contact with TCJFS for several months. On December 18, 2020, the trial court approved
TCJFS’s amendments to the case plan, which included the removal of Father from the
case plan for failing to meet with the case worker and appear for appointments.
{¶6} The trial court conducted a hearing on the TCJFS’s motion to modify on
March 23, 2021. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing.
{¶7} Jaime Grunder, the on-going case manager assigned to the family, testified
she met with Father following the shelter care hearing on June 25, 2020. Father indicated
he wanted to be on the case plan. Grunder contacted Father in July, to discuss the case
plan services. At the time, Father was staying with a friend in New Rumley, Ohio, but did
not have the address. Father informed Grunder his mail could no longer be sent to his
mother’s address, but would “get back with her” with an address once he moved to New
Philadelphia. Father never provided Grunder with an address; therefore, she was unable
to send him a copy of his case plan.
{¶8} Father’s case plan required him to submit to drug screens as requested,
obtain and maintain stable housing and employment, complete a psychological Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 4
evaluation, undergo a drug and alcohol assessment, attend parenting classes, and not
engage in any future criminal activity. Grunder indicated Father failed to comply with any
of his case plan. Father failed to meet with Grunder on a regular basis. Father was never
granted visitation because of his drug use.
{¶9} Father provided only one drug screen during the pendency of the case,
which was at the semi-annual review hearing on January 26, 2021. The test was positive
for methamphetamine. Father admitted the test would be positive. Father had also tested
positive for methamphetamine at the shelter care hearing and admitted he was using.
Grunder was never able to verify housing or employment for Father. Father did not
complete his psychological evaluation or undergo a drug and alcohol assessment. Father
attended only one parenting class and never completed the program.
{¶10} When Case No. 2020JN00055 commenced, Father was on parole.
Between August and September, 2020, Father served a one-month jail sentence in Huron
County. Father was arrested on a warrant on January 26, 2021, and served time in
Tuscarawas County Jail. At the time of the final hearing, Father was completing a
treatment program at the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center (“SRCCC”) and
was scheduled to be released at the end of June, 2021. Father also had pending felony
charges.
{¶11} The Child is placed with her siblings and is bonded with the foster family.
The Child is developmentally on target, is healthy, and appears happy. The GAL
recommended TCJFS be granted permanent custody of the Child.
{¶12} Via Judgment Entry filed March 26, 2021, the trial court terminated all of
Father’s parental rights and granted permanent custody of the Child to TCJFS. The trial Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 5
court found the Child could not and should not be placed with Father within a reasonable
time and it was in the Child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to TCJFS.
{¶13} It is from this judgment entry Father appeals, raising the following
assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY TO THE TUSCARWAS [SIC] COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD CANNOT AND
SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH FATHER WITHIN A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF TIME.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT IT WAS THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY FATHER’S MOTION TO
EXTEND TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND TO TERMINATE PARENTAL
RIGHTS AND PLACE THE CHILD IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
TUSCARWAS [SIC] COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
{¶14} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
I, II
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re A.S., 2021-Ohio-3013.]
COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: A.S. JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, Case No. 20 JC 00156
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 31, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee – Tuscarawas County Job For Appellants & Family Services NICHOLAS A. DOUGHTY JEFF M. KIGGANS 401 Tuscarawas Street, W. – Suite #201 Tuscarawas County Job & Family Canton, Ohio 44702 Services 389 – 16th Street, S.W. For Mother New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 JOHN GARTRELL Guardian Ad Litem Assistant Public Defender P.O. Box 1026 GERRI DENHEIJER New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 222 W. Main Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Appellant Randy Shaffer, II (“Father”) appeals the March 26, 2021
Judgment Entry entered by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, which terminated his parental rights with respect to his minor child (“the Child”)
and granted permanent custody of the Child to appellee Tuscarawas County Job and
Family Services (“TCJFS”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Father and Bryce Minor (“Mother”)1 are the biological parents of the Child.
TCJFS became involved with Mother and her two older children in February, 2020
(Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2020JN00055) due to concerns
about Mother’s methamphetamine use and unstable housing, as well as her lack of
cooperation with TCJFS on a non-court basis. On June 23, 2020, Mother gave birth to
the Child.
{¶3} TCJFS filed a request for an emergency ex-parte order of removal of the
Child June 24, 2020. On the same day, the magistrate issued an ex-parte order placing
the Child in the emergency temporary custody of TCJFS. The trial court conducted a
shelter care hearing on June 25, 2020. Via Judgment Entry filed on June 29, 2020, the
trial court granted temporary custody of the Child to TCJFS, appointed Attorney Gerrit
Denheijer as Guardian ad Litem for the Child, and ordered Father have no visitation with
the Child as Father tested positive for THC and amphetamines on the day of the hearing.
{¶4} On June 26, 2020, TCJFS filed a complaint, alleging the Child was
dependent and seeking temporary custody of the Child. Father did not appear at the
1 Mother is not a party to this Appeal. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 3
adjudicatory hearing on August 20, 2020. Mother appeared and stipulated to the
complaint. The trial court adjudicated the Child dependent, continued temporary custody
with TCJFS, and adopted the case plan. The trial court continued its order of no visitation
between Father and the Child.
{¶5} On November 30, 2020, TCJFS filed a Motion to Modify Prior Disposition,
seeking permanent custody of the Child. Therein, TCJFS asserted Father was not
appropriate for custody as he had a serious drug problem and a significant criminal
history. TCJFS noted Father appeared at hearings early in the case, but had not had
contact with TCJFS for several months. On December 18, 2020, the trial court approved
TCJFS’s amendments to the case plan, which included the removal of Father from the
case plan for failing to meet with the case worker and appear for appointments.
{¶6} The trial court conducted a hearing on the TCJFS’s motion to modify on
March 23, 2021. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing.
{¶7} Jaime Grunder, the on-going case manager assigned to the family, testified
she met with Father following the shelter care hearing on June 25, 2020. Father indicated
he wanted to be on the case plan. Grunder contacted Father in July, to discuss the case
plan services. At the time, Father was staying with a friend in New Rumley, Ohio, but did
not have the address. Father informed Grunder his mail could no longer be sent to his
mother’s address, but would “get back with her” with an address once he moved to New
Philadelphia. Father never provided Grunder with an address; therefore, she was unable
to send him a copy of his case plan.
{¶8} Father’s case plan required him to submit to drug screens as requested,
obtain and maintain stable housing and employment, complete a psychological Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 4
evaluation, undergo a drug and alcohol assessment, attend parenting classes, and not
engage in any future criminal activity. Grunder indicated Father failed to comply with any
of his case plan. Father failed to meet with Grunder on a regular basis. Father was never
granted visitation because of his drug use.
{¶9} Father provided only one drug screen during the pendency of the case,
which was at the semi-annual review hearing on January 26, 2021. The test was positive
for methamphetamine. Father admitted the test would be positive. Father had also tested
positive for methamphetamine at the shelter care hearing and admitted he was using.
Grunder was never able to verify housing or employment for Father. Father did not
complete his psychological evaluation or undergo a drug and alcohol assessment. Father
attended only one parenting class and never completed the program.
{¶10} When Case No. 2020JN00055 commenced, Father was on parole.
Between August and September, 2020, Father served a one-month jail sentence in Huron
County. Father was arrested on a warrant on January 26, 2021, and served time in
Tuscarawas County Jail. At the time of the final hearing, Father was completing a
treatment program at the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center (“SRCCC”) and
was scheduled to be released at the end of June, 2021. Father also had pending felony
charges.
{¶11} The Child is placed with her siblings and is bonded with the foster family.
The Child is developmentally on target, is healthy, and appears happy. The GAL
recommended TCJFS be granted permanent custody of the Child.
{¶12} Via Judgment Entry filed March 26, 2021, the trial court terminated all of
Father’s parental rights and granted permanent custody of the Child to TCJFS. The trial Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 5
court found the Child could not and should not be placed with Father within a reasonable
time and it was in the Child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to TCJFS.
{¶13} It is from this judgment entry Father appeals, raising the following
assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY TO THE TUSCARWAS [SIC] COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD CANNOT AND
SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH FATHER WITHIN A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF TIME.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT IT WAS THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY FATHER’S MOTION TO
EXTEND TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND TO TERMINATE PARENTAL
RIGHTS AND PLACE THE CHILD IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
TUSCARWAS [SIC] COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
{¶14} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
I, II
{¶15} 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 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 6
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.
{¶16} 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.
{¶17} 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. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 7
{¶18} 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.
{¶19} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not
be placed with the parents. 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.
{¶20} As set forth in our statement of the facts and case, supra, Father failed to
complete any aspect of his case plan. Father’s case plan required him to submit to drug
screens as requested, obtain and maintain stable housing and employment, complete a
psychological evaluation, undergo a drug and alcohol assessment, attend parenting
classes, and not engage in any future criminal activity.
{¶21} Father continued to use methamphetamine throughout the case. Father
tested positive for methamphetamine at the shelter care hearing and at the semi-annual
review hearing. He did not submit to any other drug screen. When Case No.
2020JN00055 commenced, Father was on parole. During the pendency of the instant
matter, Father was in jail on at least two occasions. At the time of the permanent custody Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 8
hearing, Father was completing a drug program at SRCCC, but was not scheduled to be
released until the end of June, 2021. Father also had pending felony charges.
{¶22} Grunder was never able to verify housing or employment for Father. Father
did not complete his psychological evaluation or undergo a drug and alcohol assessment.
Father attended only one parenting class and never completed the program.
{¶23} The Child is placed with her siblings and is bonded with the foster family.
The Child is developmentally on target, is healthy, and appears happy. The GAL
{¶24} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court’s finding the Child could
not be placed with Father within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with
him is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We further find the trial court’s
finding it was in the Child’s best interests to grant permanent custody to TCJFS is not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. We also find no error in the trial court’s
decision to deny Father’s motion for an extension of time. The record is devoid of any
evidence Father would make any efforts to work on his case plan.
{¶25} Father’s first and second assignments of error are overruled. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 04 0011 9
{¶26} The judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Gwin, J. concur