[Cite as In re C.P., 2026-Ohio-1477.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: C.P., M.R., C.R. : : C.A. No. 30705 : : Trial Court Case Nos. G-2023-001635- : 0H; G-2023-001636-0I; G-2023- : 001634-0G : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on April 24, 2026, the judgments of the
trial court are affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30705
GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Attorney for Appellant MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, P.J.
{¶ 1} K.H. (“Mother”) appeals from judgments of the Juvenile Division of the
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court that granted permanent custody of three of her
children to the Montgomery County Department of Jobs and Family Services – Children
Services Division (“MCCS”). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On April 3, 2023, MCCS filed a complaint alleging that three of Mother’s
children, C.P., M.R., and C.R., were neglected and dependent. The complaint raised
concerns about the condition of Mother’s home and the fact the children were left
unsupervised. According to the complaint, (1) on April 1, 2023, MCCS received concerns
that Mother’s children were running in a street wearing only diapers; (2) Mother’s paramour
lived in the home and was arrested due to an outstanding felony warrant; (3) MCCS
observed toys, trash, water, and food all over the floor; and (4) the children were extremely
dirty.
{¶ 3} On July 5, 2023, the three children were adjudicated neglected and dependent,
and MCCS was granted temporary custody of the children. On September 17, 2024,
following the grant of a first extension of temporary custody, MCCS filed a motion for
permanent custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. On March 10, 2025, Mother filed a motion for
legal custody.
2 a. March 12, 2025 Hearing
{¶ 4} On March 12, 2025, the magistrate held a permanent custody hearing involving
C.P. and C.R. D.M. testified that she had been the foster mother of C.P. and C.R. since
February 2024. At the time of the hearing, C.P. was seven years old and C.R. was almost
four years old. When D.M. first became their foster mother, both children had behavioral
issues. C.R. was very active and defiant, but his behavioral problems were improving.
D.M. explained that C.R. got “stuck” and was not able to get out of a negative attitude.
When he first began living with D.M., C.R. got bruises from intentionally falling to the floor.
By the time of the hearing, he no longer did that. C.R. received instruction at school about
how to calm his body. D.M. noticed that during visitation with their mother, the children
jumped on furniture and were mean to each other. She noted that the behaviors of C.R.
and C.P. seemed to worsen immediately before and after visitation with Mother.
{¶ 5} Kristin Onkst, who had been the ongoing case manager at MCCS for C.R. and
C.P. since May 2023, testified that MCCS received a referral involving Mother on April 1,
2023, upon a report that two of her children, M.R. and C.R., were running down a street in
their diapers without any adult supervision. When the police investigated, they found
Mother’s residence in poor condition. C.P., M.R., and C.R. had been in foster care since
they were removed from Mother’s care. M.R. was placed with a different foster parent than
his siblings to help address his behaviors, while C.P. and C.R. were allowed to stay together.
{¶ 6} MCCS created a case plan with a goal to reunite C.P. and C.R. with Mother.
The case plan included the following objectives: complete a mental health assessment,
take parenting classes, obtain appropriate housing, achieve a stable income, and sign
necessary releases. Visitation was also encouraged. Mother completed a dual mental
health assessment in April 2024. Onkst had concerns that Mother had not attended
3 counseling regularly since January 2025 and that Mother continued to use marijuana.
Mother had a positive test for marijuana in December 2024.
{¶ 7} Mother had independent housing, but Onkst opined that it likely was not big
enough to reunify her with C.P., M.R., and C.R. Onkst also did not believe the bunk beds
in the house were appropriate for the children. Onkst had concerns that Mother did not
have the financial ability to maintain her housing. Mother previously lived in a homeless
shelter from April 2024 to July 2024. After she left the homeless shelter, Mother received
assistance in paying for her housing, but she became solely responsible for her housing
payments in January 2025. Mother was employed at Rally’s and earned about $1,200 per
month after taxes. At the time of the March 12, 2025 hearing, Mother’s rent was $894 per
month. Onkst noted that Mother’s phone number often changed and that her phone had
been shut off sometimes for nonpayment.
{¶ 8} Mother completed a parenting class but struggled to follow through and
maintain structure during her visits with her children. Onkst noted that some visits were
good while others were chaotic. Onkst testified that Mother got overwhelmed during
visitation with her children. She described visitation as follows:
[Mother] starts off good. And she’s brought in toys. She’s -- her most current
thing that is actually a hit is Play-Doh. But she would just bring in toys for the
kids to play with. There was no structure to the visits, so they would then start
to get very animated, and they’d be loud. [C.R.]’s a screamer and screams
inside. There is no inside voices and outside voices when it comes to [C.R.].
[M.R.] is kind of the same way. I’ve witnessed [M.R.] jumping from
chair, climbing on top of the -- the bookcase, getting in the bookcase, climbing
on the backsides of the -- the couch and holding on to the wall like where the
4 window is and kind of -- I don’t know what -- how you want to call that. I kind
of want to call it monkeying across just because that’s all he is, just climbing
all over everything. Then he’d jump over to the other loveseat. They’d fight
between themselves.
I’ve seen a time where [Mother] would be addressing something with
[C.P.] and being upset with and talking to him. She would have them in time
out almost in separate places. And while she’s dealing with one -- [C.R.] was
the one that jumped across the -- the couch and jumped onto the loveseat
where [M.R.] was sitting and put [M.R.] in a headlock. Then they both ended
up on the floor, and they were kind of screwing around, playing with something
or wrestling. It was hard to tell based on my perch watching the monitor of
exactly what. And then eventually [Mother] would try to address that, and
then [C.P.] would go off, do something.
March 12, 2025 Tr. 54-55. Onkst stated that it was very difficult for Mother to manage the
behaviors of the three children during visitations. According to Onkst, Mother “[didn’t]
always address the behaviors when [they were] happening, or she [waited] until [it had]
gotten way out of control before she trie[d] to address it and then the kids just [didn’t] listen.”
Id. at 55.
{¶ 9} Onkst testified that she witnessed Mother get overwhelmed several different
times during visitation. Onkst stated, “When that happens, [Mother] kind of shuts down
where she will just sit on the couch. The kids will be doing whatever the heck they’re doing.
And she’s just -- I don’t know if she’s zoning out. She’s trying to catch her breath. You
know, I try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but it is very hard to -- to witness that kind of
thing.” Id. Onkst explained that visitation was especially difficult during the winter months
5 when Mother could not take the children outside during visitation. Onkst agreed on cross-
examination, however, that any parent would struggle to demonstrate proper parenting skills
in dealing with the behaviors of C.P., M.R., and C.R. She noted that Mother had improved
over time with structuring her visits with her children, but she still did not maintain the
structure for the entire visit.
{¶ 10} From December 2023 until June 2024, Mother only visited her children once.
Mother told Onkst that she had transportation issues and medical issues during this time.
At the time of the hearing, Mother did not have her own mode of transportation. While
Mother had only shown up for visits 54% of the time since the children were removed, she
had been more consistent in her visitation after June 2024.
{¶ 11} When asked what MCCS’s ongoing concerns with Mother were, Onkst
testified:
Her stability and her ability to maintain and even react to any additional
situations. And what I mean by that is she’s maintaining an existence right
now. She’s working her butt off, and I will give her credit for that. But it’s not
enough to maintain, which is just getting by. She’s -- but if anything is to
happen, if she -- if the kids went home, if she gets a call because of behaviors,
you know, there’s issues where they’ve been kicked out of daycare or
behaviors at school. If she has to leave work, that’s going to affect her
income. That’s going to affect her job.
She did send me a letter from her employer that they would be willing
to work with her for appointments and such, which is fine, but also the letter
states that she wants to be able to have a week’s notice, you know, of
appointments, which I get, but it’s the when there is no week notice how that
6 will affect her employment? And because she’s on such a tight budget, if that
gets affected, then that will affect her ability to keep her home. And then her
overall mental health in dealing with the behaviors of the three boys just based
on the examples that it doesn’t go well even for the two hours.
March 12, 2025 Tr. 59-60.
{¶ 12} Onkst noted that Mother had not completed her AOD program or adequately
addressed the reason for her marijuana use. Onkst also had concerns that Mother
continued to have a relationship with her youngest child’s father, who was a known
methadone user. She explained that it was MCCS’s position that reunification with Mother
in the foreseeable future was unlikely because Mother was barely able to meet her own
needs and it was uncertain whether she could address her children’s needs.
{¶ 13} Onkst testified that C.R. and C.P. live with five other children at their foster
mother’s house. There were five bedrooms there, and the housing was safe and
appropriate. C.P. had resided there since February 14, 2024. This was his third foster
placement. All his needs were being met. C.P. had a lot of anger issues and had become
more aggressive. His behavioral issues were being addressed in therapy. Onkst stated
that C.R.’s needs were being met by his foster mother, and his behavioral needs were being
addressed in therapy.
{¶ 14} Mother testified last at the March 2025 hearing. At that time, Mother was
current on her rent payments. While she conceded that her phone sometimes got shut off,
she explained that she quickly got the phone turned back on as soon as she received her
next paycheck. She had worked about 35 hours per week at Rally’s since September 2024.
{¶ 15} Mother stated that she attended mental health counseling remotely
approximately every other week. When Mother had additional stress going on in her life,
7 she participated in the telehealth sessions on a weekly basis. She testified that she used
THC by choice but was not addicted to it. Mother also addressed Onkst’s concerns with
her continued relationship with the father of her youngest child. According to Mother, she
was not currently in a relationship with him and did not do any drugs with him.
{¶ 16} Mother stated that C.P. was very well behaved with her. He was very helpful
and wanted to come live with her. Mother testified that Onkst had told her that the children
may be acting out during visitation because they craved Mother’s attention. Mother
disagreed with the characterization of her “zoning” out during visits. Mother explained:
I feel that any parent, when things are getting too hard, any parent has
to step away, back off for a moment and breathe because it’s just so much
going on at one time. So I can’t do a lot. I know I’m obviously under camera.
I don’t want to do anything wrong. I don’t want to hurt my kids’ feelings, and
I don’t want to take their behaviors personal because I understand that they’re
children. They’re traumatized. They’re upset. They don’t understand
what’s going on.
So I back off to regroup myself, and I tell myself, it’s not you that they’re
doing this for. It’s not your fault. Just breathe, give them a moment, and
everything will be okay. Because I don’t feel like they do it to be mean. I just
feel like there’s a lot not being understood going on, so I try not to take those
things personal.
March 12, 2025 Tr. 90. After speaking with Onkst, Mother brought in Play-Doh rather than
toys, which helped to prevent overstimulation and allowed the kids to make something with
their hands.
8 {¶ 17} Mother believed that reunifying her with the three children was in her children’s
best interest. She noted that the children had been through multiple foster homes and
would be better off reuniting with her. Mother stated that she was able to support them and
meet all their needs.
b. May 28, 2025 Hearing
{¶ 18} On May 28, 2025, the magistrate held a permanent custody hearing and heard
testimony focused on M.R. S.F., who had been M.R.’s foster mother for two years and two
months immediately preceding the hearing, testified that M.R. had bonded with her and the
other children in her home. S.F. wanted to adopt M.R., and if she did, she would allow
Mother to have a relationship with M.R. because Mother had “a great bond” with him.
{¶ 19} M.R. had behavioral concerns when he first began living with S.F. According
to S.F., M.R. “would have meltdowns, screaming, hollering, throwing objects. In public, he’ll
run away from you if you don’t -- having -- holding his hand at all times.” May 28, 2025
Tr. 6. M.R. was kicked out of a head start program due to his behavior. S.F. described
M.R.’s typical behavior at the time of the hearing as follows: “[W]hen he first gets up in the
morning, he’s the real sweetest person there is, but as the day go on, if things are not going
his way, it’s meltdown time, and throwing objects. At one time, he was getting better at
doing it, but now he’s regressing.” Id. at 7. Previously M.R. saw a therapist once per
month, but at the time of the hearing, he was not seeing a therapist. S.F. was waiting to
hear back from a facility that was trying to match M.R. up with a new therapist.
{¶ 20} Onkst, who had been M.R.’s case manager for two years, also testified at the
May 28, 2025 hearing. Onkst set up a case plan with the goal of reuniting M.R. with Mother.
Onkst explained that the case plan included the following elements: mental health
assessment, parenting, housing, employment, visitation, sign releases, and “maybe a drug
9 screen here or there if I wished.” May 28, 2025 Tr. 15. Onkst stated that Mother did not
consistently engage in her mental health treatment and missed four of her last six scheduled
appointments. Mother took a parenting class but did not demonstrate behaviors learned
from that class. According to Onkst, Mother got “easily overwhelmed” during visitations and
resorted to screaming at the children. In her most recent visit with the children prior to the
May 2025 hearing, Mother strapped the two youngest children into highchairs when she got
overwhelmed. Onkst explained that many of the visits were chaotic because Mother did
not pay attention to the whole room, and “[i]t . . . [was] just a lot for anyone to handle.” Id.
at 18. Onkst noted that Mother did have some good visits with the children during which
she provided structure. Onkst said that “if [Mother had] . . . a plan, they [did] all right.” Id.
at 19.
{¶ 21} At the end of April 2025, Mother moved into a four-bedroom house through the
Section 8 housing program. Mother’s share of the monthly rent at her new house was $216.
Onkst verified that Mother’s net income from her employment at Rally’s was approximately
$600 to $700 every two weeks. Onkst attempted to visit the house before the hearing, but
Mother was not home. Onkst still had some concerns about housing based on Mother’s
history of having deplorable conditions inside her home.
{¶ 22} At the time of the May 2025 hearing, Mother had obtained her own vehicle, but
she did not have a driver’s license. Onkst testified that the father of Mother’s youngest child
drove Mother’s car, and the children knew him as “Daddy.” Onkst was concerned that he
was around the children given his history of drug abuse.
{¶ 23} Onkst stated that M.R. has been in the same foster home for two years, his
needs were being met, and he was on target for his age. His foster mother wanted to adopt
him but was not currently licensed to adopt him. MCCS planned to transfer M.R. to the
10 adoption unit if it obtained permanent custody. Onkst identified the following reasons why
the children could not be reunified with Mother in the foreseeable future: “Because she
can’t handle the ongoing needs of all of the children, and be able to maintain for herself.
She’s still trying to show stability. She’s making improvements, but kind of run out of time.”
May 28, 2025 Tr. 34. M.R. could not be placed with his father because his father did not
have his own housing, his employment was relatively new, and he had had no contact with
M.R. Onkst opined that permanent custody with MCCS was in M.R.’s best interest “[j]ust
so that he has a stable place to go. He can get his needs met, and have some consistency
continued, and just keep moving forward.” Id. at 34-35. Onkst also stated that due to the
fact M.R. had the most behavioral issues of the three children at issue in the custody
proceedings, she did not believe it was likely that Mother could meet his needs even if C.P.
and C.R. were placed permanently with MCCS. Onkst noted that M.R.’s foster mother was
better able to focus on M.R. and help redirect him when he acted up because his foster
mother’s other children did not have the behavioral issues that Mother’s children had.
{¶ 24} Mother testified last at the May 28, 2025 hearing. She admitted that lately
she had not been consistent in her mental health treatment but blamed that on the fact that
her counselor had been changed and the treatment provider had not done a good job of
contacting her to set up appointments. Mother also conceded that her recent visits with
C.P., M.R., and C.R. had been a struggle, but she blamed that on the fact that the weather
had been bad, which caused them to be stuck in a small room that contained many things
on which to climb. Mother noted that her visits with only M.R. had been good and that he
wanted to go home with her. According to Mother, M.R. needed more attention and his
brothers stressed him out. Mother noted that M.R.’s behavior had not changed with his
11 foster mother, and he currently was not in counseling. She believed M.R. was better off
with her because she had a plan to get him into counseling.
{¶ 25} Mother believed she had appropriate transportation and housing. She did not
have her driver’s license at the time of the May 2025 hearing but planned to get it within one
week of the May hearing. She was able to pay all her bills, and her house had four
bedrooms and two bathrooms.
{¶ 26} Mother testified that she remained friends with the father of her youngest child.
She stated that he did not get to see C.P., M.R., and C.R. but that she let him speak on the
phone with them. Mother explained, “They never seen him because there’s no point in him
seeing them until he’s fully where he needs to be.” May 28, 2025 Tr. 64.
c. Guardian Ad Litem Reports and Recommendations
{¶ 27} In her September 23, 2024 report, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) stated that
C.P., M.R., and C.R. needed stability and recommended that MCCS be granted permanent
custody of them. The GAL explained her recommendation as follows:
[Mother] has made progress on her case plan, but she has not always visited
regularly with her children. She has gone months between visits. Two of her
children do not know that she is their mother. Mother has not been able to
demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during visits at the agency. There
are concerns that she is living with [her youngest child’s father] who has a
history of substance abuse and is not in treatment. She has not made enough
progress to demonstrate stability to reunify with her children.
{¶ 28} The GAL identified the following concerns that led to her recommendation:
(1) Mother’s children had a history of serious behavioral issues; (2) C.R. and C.P.’s
behaviors had noticeably improved under foster care; (3) M.R. was doing well at his foster
12 home and was doing well in preschool; (4) C.P. and C.R. did not seem to know that Mother
was their biological mother due to long gaps in Mother’s visitations with them; (5) Mother’s
youngest child, who was born in August 2024, had special needs; and (6) the father of the
youngest child, who has a history of substance abuse, was reportedly living with Mother.
{¶ 29} The GAL subsequently authored a May 22, 2025 report in which she repeated
her recommendation that MCCS be granted permanent custody of the three children. The
GAL explained her recommendation as follows:
[Mother] has made progress on her case plan. Unfortunately, the boys have
significant behavioral issues. The mother has not been able to demonstrate
appropriate parenting skills for these special needs boys during visits at the
agency. There are concerns that she is living with [her youngest child’s
father] who has a history of substance abuse and is not in treatment. Even if
the father does not reside with the mother, it does not appear that the mother
will keep the children from [him].
{¶ 30} The GAL identified the following concerns that led to her recommendation:
(1) Mother had not always visited regularly with her children; (2) while visiting with the
children, Mother failed to notice C.P. was overwhelmed; (3) during visitation, Mother could
not maintain control over the boys for more than 45 minutes; (4) Mother had not been able
to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during recent visits with the three children; and
(5) the father of Mother’s youngest child had a history of drug abuse and stated that he lived
with Mother. The GAL noted that M.R. “has historically said he wanted to live with his
mother” and that all three boys seemed to be bonded with Mother.
d. Magistrate Decisions and Trial Court Judgments
{¶ 31} On June 3, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision granting MCCS’s motion
13 for permanent custody with respect to C.P. and C.R. and denying Mother’s motion for legal
custody. On June 12, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision granting MCCS’s motion for
permanent custody with respect to M.R. and denying Mother’s motion for legal custody.
Mother filed objections and supplemental objections to both decisions.
{¶ 32} On November 12, 2025, the trial court issued judgments in which it overruled
all of Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decisions and granted MCCS’s motion for
permanent custody. The trial court found that it was in the best interest of C.P., M.R., and
C.R. to grant permanent custody to MCCS. Mother timely appealed from the trial court’s
judgments.
II. The Trial Court’s Judgments Are Not Against the Manifest Weight of the
Evidence
{¶ 33} Mother’s sole assignment of error states:
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT PERMANENT
CUSTODY [TO] CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND DENY MOTHER’S MOTION
FOR LEGAL CUSTODY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 34} “[T]he proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a
juvenile court’s decision under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody of a child and to
terminate parental rights are the sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-
evidence standards, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that are
presented by the parties.” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. “When reviewing for manifest
weight, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider
the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence,
the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that
14 the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing Eastley v.
Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. “‘In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must
always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.’” Id., quoting Eastley at
¶ 21.
{¶ 35} “A public or private child-placement agency may file a motion under
R.C. 2151.413(A) to request permanent custody of a child after a court has committed the
child to the temporary custody of the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2).” In re C.F.,
2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 22. “R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the procedures a juvenile court must
follow and the findings it must make before granting a motion filed pursuant to
R.C. 2151.413.” In re C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411, ¶ 9. A trial court may grant permanent
custody of a child to the agency if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
(1) it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to the agency; and (2) any one
of the five factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies.
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
{¶ 36} Mother does not contest that MCCS satisfied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) by
showing that the children had “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.” Accordingly, we will not consider that aspect of the
trial court’s judgments.
{¶ 37} Once R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is met, “[t]he agency still must prove by clear and
convincing evidence, that it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to the
agency.” In re N.M.P., 2020-Ohio-1458, ¶ 26, citing R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and
convincing evidence is defined as “that measure or degree of proof which is more than a
mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required
15 ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce 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 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. It is this aspect of the trial court’s
decision that Mother disputes. Mother argues that the trial court’s decision was against the
manifest weight of the evidence because it was not in the best interest of C.P., C.R., and
M.R. to grant permanent custody to the agency.
{¶ 38} “R.C. 2151.414(D) sets forth the factors a court must consider in determining
the best interests of the child.” In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513, at ¶ 49.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that in determining the best interest of a child, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s
parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and
any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(b) 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;
(c) The custodial history of the child . . . ;
(d) 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 to the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.
“Not every statutory condition must be met before a determination regarding best interest
may be made.” In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). Additionally, “[n]o one element
16 is given greater weight or heightened significance.” C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, at ¶ 57, citing
Schaefer at ¶ 56.
{¶ 39} Mother argues that the trial court “failed to conduct a sufficient analysis of the
best interest factors.” Appellant’s Brief, p. 7. According to Mother, “[t]he finding that
mother was not able to adequately care for the children was not supported by the evidence.”
Id. Rather, “Mother had stable housing, was employed, was consistently visiting after
certain impediments were resolved, got a mental health assessment, got involved in
treatment, completed a parenting class, signed releases, and cooperated with the case
worker.” Id. In arguing that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of
the evidence, Mother focuses predominantly on her progress toward the completion of her
case plan objectives at the time of the final hearing. As Mother points out, she had made
progress on finding appropriate housing and was working toward obtaining her driver’s
license so that she could legally drive the automobile she recently purchased. She also
had completed a parenting class. But she struggled to apply learned behavior from her
parenting class to her visits with M.R., C.P., and C.R. She also struggled to consistently
participate in mental health counseling. As a reminder, “[w]hile a parent’s case plan
compliance is a relevant consideration in the best interest determination, it is not dispositive.”
In re X.F., 2025-Ohio-562, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing In re A.K., 2017-Ohio-8100, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 40} The trial court considered all the relevant statutory factors and summarized
much of the evidence that was relevant to each statutory factor. The trial court concluded
that awarding permanent custody of all three children to MCCS was in the best interests of
the children. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s judgments
are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
17 {¶ 41} The foster mothers testified that C.P., M.R. and C.R. had improved under their
care, and the children’s needs were being met. The children were bonded with their foster
mothers. The GAL noted that the three children were also bonded with Mother. The trial
court took into account that M.R. had expressed a desire to live with Mother. Onkst testified
at length about the difficulties Mother had with structuring her two-hour weekly visits with
C.P., M.R., and C.R. Mother often appeared overwhelmed and struggled with maintaining
awareness of what the other two children were doing when she was interacting with the third
child. Onkst highlighted her concern that Mother was not close to being ready to handle
custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. Both the GAL and Onkst also expressed concerns that
Mother was exposing the three children to a known drug user, the father of Mother’s
youngest child. In addition, it is undisputed that Mother abandoned her children by failing
to visit or maintain contact with the children for more than 90 days between December 2023
and June 2024. R.C. 2151.414(E)(10). While she had been more consistent in attending
the two-hour weekly visitation since June 2024, she still missed sessions. The clear and
convincing evidence showed that there was not a viable legally secure permanent placement
other than with MCCS.
{¶ 42} The trial court considered all the factors identified in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).
There was clear and convincing evidence presented at the two hearings that supported the
trial court’s determination that granting permanent custody to MCCS was in the children’s
best interest. Upon this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly lost its way
and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding permanent custody of C.P., M.R.,
and C.R. to MCCS.
{¶ 43} Finally, Mother argues that we must reverse the trial court’s decision because
“[t]he Magistrate made no analysis of mother’s Motion for Legal Custody, simply denying it
18 in a single sentence.” Appellant’s Brief, p. 7. MCCS responds that no additional analysis
on Mother’s motion for legal custody was required because the trial court correctly ruled that
it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody of them to MCCS.
According to MCCS, “‘[b]ecause the evidence supports the trial court’s best interest finding,
it also necessarily supports the court’s decision to overrule Appellants’ motion for legal
custody.’” Appellee’s Brief, p. 10, quoting In re T.G., 2015-Ohio-5330, ¶ 31 (4th Dist.).
{¶ 44} The trial court considered the relevant best interest factors when it granted
MCCS’s motions for permanent custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. By granting MCCS’s
motions for permanent custody, the trial court implicitly overruled Mother’s motion for legal
custody. The trial court was not required to make separate best interest findings relating to
Mother’s motion for legal custody when it had already considered the best interest factors in
relation to MCCS’s motions for permanent custody. In re K.M., 2014-Ohio-4268, ¶ 9
(9th Dist.) (“The appropriateness of a legal custody award to relatives invokes consideration
of the same factors as a determination of the best interest of a child for purposes of a
permanent custody decision. . . . If permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, legal
custody or placement with relatives necessarily is not.”).
{¶ 45} The assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 46} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm the judgments of the trial
.............
TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.