[Cite as In re E.A.J.R., 2021-Ohio-4505.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
IN RE: E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. : : : Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-24 : : Trial Court Case Nos. 2019-C-00030- : 0C, 0D and 2019-C-00031-0C, 0D : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 22nd day of December, 2021.
MARCY A. VONDERWELL, Atty. Reg. No. 0078311, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Appellee, Greene County Children Services
FRANK MATHEW BATZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0093817, 126 North Philadelphia Street, Dayton, Ohio 45403 Attorney for Appellant, Father
.............
WELBAUM, J. -2-
{¶ 1} Father appeals from a judgment of the Greene County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated his parental rights and granted permanent
custody of his two-year old son, E.A.J.R., and his three-year-old son, R.P.R., to Greene
County Children Services (“GCCS”). For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of
the trial court will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On November 15, 2019, GCCS received a report of domestic violence
between the parents of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. (“Mother” and “Father”). The report
indicated that as a result of the domestic violence, Mother engaged in self-harm in front
of the children and threatened to commit suicide. The report also indicated that Mother
was not practicing safe sleep with E.A.J.R. and was feeding E.A.J.R. whole grapes when
he was only six months old. In light of the report, GCCS filed a neglect and dependency
complaint on November 18, 2019, that requested the trial court to grant GCCS temporary
custody of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. The trial court then held a shelter care hearing and
granted GCCS interim temporary custody of the children.
{¶ 3} On January 15, 2020, the matter proceeded to an adjudication and
disposition hearing. During the hearing, GCCS made an oral motion to withdraw the
neglect allegation from the complaint. The trial court found the motion well taken and
dismissed the neglect allegation with prejudice. The hearing then proceeded solely on
the dependency allegation. Following the hearing, the trial court found that the children
were dependent and that GCCS had made reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s -3-
removal from their home. Accordingly, the trial court granted GCCS temporary custody
of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R.
{¶ 4} After receiving temporary custody of the children, GCCS developed
amended case plans for Mother and Father. The case plans included objectives for
Mother and Father to complete in order to reunify them with the children. There is no
dispute that Mother eventually abandoned the children and was removed from her case
plan. Father, however, maintained contact with GCCS and continued to work on his
case plan. Some of Father’s case plan objectives were to engage in mental health and
substance abuse counseling, complete a psychological assessment with a parenting
evaluation, comply with his probation, and obtain safe, stable housing.
{¶ 5} On October 5, 2020, GCCS moved the trial court to have its temporary
custody of the children extended. The trial court granted GCCS’s motion on November
5, 2020, and extended GCCS’s temporary custody as requested. Three months later,
Father overdosed on drugs and was hospitalized for approximately two days. After
Father’s overdose, GCCS filed a motion to modify its temporary custody to permanent
custody. In the motion, GCCS indicated that it was requesting permanent custody of
E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. due to ongoing concerns about Father’s mental health, stability, and
inability to maintain housing. On April 27, 2021, Father filed a motion opposing GCCS’s
motion for permanent custody and a motion requesting the trial court to award him
custody of the children.
{¶ 6} To address these motions, the trial court held a permanent custody hearing
on May 28, 2021. During the permanent custody hearing, the State presented testimony
from the psychologist who evaluated Father, Dr. Gordon Harris. The State also -4-
presented testimony from the visitation coordinator at the Greene County Visitation
Center, Libby Powers; GCCS supervisor, Sarah Cooley; GCCS caseworkers Michelle
Allen and Tabitha Clary; and the foster mother who had been caring for E.A.J.R. and
R.P.R. The children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) also made a brief statement at the
hearing and filed two reports containing her custody recommendation. The following is
a summary of the testimony and evidence that was presented to the trial court.
Dr. Gordon Harris
{¶ 7} Dr. Harris is a licensed clinical psychologist whose practice focuses on
psychological testing and psychotherapy with adults and children. Dr. Harris testified
that he evaluated Father on August 28, 2020, and September 29, 2020, and thereafter
prepared a report of his findings. To evaluate Father, Dr. Harris interviewed Father and
performed several psychological tests, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Rorschach Inkblot Test, and the Parenting
Satisfaction Scale.
{¶ 8} Based on his testing and interactions with Father, Dr. Harris testified that
Father was very resistant to listening to any advice and to taking any help. Dr. Harris
also testified that Father had substance abuse issues that Father either did not recognize
or was not willing to address. Dr. Harris further testified that Father was rather
contradictory and self-defeating at times.
{¶ 9} During his testimony, Dr. Harris identified the report of his findings, which
was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit No. 1. Dr. Harris testified that his report
stated that Father might someday be able to parent at a minimally acceptable level if -5-
Father stopped abusing substances and engaged in intensive psychological help, which
included taking medication. Dr. Harris, however, testified that Father rejected any such
help.
{¶ 10} Dr. Harris also testified that, given Father’s distorted thinking and inability
to recognize his responsibilities as a parent, Father was more likely to mistreat his children
through negligence than through physical abuse. Dr. Harris explained that Father was
chronically unable to deal with stressors in his life and that Father would function
adequately only if he could successfully eliminate those stressors. Dr. Harris, however,
testified that it was unlikely that Father would be able to eliminate his stressors and be
able to appropriately parent his children in the foreseeable future.
Libby Powers
{¶ 11} Powers was the visitation coordinator at the Greene County Visitation
Center (“visitation center”). Powers testified that in December 2019, she had an intake
appointment with Father after Father’s case was referred to the visitation center by
GCCS. Powers explained that she initially declined to provide visitation services to
Father due to certain statements Father made during the intake appointment.
Specifically, Powers testified that Father had stated that “he would kill anyone who got in
the way of him getting his children back.” Trans. (May 28, 2021), p. 37.
{¶ 12} Powers testified that after she denied Father services at the visitation
center, Father’s GCCS case worker, Michelle Allen, approached her in September 2020
and asked if she would be willing to consider another referral for Father’s case. Powers
explained that Allen had told her that Allen had been monitoring Father for several months -6-
and assured her that Father was not a safety concern. Powers testified that she agreed
to give Father another chance and scheduled him for a second intake appointment.
Powers testified that there were no problems with the second intake appointment and that
Father thereafter began using the visitation center to visit his children in November 2020.
{¶ 13} Powers, however, testified that throughout April 2021, Father had problems
following the visitation center’s policies. For example, Powers testified that while visiting
his children, Father had talked about his case, said negative things about his caseworker,
and engaged the visitation monitor in conversation. Powers also testified that she had
had security concerns about Father because Father would get angry and escalate when
the visitation staff would ask him to abide by the center’s policies.
{¶ 14} Powers testified that on April 28, 2021, Father had a visit during which she
personally reminded Father of the center’s policies. Powers claimed that Father
responded by telling her “to remove [herself] from his visit and to mind [herself].” Trans.
(May 28, 2021), p. 39. Based on that interaction, and based on Father continually talking
to the monitor, raising his voice, getting agitated when asked to follow the center’s
policies, and allowing his children to have contact with an unauthorized individual during
a visitation, Powers decided to terminate visitation services for Father.
{¶ 15} Powers testified that on April 30, 2021, she filed a report with the trial court
to terminate Father’s visitation services at the center. During her testimony, Powers
identified the report, which was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit No. 2. The
report summarized the negative behavior exhibited by Father during his visits between
April 22 and 30, 2021. Father’s negative behavior included making derogatory remarks
about the other parent/family, initiating adult conversation topics, using foul language, -7-
making promises regarding future visitation and living arrangements, engaging staff in
detailed non-emergency conversations, disrespecting staff, ignoring staff’s requests or
directives, and being confrontational with staff.
Sarah Cooley
{¶ 16} Cooley was a supervisor at GCCS who oversaw caseworkers. Cooley
testified that Father’s case was assigned to caseworker Jennifer Otto in May 2019, and
that Father had an active case plan at that time. Cooley testified that in November 2019,
GCCS received information that Mother had cuts on her arms, was making threats of
suicide, and was not providing for E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Because of concerns of domestic
violence between Mother and Father, and due to Mother and Father’s not providing for
the children, Cooley testified that GCCS filed a neglect and dependency complaint.
{¶ 17} Cooley testified that, at the time the neglect and dependency complaint was
filed, Mother and Father had been living together in an apartment with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R.
Cooley testified that Father was eventually trespassed from the apartment because he
was not on the lease and thereafter became homeless. Cooley testified that Mother
subsequently lost the apartment, became homeless herself, and began disengaging with
GCCS.
{¶ 18} Cooley testified that Father’s case was transferred to caseworker Michelle
Allen in January 2020. Cooley testified that Father’s case plan at that time included
objectives for him to obtain safe and stable housing, provide for the children, engage in
mental health and substance abuse treatment, and to complete a parenting and
psychological evaluation. -8-
{¶ 19} Cooley testified that GCCS decided to file for permanent custody of E.A.J.R.
and R.P.R. in February 2021. According to Cooley, this decision was based on Father’s
instability, failure to obtain housing, and due to Father’s recently overdosing on drugs.
Cooley testified that after GCCS filed for permanent custody, Father moved into an
apartment in Xenia, Ohio, with his current girlfriend and her three children. Cooley also
testified that Father received income in the form of social security disability benefits.
{¶ 20} During her testimony, Cooley explained that her concerns with Father’s
parenting include the allegations of domestic violence between Mother and Father,
Father’s escalating when getting angry, and Father’s making threatening statements such
as “[GCCS agents] would be leaving in body bags” if they came out to his home. Trans.
(May 28, 2021), p. 66.
Michelle Allen
{¶ 21} Allen was the GCCS caseworker assigned to Father’s case at the time of
the hearing. Allen testified that while working with Father on his case plan, Father was
arrested in February 2020 for being intoxicated and resisting arrest. Allen testified that
Father was put on probation for the February incident and was thereafter arrested again
in July 2020, for a similar incident of intoxication and resisting arrest. Allen testified that
Father’s probation was continued after his second arrest.
{¶ 22} With regard to Father’s case plan, Allen testified that it included an objective
for Father to maintain safe, stable housing. According to Allen, Father had not made
progress on this objective. Allen testified that Father resided with his parents in early
2020, but later moved to a homeless shelter and then to a hotel. Allen testified that after -9-
his July 2020 arrest, Father had resided in The Meadows Apartment Complex in Xenia,
Ohio. Allen testified that in August 2020, Father reported living in a different apartment
complex, and also continued to live with his parents intermittently. Allen testified that as
of March 2021, Father had been living with his then-girlfriend and her three children in a
two-bedroom apartment. To Allen’s knowledge, Father was not listed on the apartment’s
lease.
{¶ 23} Allen indicated that she had attempted to help Father obtain housing by
meeting with him in January 2020 for purposes of filling out a Greene County Metropolitan
Housing Authority (“GMHA”) application. Allen also indicated that she had met with
Father in the fall of 2020 for the same purpose since the GMHA application form had
changed. Allen claimed that she had advised Father about what documentation he
needed in order to complete the GMHA application—specifically, an identification card
and a social security card. Allen testified that she worked with Father on getting both of
those items.
{¶ 24} Allen testified that Father had been able to get his identification card, but
never obtained his social security card. Allen testified that she provided Father with an
application for a social security card and told Father that she would help him complete
the application and mail the application in for him once he completed it. Father, however,
never provided Allen with the completed application. Therefore, Allen indicated that
Father still did not have a social security card and had been unable to apply for GMHA
housing. According to Allen, Father had made no progress on the GMHA application.
{¶ 25} Concerning visitation, Allen testified that Father had started visitation with
E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. in January 2020, but that visitation was halted due to the COVID-19 -10-
pandemic. Allen testified that Father was eventually referred back to the visitation center
in November 2020, and that Father regularly attended visits until he was discharged from
the visitation center in April 2021. Allen explained that Father had been discharged from
the visitation center because he had failed to comply with the center’s policies. Allen
testified that Father had since attended two, one-hour video visits with his children.
{¶ 26} With regard to mental health services, Allen testified that Father’s case plan
required him to engage in mental health treatment in order to work on coping with stress,
anger management, and substance abuse. Allen testified that Father had engaged in
mental health services at DeCoach, TCN, and Fairborn Mental Health. Allen testified
that Father had followed through with his counseling services and had completed all the
required psychological and substance abuse assessments. Allen testified, however, that
Father continued to state that he did not have any mental health concerns.
{¶ 27} Allen also discussed Father’s drug overdose, which occurred on February
9, 2021. Allen testified that on February 10, 2021, a member of Father’s family had
contacted her and advised her that Father was in the hospital and unresponsive. Allen
testified that Father had contacted her on February 12, 2021, after he woke up and was
discharged from the Intensive Care Unit. According to Allen, Father told her that he had
had an allergic reaction to his prescription medication. However, Allen testified that
when she asked Father if he took the appropriate amount of his medication, Father
admitted to taking 300 pills or a month’s worth of his medication in an attempt to commit
suicide. Allen testified that Father later claimed his overdose was a way for him to make
a statement about not wanting to be on medication.
{¶ 28} Allen recalled that when she discussed with Father the concern that his -11-
overdose presented for his mental health and stability case plan objectives, Father stated
that “he would be in his grave” before permanent custody of his children was granted to
GCCS. Trans. (May 28, 2021), p. 87. Allen also claimed that Father continued to deny
having any mental health concerns. Allen testified that Father was arrested following his
overdose due to violating his probation, and that Father’s probation ended in March 2021,
after he served a jail sentence.
{¶ 29} During her testimony, Allen explained that Father’s drug overdose and his
statements following the overdose indicated that Father’s mental health treatment had
not been effective and that Father was not making progress toward the goal of emotional
stability. Therefore, Allen testified that she had continuing concerns about Father’s
safety.
{¶ 30} Allen testified that GCCS decided to file for permanent custody of E.A.J.R.
and R.P.R. a few weeks after Father’s overdose; this decision was ultimately based on
Father’s making no progress on his housing objective for over a year, showing no
progress on the goals of being able to cope with stress even while receiving mental health
services, being arrested twice while under the influence, attempting to commit suicide,
and due to GCCS’s having no other means to help Father.
{¶ 31} Allen testified that after GCCS filed for permanent custody, Father became
more and more agitated and expressed more and more anger toward GCCS.
Specifically, Allen testified that Father made violent comments such as “I should have
shot all of them coming through the door” when discussing the caseworkers and police
officers who had removed his children. Trans. (May 28, 2021), p. 97. Allen also testified
that Father stated that if GCCS established permanent custody of his children “he would -12-
turn Xenia into World War III.” Id. at 98. Allen further recalled several weeks where
every telephone conversation with Father ended with him yelling at her and hanging up
the phone.
{¶ 32} With regard to Mother, Allen testified that in early 2020, Mother requested
to be removed from the case plan involving E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. because Mother was
moving to Kentucky to be with her older children. Allen testified that Mother then
contacted her a few months later in April 2020 and indicated that she wanted to get back
on the case plan in an effort to reunify with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Allen testified that she
thereafter worked toward putting Mother back on the case plan by having Mother enter
services in Kentucky. Allen testified, however, that she was unable to fully provide out-
of-state services for Mother and that Mother was unable to make any progress on her
case plan. According to Allen, Mother did not have any housing, did not enter any
treatment services, was unable to visit the children due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
maintained only minimal contact with GCCS. Allen testified that once the COVID-19
restrictions were lifted at the visitation center, Mother visited the children once a month in
July, August, and September 2020, but Mother had had no contact with E.A.J.R. and
R.P.R. since September 2020.
{¶ 33} Allen testified that Mother was removed from the case plan in December
2020. Since that time, Mother had made only intermittent contact with GCCS in order to
receive general updates on E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Allen testified that when she advised
Mother that GCCS was filing for permanent custody of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R., Mother
indicated that she was in favor of GCCS obtaining permanent custody. Allen testified
that Mother believed she lacked the stability to successfully reunify with the children. -13-
Allen also testified that Mother believed that reunifying the children with Father would not
be in the children’s best interest. Allen further testified that Mother did not want the
children to be reunified with Father due to Father’s history of domestic violence and due
to her concern that Father might physically abuse the children. Allen indicated that
Mother was also concerned about Father’s lack of stability.
{¶ 34} Continuing, Allen testified that GCCS researched potential relative
placements for E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Specifically, Allen testified that the children’s
paternal grandmother had been investigated, but was found to have a disqualifying
charge in her history that involved sexual contact with a minor. Allen testified that GCCS
had also considered the children’s paternal grandfather, but discovered extensive
concerns with him in their database. Allen testified that she told the paternal grandfather
that he still could come in for fingerprinting and they would attempt a home study, but the
paternal grandfather never followed through with having his fingerprints taken.
{¶ 35} Allen also testified that Mother suggested her sister as a possible placement
option. Allen testified that she told Mother to have her sister contact GCCS, but the sister
never made contact. Allen testified that she investigated Mother’s sister and discovered
that the sister had a children services case that had recently been closed and marked as
being a case that involved a high risk of future harm with concerns of physical abuse.
For that reason, Allen testified that Mother’s sister would not have been an appropriate
placement option for the children.
{¶ 36} Allen testified that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R had been with the same foster family
since January 2020. Allen testified that the foster family had expressed its ability and
willingness to adopt E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Therefore, Allen testified that, if GCCS was -14-
granted permanent custody of the children, GCCS would likely pursue adoption with the
foster family. Allen concluded her testimony by stating her belief that permanent custody
in favor of GCCS was in E.A.J.R. and R.P.R.’s best interest.
Tabitha Clary
{¶ 37} Clary was an intake caseworker at GCCS who was assigned to a case
involving Father’s girlfriend at the time of the hearing, N.M. Clary testified that N.M. then
resided at an apartment complex in Xenia, Ohio, called The Meadows. Clary also
testified that N.M. reported living in the apartment with her three children and the father
of her youngest child.
{¶ 38} Concerning Father, Clary testified that it had been reported to her that
Father had overdosed in N.M.’s apartment. After Clary investigated the matter, N.M.
reported that Father had not overdosed in her apartment, but in her mother’s apartment
located upstairs. Although N.M. initially told Clary that Father was just a friend, Clary
testified that N.M. later stated that she and Father were in a relationship.
{¶ 39} Clary testified that she first met with Father at N.M.’s apartment in April
2021. During that visit, Father told Clary that there was no reason he should not have
custody of his children and that there should be no issue with him residing in N.M.’s
apartment. Clary testified that Father talked at length about wanting to harm the people
who had initially removed his children. Clary also testified that she had observed
aggressive behavior from Father in that he screamed and yelled and was unable to
regulate his emotions.
{¶ 40} Clary testified that she had met Father a second time at N.M.’s apartment -15-
in May 2021. According to Clary, this meeting was due to GCCS’s receiving a
photograph showing Father and N.M. in possession of a marijuana pipe and a bag of
marijuana while N.M.’s children were present. Clary testified that it was her
understanding that Father had a prescription for medicinal marijuana.
{¶ 41} Clary testified that GCCS had a case open for N.M. at the time of the hearing
and that there were concerns regarding domestic violence between N.M. and the father
of one of her children. Clary testified that there were also concerns regarding Father
living with N.M. given his substance abuse. Clary testified that she was in the process
of filing for protective supervision of N.M.’s children.
Foster Mother
{¶ 42} E.A.J.R. and R.P.R.’s foster mother (“Foster Mother”) testified that both
boys had been in her care since January 2020. Foster Mother testified that the boys had
been doing great in her home and that they had no significant or atypical behavioral
issues. Foster Mother testified that when the boys did exhibit behavioral issues, the
issues occurred right after a visit with Father. Specifically, Foster Mother testified that
after visiting with Father, the boys became distressed and more defiant than usual.
However, Foster Mother testified that this behavior usually resolved fairly quickly.
{¶ 43} Foster Mother testified that when the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and
visitation resumed, R.P.R. started telling her that he did not want to go to visits and would
get sad ahead of the scheduled visits. Foster Mother testified that during the most recent
video visit with Father, R.P.R. sat in the corner of the kitchen with his head down looking
sad and totally withdrawn. According to Foster Mother, R.P.R. was not engaged in -16-
conversation with Father.
{¶ 44} Foster Mother testified that there were five other children living in her home.
Foster Mother testified that the five children were connected to E.A.J.R. and R.P.R., had
unique relationships with them, and loved them deeply. Foster Mother testified that if
GCCS were granted permanent custody of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R., she would seek to adopt
them. Foster Mother testified that she would be willing to allow contact between Father
and E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. if she deemed it beneficial for the children.
GAL
{¶ 45} The GAL filed reports on April 8 and 26, 2021, which contained her custody
recommendation. In her reports, the GAL noted that Father had not secured safe and
stable housing. The GAL also noted that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. were thriving in their foster
placement. At the hearing, the GAL added that she had no doubt that Father cared
deeply for E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. but stated that she had ongoing concerns for the children’s
stability given their young age. As a result, the GAL recommended that permanent
custody be granted to GCCS.
The Trial Court’s Decision
{¶ 46} After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the permanent
custody hearing, the trial court granted GCCS’s motion for permanent custody and
terminated Father and Mother’s parental rights. The trial court also dismissed Father’s
motion for custody of the children. Father now appeals from that judgment, raising two
assignments of error for review. -17-
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 47} Under his first assignment of error, Father contends that the trial court erred
by granting GCCS permanent custody of E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Specifically, Father claims
that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that granting permanent custody to
GCCS was in the best interest of the children. We disagree.
{¶ 48} R.C. 2151.414 governs the termination of parental rights in Ohio. Section
(B)(1) of that statute provides a two-part test for courts to apply when determining whether
to grant a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute
requires the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) an award of
permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest; and (2) any one of the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) exist.
{¶ 49} Father concedes that the second part of the two-part test was satisfied; the
factor under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied to E.A.J.R. and R.P.R., as both children had
“been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies * * * for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.” R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d). Therefore, Father only challenges the trial court’s finding that
permanent custody in favor of GCCS was in E.A.J.R. and R.P.R.’s best interest.
{¶ 50} When making the best-interest determination, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) requires
the trial court to 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; -18-
(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, including whether 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;
(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; and
(e) Whether any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) are
applicable.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e).
{¶ 51} The trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence. In re K.W., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-107, 2014-Ohio-
4606, ¶ 7. “Clear and convincing evidence” is “[t]he measure or degree of proof that will
produce in the mind of the trier of fact 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.” In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d
101, 104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986).
{¶ 52} “The [trial] court’s decision to terminate parental rights * * * will not be
overturned * * * if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court -19-
could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a
termination of parental rights have been established.” (Citations omitted). In re A.U.,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22264, 2008-Ohio-186, ¶ 15. “On review, we give the trial
court’s final determination ‘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 the
Matter of G.B., 2d Dist. Greene No. 2017-CA-30, 2017-Ohio-8759, ¶ 8, quoting In re
Alfrey, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2001-CA-83, 2003-Ohio-608, ¶ 102. Accordingly, the trial
court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. In re E.D., 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 26261, 2014-Ohio-4600, ¶ 7, citing In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-
Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 48 (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to trial court’s
findings under R.C. 2151.414).
{¶ 53} In making its best-interest determination, the trial court considered the
relevant factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and made the following findings from the
testimony and evidence presented at the permanent custody hearing.
(a) Children’s Interaction and Interrelationship with Parents, Siblings, and Foster Parents
{¶ 54} The trial court found that the E.A.J.R.’s and R.P.R.’s relationships with their
Mother and Father were detrimental to them. Specifically concerning Father, the trial
court found that the testimony of the GCCS caseworkers revealed that E.A.J.R. and
R.P.R. could not be returned to Father’s care due to his: (1) lack of safe, stable housing;
(2) February 2021 drug overdose and suicide attempt; (3) inability to engage in treatment;
(4) inability to demonstrate what he learned in treatment; and (5) lack of anger control.
{¶ 55} The trial court also found that Father had not established a relationship or -20-
healthy bond with the children due to their young age and due to the children’s being in
foster care for approximately 20 months. The trial court further found that E.A.J.R. and
R.P.R. had primarily resided in the same foster home since November 2019, and that
they had integrated well with the other children in that household.
{¶ 56} The trial court found that there were no other relationships relevant to this
factor given that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. did not have relationships with any other family
members. The trial court noted that the children’s paternal grandmother was not an
appropriate legal custodian due to her having a past disqualifying offense, being on
probation for domestic violence against Mother, and being unable to successfully pass a
home study.
(b) Wishes of the Children
{¶ 57} The trial court found that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. were too young to express
their wishes as to custody. The trial court also noted that the GAL recommended that
permanent custody of the children be granted to GCCS.
(c) Custodial History of the Children
{¶ 58} The trial court found that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. were removed from Mother
and Father’s custody in November 2019. The trial court found that Father had engaged
in visitation with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. since their removal, but noted that the visitation
center had terminated services for Father in April 2021, due to Fathers continually failing
to follow the visitation center’s policies and becoming angry and having aggressive
outbursts when the visitation staff addressed his behavior. The trial court found that -21-
although Father had had contact with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R., he was not exhibiting any of
the skills taught through counseling or implementing any of the changes that need to take
place in order for him to have a healthy relationship with his children. The trial court
further noted that Father had not resided with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. since November 2019.
(d) Children’s Need for Legally Secure Permanent Placement
{¶ 59} The trial court found that a legally secure permanent placement for E.A.J.R.
and R.P.R. could not be achieved without granting permanent custody to GCCS. In so
holding, the trial court found that Father had been unable to demonstrate skills learned in
treatment, did not recognize the role he played in the children’s removal from his care,
and did not have safe, stable housing.
{¶ 60} With regard to housing, the trial court found that Father had lived in a
number of different locations since November 2019 and was not on the lease of his
current residence. The trial court further found that Father had failed to complete the
necessary forms to apply for GMHA’s housing program despite GCCS’s offering to assist
him in doing so.
{¶ 61} Regarding Father’s behavior, the trial court found that Father’s February
2021 overdose and his multiple encounters with police were concerning. The trial court
also referred to the concerns expressed by Dr. Harris, i.e., that E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. would
be vulnerable in Father’s custody if Father went without medication and ongoing
psychological treatment. The trial court found that the children’s young age would
prevent them from being able to protect themselves and from being able to report
concerns about Father. -22-
(e) Factors Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11)
{¶ 62} The trial court made no findings under the factors set forth in R.C.
29151.414(E)(7) through (11), as none of those factors applied to Father.
{¶ 63} Upon review, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence in the
record to support all of the trial court’s best-interest findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).
Because those findings were supported by competent, credible evidence, and because
they weighed in favor of finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant
GCCS permanent custody, we do not find that the trial court’s decision to award GCCS
permanent custody was an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 64} Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 65} Under his second assignment of error, Father contends that GCCS failed to
make reasonable efforts to reunify him with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. We disagree.
{¶ 66} “The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that, ‘except for a few narrowly
defined exceptions, the state must have made reasonable efforts to reunify the family
prior to the termination of parental rights.’ ” In re A.T., 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 28332,
28355, 2019-Ohio-3527, ¶ 73, quoting C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862
N.E.2d 816, at ¶ 21. “If the agency has not established that reasonable efforts have
been made prior to the hearing on a motion for permanent custody, then it must
demonstrate such efforts at that time.” C.F. at ¶ 43.
{¶ 67} “ ‘ “Reasonable efforts means that a children’s services agency must act -23-
diligently and provide services appropriate to the family’s need * * * as a predicate to
reunification.” ’ ” In re N.M., 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 26693, 26719, 2016-Ohio-318,
¶ 53, quoting In re H.M.K., 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos. 16-12-15, 16-12-16, 2013-Ohio-4317,
¶ 95, quoting In re D.A., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1197, 2012-Ohio-1104, ¶ 30. We have
also described “reasonable efforts” as “ ‘a good faith effort which is “an honest, purposeful
effort, free of malice and the desire to defraud or to seek an unconscionable
advantage.” ’ ” In re Secrest, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19377, 2002-Ohio-7096, ¶ 13,
quoting In re Cranford, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 17085, 17105, 1998 WL 412454, *4
(July 24, 1998), quoting In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 606 N.E.2d 1011 (12th
Dist.1992).
{¶ 68} We stress that “ ‘ “[r]easonable efforts” does not mean all available efforts.
Otherwise, there would always be an argument that one more additional service, no
matter how remote, may have made reunification possible.’ ” In re N.M. at ¶ 53,
quoting In re K.M., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA 2004-02-052, 2004-Ohio-4152, ¶ 23. “ ‘The
issue is not whether [the agency] could have done more, but whether it did enough to
satisfy the “reasonableness” standard under the statute.’ ” Secrest at ¶ 13, quoting In re
Smith, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2001-CA-54, 2002 WL 538888, *6 (April 12, 2002).
{¶ 69} In this case, the trial court found, and we agree, that GCCS made
reasonable efforts to reunify Father with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. The record establishes that
GCCS developed a case plan for Father that included various objectives for reunification.
The record also establishes that GCCS maintained contact with Father and worked to
help Father complete his case plan objectives. Specifically, GCCS made referrals for
mental health services and psychological evaluations, facilitated Father’s visitation with -24-
his children at the visitation center, and tried to help Father secure suitable housing.
{¶ 70} With regard to visitation, the record establishes that Father was initially
declined services at the visitation center due to certain statements Father made at his
initial intake interview. GCCS caseworker Allen thereafter approached the visitation
coordinator and asked her to give Father another chance. The record indicates that
Allen went out of her way to assure the visitation coordinator that Father was not a safety
concern. As a result of Allen’s efforts, Father was able to visit his children at the visitation
center until services were terminated for Father’s failing to abide by the center’s policies.
{¶ 71} Concerning housing, the record establishes that GCCS provided Father
with an application for GMHA’s public housing program. The record also indicates that
caseworker Allen offered to assist Father in completing the GMHA application and
advised Father on what documentation he needed in order to complete the application.
As part of that process, the record indicates that Allen obtained forms for Father to apply
for a social security card and even offered to mail in the forms for Father once he
completed them. However, Father never provided the completed forms to Allen and
never followed through with the GMHA housing application.
{¶ 72} Although it does not relate to Father, we note that GCCS also attempted to
work with Mother on her case plan even when Mother was residing out of state. The
record also indicates that GCCS researched multiple relative placement options, but
found no willing and appropriate relatives with whom the children could be placed.
{¶ 73} Upon review, we find that GCCS acted diligently and provided appropriate,
helpful services to Father. The actions taken by GCCS exhibited an honest, purposeful
effort to reunite Father with E.A.J.R. and R.P.R. Therefore, contrary to Father’s claim -25-
otherwise, we find that the record supports the trial court’s finding that GCCS made
reasonable efforts toward reunifying Father with his children.
{¶ 74} Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 75} Having overruled both assignments of error raised by Father, the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
TUCKER, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Marcy A. Vonderwell Frank Mathew Batz J.B. Jenny Roether, GAL Hon. Amy H. Lewis