[Cite as In re J.C., 2013-Ohio-3116.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: : J.C. : : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : : : : Case No. 2013CA00056 & : 2013CA00061 : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2011JCV00094
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 15, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant M.S.
JERRY COLEMAN AARON KOVALCHIK Legal Counsel 116 Cleveland Ave. N.W. Stark County JFS Suite 808 221 Third Street SE Canton, OH 44702 Canton, OH 44702 For Defendant-Appellant S.C. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 2
DAVID L. SMITH 245 33rd St. N.W. Canton, OH 44709 Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 3
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellants S.C. and M.S. appeal from the February 27, 2013 Judgment
Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, terminating
their parental rights and granting permanent custody of J.C. to Stark County
Department of Job and Family Services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant S.C. and appellant M.S. are the parents of J.C. (DOB 1/10/11).
On January 19, 2011, Stark County Department of Job and Family Services (SCDJFS)
filed a complaint alleging that J.C. was a dependent and neglected child. The complaint
alleged that appellant M.S., the mother, had previously had a child adjudicated abused
in Case No. 2007 JCV 00872 and that such child had been placed in the permanent
custody of the agency. The complaint further alleged that appellant S.C., the father, had
past involvement with the agency in a case and that the two children in such case were
currently in the temporary custody of the agency. J.C. was placed in the temporary
custody of SCDJFS. An adjudication/disposition hearing was scheduled for February
16, 2011.
{¶3} At the February 16, 2011, hearing, the parties stipulated to a finding of
dependency and the allegations of neglect were deleted. As memorialized in a
Magistrate’s Decision that was filed on February 18, 2011 and approved by the trial
court, J.C. remained in the temporary custody of SCDJFS.
{¶4} Subsequently, on December 20, 2012, SCDJFS filed a motion seeking
permanent custody of J.C. A hearing on the motion was held on February 19, 2013. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 4
{¶5} At the hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that she was employed by
SCDJFS and was the family caseworker. Pounds testified that the agency became
involved with J.C. shortly after his birth over concerns that he was a premature baby
and appellant M.S. previously had lost custody of another child while appellant S.C. was
involved with the agency with two other children. Pounds testified that on February 16,
2011, J.C. was placed in the temporary custody of the agency and that he had
remained in the agency’s temporary custody since such time.
{¶6} According to Pounds, the parties’ case plan and subsequent amendments
to the same required them to complete psychological parenting assessments at
Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health, to participate in individual counseling, to have
assessments for medications and to participate in the Goodwill Parenting Program. The
plan also required appellant S.C. to receive a drug and alcohol evaluation at Quest and
to follow all recommendations. Pounds testified that there were concerns about
depression and anxiety issues with respect to both appellants. In addition, appellant
S.C.’s plan required him to attend at least 3 twelve step meetings a week. Pounds
further testified that appellant S.C. had two other children who were the subject of
agency involvement and that, in that case, the children were placed in the legal custody
of appellant S.C.’s mother. She indicated that appellant S.C., in such case, had a
chance to work on a case plan and that it was her understanding that he did not.
{¶7} Appellant S.C. obtained the Quest assessment as required by his case
plan and followed recommendations that he participate in Quest services. Pounds
testified that appellant S.C., who had past problems with substance abuse, submitted to
random drug screens and that there were no concerns about current drug use. She Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 5
further testified that appellant S.C. had obtained a medication assessment and was
currently on medication, although she did not know the name of the medication.
{¶8} Pounds also testified that appellant M.S. was on medication and was
going regularly to a therapist. Both parents attended Goodwill Parenting. While
appellant M.S. got a certificate of participation, Goodwill noted that they had to provide
constant supervision to her and that they had “grave concerns about her ability to
problem solve and to spontaneously respond to the special needs of [J.C.].” Transcript
at 10. She testified that he had a condition that affects his lymphatic system and causes
painful swelling. J.C. also has a respiratory condition and requires breathing treatments
and could have an asthma attack very easily. Appellant M.S., according to evaluations,
has the cognitive ability of an eight year old. Pounds testified that when J.C. paid too
much attention to someone else, appellant M.S. would pout and get upset. She
indicated that she had concerns over appellant M.S’s ability to meet J.C.’s day to day
needs because J.C. was very active and appellant M.S. was easily distracted. Pound
also testified that J.C. requires daily massages and she was unsure if appellant M.S.
was really aware of what that entailed.
{¶9} While appellant M.S. was actively involved in J.C.’s medical appointments,
appellant S.C. was not and attended sporadically due to his work schedule. Pounds
testified that they were never able to obtain verification of appellant S.C.’s work and
that, in her opinion, he did not recognize appellant M.C.’s limitations and became
frustrated with her. Appellants were very short with each other and Pounds testified that
because of J.C.’s medical issues, appellants had to work together. When asked, she
testified that appellants had attended what their case plan required them to, but had not Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 6
done well because they did not retain information. She further testified that while
appellant M.S. consistently attended family visits, appellant S.C. had not and had
missed a majority prior to his participation in the Northeast Ohio Parenting Program.
Since attending the program, he had done better, but had missed a couple of visits.
Pounds, when asked if the risks that were present at the beginning of the case had
been reduced, stated that they had not. She testified that she had made sure that
appellants had bus passes and offered to give them rides to places to help them
complete their case plan and that she had rearranged visits to accommodate them. She
further testified that in July of 2012, appellant S.C. was charged with menacing and she
was concerned with his anger issues.
{¶10} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that appellant M.S. had completed
Goodwill Parenting and had retained an average amount of information and that she
had completed the parenting assessment. Pounds testified that the majority of her
concerns were not related to appellant M.S.’s completion of case plan services, but
rather with outside issues such as her relationship with appellant S.C. She indicated
that no one believed that appellant M.S. could do it on her own, but that there was no
concern that she could not provide food, shelter or clothing to J.C. or get him to medical
appointments. Pounds agreed that there was never a referral made to MRDD to help
appellant M.S. with case plan services. Pounds further testified that appellants currently
lived together. Pounds stated that appellant M.S. did not have the cognitive ability to
parent J.C. even though appellant M.S. paid her own rent, attended appointments, went
grocery shopping and prepared meals, and completed training in CPR. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 7
{¶11} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that appellant S.C. did fairly well
at Goodwill and that the only recommendation was individual counseling, which he
continued attending. She further testified that appellant S.C. was working during the
day under the table for a construction company and that because he was then working
the afternoon shift, he was able to attend more medical appointments for J.C. She
agreed that there had always been concern about the stability of the relationship
between appellants. On redirect, Pounds testified that the Intensive Parent Child
Interaction program therapist did not recommend that J.C. be returned home and did
not recommend a move to unsupervised visitation.
{¶12} Dr. Amy Thomas of Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health testified that
appellant M.S. completed a parenting evaluation with her. She testified that she had
concerns about the agency’s’ previous involvement with appellant M.S. and the
circumstances of the same. She testified that appellant M.S. had tolerated abuse in a
previous relationship and lied in such case when she told law enforcement that she had
injured her 6 week old child when she had not. Dr. Thomas questioned appellant M.S.’s
processing and judgment and noted that appellant M.S. remained with the perpetrator of
the abuse for another six months. The child in such case had a number of broken
bones. Appellant M.S. was convicted of obstruction.
{¶13} Dr. Thomas also testified that appellant M.S. indicated that she was
concerned with appellant S.C.’s addiction to marijuana and his fixation with playing
video games and was concerned that he would not help her financially. She testified
that appellant M.S.’s full scale IQ was 63 and that she was functioning at the level of an
eight year old in terms of verbal and non-verbal skills. Dr. Thomas stated that she was Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 8
concerned about her ability to understand medical directives and her limitations in
judgment, reasoning and processing information. She opined that appellant M.S.’s
parenting difficulties would increase as J.C. became older and required more
assistance. She did not believe that appellant S.C. was a strong support system for
appellant M.S.
{¶14} Dr. Thomas diagnosed appellant M.S. with dependent personality disorder
and indicated that this meant that she was going to tolerate dysfunctional unhealthy
relationships. She voiced concerns over appellant M.S.’s stubbornness and ability to
accept feedback. Appellant M.S. also was diagnosed with major depressive disorder,
irritability and mood swings. She also has anger management issues with yelling and
screaming. Dr. Thomas indicated that appellant’s diagnoses would affect every aspect
of her parenting ability and that depression would negatively affect her cognitive ability.
Appellant M.S., according to her, was unable to address more complicated issues.
When asked her recommendations, Dr. Thomas testified that she did not believe that
appellant M.S. could independently parent J.C. She had strong reservations about
offering recommendations for services due to appellant M.S.’s low intellectual
functioning and lack of a strong support system.
{¶15} Dr. Thomas also was questioned about appellant S.C. She testified he
completed a parenting evaluation with her and that his previous involvement with the
agency caused her concern. She noted that appellant S.C., in his previous case, was
not actively involved in maintaining contact with his children and that his level of
involvement with them was lacking. She testified that appellant S.C. had no sense of
appellant M.S.’s limitations, but that he was forthcoming about his past substance Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 9
abuse. Appellant S.C. reported that he had abused alcohol in the past and reported that
his use of marijuana was very problematic. According to him, appellant M.S. did not
support him in maintaining his sobriety, appeared to sabotage him and was jealous that
he might meet someone at a twelve step meeting. Dr. Thomas testified that appellant
S.C. was functioning in the below average range of intellectual ability and that use of
marijuana would compromise him intellectually. He did not understand that appellant
M.S. was unable to independently parent J.C.
{¶16} Appellant S.C. reported that he had one or two domestic violence charges
and that he was addicted to playing video games. Dr. Thomas testified that this playing
impacted his relationship with appellant M.S. and that as a result of his game playing,
he did not visit with J.C. as often as he could have. She voiced concerns that he would
not be able to attend to J.C.’s needs due to his obsession with video games. Dr.
Thomas diagnosed appellant S.C. with major depressive disorder and features of
borderline personality disorder and testified that he had very poor coping skills and had
engaged in superficial cutting. According to her, he was immature, lazy and
unmotivated. She opined that the her prognosis for his ability to care for J.C. was
“guarded at best.” Transcript at 53.
{¶17} The next witness to testify was Amy Humrighouse, a parenting instructor
at Goodwill Parenting. She testified that appellant M.S. received a certificate of
completion and had perfect attendance, but that there were concerns about visitation.
Appellant M.S. according to her, did not appear comfortable dealing with J.C.’s medical
issues and would panic when his heart monitor went off. She also needed assistance
with changing diapers. Humrighouse voiced concerns over appellant M.S.’s ability to Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 10
care for J.C. for the long term because he was fragile and had medical and
developmental issues. Humrighouse also voiced concerns that appellant M.S. did not
make changes in her relationships and did not establish independent housing, but had
stayed with friends. She indicated that she had concerns with her ability to
independently parent J.C. and would not feel comfortable making any recommendations
for unsupervised contact.
{¶18} Jen Fire, also a parenting instructor at Goodwill Parenting, testified that
appellant S.C. attended the program and received a certificate of participation. She
testified that there were still concerns with appellant S.C. Fire noted that although he
was told that there would be a home inspection, there were safety concerns with
appellant S.C.’s home. She also testified that she was concerned about issues
between appellants who were in an off and on chaotic relationship. Fire testified that
appellant S.C. was insistent that appellant M.S. would watch J.C. while he was at work,
despite being advised of her limitations.
{¶19} On cross-examination Fire testified that appellant S.C. had a good bond
with J.C. and was attentive to him. She testified that he acted appropriately during
visits, which were supervised, and that if the monitors on J.C. went off, he would handle
the matter. Fire indicated that she believed that appellant S.C. had anger issues that he
needed to address.
{¶20} Becky Crookston, a therapist with Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health,
testified that she does the IPCI (Intensive Parent Child Interaction) program and that
both appellants had come to her program the previous summer. She indicated
significant concerns existed about the parties’ relationship because appellant S.C. was Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 11
very dominant and was demanding. She indicated that she was concerned that
appellant S.C. might be able to see J.C.’s needs, but be unable to meet the same and
then expect appellant M.S. to do so. According to Crookston, appellant M.S.
personalized the child’s interactions and responded in the manner of an immature child.
She testified that she was concerned that appellant M.S. might put her own needs or
those of appellant S.C. over J.C.’s needs. Crookston also was worried that appellants
did not present a unified front and were forgetting J.C’.s needs even when others were
around. Crookston also testified that she was concerned that appellant S.C. had anger
issues as evidenced by his report of taking a baseball bat to his employer’s home or
building. She believed that he did not have the ability to cope with problems.
Appellants did not successfully complete the program because they were too focused
on their own individual problems. She indicated that she was concerned that appellants
did not have the ability to care for J.C. because of appellant S.C.’s violent tendencies,
the conflict in their relationship, and because appellant S.C. was demanding and
appellant M.S. shut down. She could not recommend that the parents be unsupervised
with any baby.
{¶21} At the best interest hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that J.C. was two
years old and was born two months premature. She testified that he suffered from
Milroy’s disease and that such disease causes a lot of swelling in his body. As a result,
J.C. requires a diet low in salt and also has to be massaged every morning after his
bath to “help things get moving.” Transcript at 98. She testified that he is involved with
physical and speech therapy. Pounds further testified that J.C. is in foster care and is in
a foster home that specialized in receiving children with special needs. The foster Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 12
parents have adopted special needs children in the past and have been trained to deal
with medical devices. There are three other adopted children in the home and the family
has a daughter with special needs who is in independent living. Pounds testified that
J.C. got along well with the other children, that he was bonded with the family, and that
the foster family was interested in adoption. Pounds further testified that there was a
bond between appellants and J.C., but that she believed that permanent custody was in
his best interest because appellants did not completely understand his needs and were
not completely able to attend to them. She testified that J.C. needed permanency and
that she did not believe that any more time would make a difference.
{¶22} On cross-examination, Pounds testified that she never asked appellants
about relative placements and that appellant S.C.’s mother never contacted her. On
redirect, she testified that she was confident that alternative relative placement had
been addressed.
{¶23} Appellant M.S. testified at the hearing and described Milroy‘s disease and
how massage helped J.C. She testified that he saw a total of six doctors including an
eye doctor and that she had been to all of his medical appointments. Appellant M.S.
testified that she was certified in CPR and that she could handle an emergency
situation. On cross-examination, she testified that J.C. has asthma, that both appellants
smoked and that there was a dog in the home. She indicated that they smoked outside.
Appellant M.S. also testified that her home was ready for J.C.
{¶24} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on February 27, 2013, the trial court
terminated appellants’ parental rights and granted permanent custody of J.C. to
SCDJFS. The trial court, in its Judgment Entry, found that J.C. could not be placed with Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 13
either parent at the present time or within a reasonable time and should not be placed
with either parent and that he had been in the custody of SCDJFS for 12 or more
months in a consecutive 22 month period. The trial court also found that appellant M.S.
had previously had her parental rights divested with respect to another child. Moreover,
the trial court found that it was in his best interest for permanent custody to be granted
to the agency. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed the same day.
{¶25} Appellant M.S. appealed from the trial court’s February 27, 2013
Judgment Entry, raising the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶26} THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE MINOR CHILD
CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH APPELLANT WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶27} THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST INTERESTS
OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING OF PERMANENT
CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶28} Her case has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00056.
{¶29} Appellant S.C. also appealed from the trial court’s February 27, 2013
Judgment Entry, raising the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶30} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY
TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND FAMILY SERVICES AS ITS
FINDING THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WERE SERVED BY SUCH
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶31} His case has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00061. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 14
{¶32} For purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the two cases
together.
Assignments of Error in Case No. 2013 CA 00056 and Assignment of Error in Case No. 2013 CA 00061
{¶33} Appellant M.S., in her first assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA
00056, argues that the trial court’s finding that J.C. could not and should not be placed
with her within a reasonable time was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the
evidence. Appellant M.S., in her second assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA
00056, and appellant S.C., in his sole assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 00061,
argue that the trial court’s finding that J.C.’s best interest would be served by the
granting of permanent custody was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the
evidence.
{¶34} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is
relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or
her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911 (Feb. 10,
1982). 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 Construction, 54 Ohio St.2d
279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶35} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d
77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is
“crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties' Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 15
demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77
Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997-Ohio-260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.
{¶36} 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.
{¶37} 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.
{¶38} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody
hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the
child with the parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and
any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child as
expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 16
for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) 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.
{¶39} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, a trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
{¶40} In the case sub judice, the trial court found by clear and convincing
evidence that the child had been in the temporary custody of a public children services
agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period pursuant
to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Appellants do not challenge the trial court's finding. This
finding alone, in conjunction with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant
of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. No.2008CA00118, 2008–Ohio–5458, ¶
45.
{¶41} 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. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 17
{¶42} The trial court determined that the child could not be placed with
appellants within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), which requires the
following findings:
“(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home
and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the
agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused
the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously
and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to
be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents
have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider
parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social
and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made
available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to
allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.”
{¶43} A review of the record supports the trial court's decision that the child
could not and should not be placed with appellants within a reasonable time. As noted
by the trial court, appellant M.S., who functions at the level of an eight year old, had
previously lost another child to the permanent custody of SCDJFS and appellant S.C.
had been involved with the agency in a case in which two of his children were placed in
the custody of a relative. In addition, at the hearing, testimony was adduced that
appellant M.S. lacked judgment, reasoning and the ability to make good choices and
was not able to independently care for J.C. Appellant M.S. was functioning at the level
of an eight year old and lacked a strong support system. She was unable to parent Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 18
J.C. without supervision. In addition, testimony was adduced that appellant S.C. was
addicted to marijuana and fixated on video games. Testimony was adduced that he did
not understand appellant M.S.’s limitations and that appellant M.S. did not support him
in his attempts to abstain from drug use. Both appellants were terminated from the
Intensive Parent Child Interaction Program because of their inability to make progress in
the curriculum due, in part, to their conflict-filled relationship. Both appellants were
diagnosed with mental health disorders.
{¶44} We further find that the trial court did not err in finding that it was in J.C.’s
best interest for permanent custody to be granted to the agency. At the best interest
hearing, Wanda Pounds testified that J.C. was placed in a foster home that was versed
in children with special needs and was doing well. The foster family has three other
children of their own currently in their home and expressed an interest in adopting J.C.
Pounds testified that J.C. was bonded with his foster family and that she believed that
permanent custody was in his best interest because appellants did not completely
understand his needs and were not completely able to attend to them. She testified that
J.C. needed permanency and that she did not believe that any more time would make a
difference.
{¶45} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s finding that J.C.’s best
interest would be served by the granting of permanent custody was not against the
manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶46} Appellant M.S.’s two assignments of error and appellant S.C. sole
assignment of error are, therefore, overruled. Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00056 & 2013CA00061 19
{¶47} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
Family Court Division, terminating appellants’ parental rights and granting permanent
custody of J.C. to Stark County Department of Job and Family Services is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P J. and
Farmer, J. concur.
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
CRB/dr [Cite as In re J.C., 2013-Ohio-3116.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : : J.C. : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY : : : : CASE NO. 2013CA00056
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, is
affirmed. Cost assessed to appellants.