[Cite as In re J.M., 2020-Ohio-1410.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER: JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. J.M. Hon. John W. Wise, J. J.M. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 2019 CA 00058 & 2019 CA 00059
O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. F2017-0063 & F2017-584
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 9, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For LCJFS For Eric Moss
WILLIAM C. HAYES JERMAINE COLQUITT Licking County Prosecutor 33 W. Main Street, Suite #109 Newark, Ohio 43055 PAULA M. SAWYERS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Guardian Ad Litem 20 S. Second Street, Fourth Floor Newark, Ohio 43055 JOHN OBORA 29 S. Park Place Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 2 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
For Naisha Moss
CAROLYNN FITTRO FITTRO LAW, LLC 1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D Columbus, Ohio 43215 Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 3 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00051 and 2019 CA 00052, appellant
Naisha Moss (“Mother”) appeals the June 21, 2019 judgment entries entered by the
Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which overruled her objections
to the magistrate’s May 22, 2019 decision, recommending her parental rights, privileges,
and responsibilities with respect to her two minor children (“the Children”, collectively;
“Child 1” and “Child 2”, individually) be terminated, and permanent custody of the Children
be granted to appellee Licking County Job and Family Services, Children Services
Department (“LCJFS”). In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00058 and 2019 CA 00059,
appellant Eric Moss (“Father”) appeals the same judgment entries with respect to the
termination of his parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the Children.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of Child 1 and Child 2. On
February 1, 2017, Mother and Child 1 presented at New Beginnings Domestic Violence
Shelter where Mother reported she was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of
Father. Mother received notice to leave the shelter on February 7, 2017, due to her failure
to follow shelter rules and comply with the requests of the staff. LCJFS filed a request for
an emergency ex-parte order of removal on February 7, 2017. Following a shelter care
hearing on the same day, the trial court issued an ex-parte order placing Child 1 in the
emergency temporary custody of LCJFS. The trial court appointed Attorney John Obora
as guardian ad litem for Child 1.
{¶3} On February 8, 2017, LCJFS filed a complaint alleging Child 1 was
dependent. Mother had reported being homeless since November, 2016. Mother was Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 4 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
unemployed and had no independent financial means to support herself and Child 1.
While at the shelter, Mother’s room, at times, smelled of marijuana and alcohol. The
shelter staff observed Mother display unusual behavior including bathing Child 1 at
3:30a.m.; leaving Child 1 alone in a car seat while she went outside to smoke; and calling
Child 1 various names such as “demon spawn”. Mother’s behavior was erratic while she
was residing at the shelter. Mother refused to submit to drug screens at the shelter and
at LCJFS. LCJFS also had concerns regarding a domestically violent relationship
between Mother and Father. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on April
6, 2017, and found Child 1 to be dependent. Child 1 was placed in the temporary custody
of LCJFS.
{¶4} Mother gave birth to Child 2 on August 17, 2017. Mother admitted using
methamphetamine days prior to Child 2’s birth. In addition to ongoing substance abuse
issues, LCJFS continued to have concerns pertaining to Mother and Father’s housing
and financial instability, their volatile relationship, their mental health issues, as well as
their lack of parent education. The trial court issued an ex-parte order placing Child 2 in
the emergency temporary custody of LCJFS on August 18, 2017. On August 21, 2017,
LCJFS filed a complaint alleging Child 2 was dependent. The trial court appointed
Attorney Obora as guardian ad litem for Child 2. Parents were ordered to undergo
evaluations and attend counseling at the Licking County Alcoholism Prevention Program
or other approved drug and/or alcohol treatment program, and submit to random drug
screening and breathalyzer testing. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on
October 16, 2017, and found Child 2 to be dependent. Child 2 was also placed in the
temporary custody of LCJFS. Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 5 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
{¶5} On January 18, 2018, LCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody. The
magistrate conducted a hearing on LCJFS’s motion on March 30, 2018. Via decision filed
May 1, 2018, the magistrate denied LCJFS’s motion and ordered a six month extension
of temporary custody of Child 1. The magistrate did not order an extension of temporary
custody relative to Child 2 as his case was only 8 months from its inception. The trial
court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision via judgment entry filed May 1,
2018.
{¶6} On July 6, 2018, LCJFS filed a second motion for permanent custody. The
trial court scheduled the matter for hearing on October 22, 2018. The guardian ad litem
filed his written report on October 15, 2018. The trial court subsequently continued the
matter to January 2, 2019. At the hearing, LCJFS requested a second extension of
temporary custody of Child 1 and a first extension of temporary custody of Child 2. The
magistrate granted the extensions until February 7, 2019, and February 18, 2019,
respectively.
{¶7} On January 8, 2019, LCJFS filed a third motion for permanent custody. The
motion came on for hearing before the magistrate on March 27, 2019.
{¶8} Kelsey Weisentstein, an ongoing social worker for LCJFS, testified she was
assigned to the case in February, 2017, due to concerns over Parent’s mental health,
drug and alcohol abuse, unstable and unsafe housing, unemployment and economic
instability, as well as domestic violence. Mother and Father’s case plans required them
to complete mental health assessments and follow all recommendations; complete
substance abuse assessments and follow any recommendations; submit to random drug Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 6 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
screens; address domestic violence concerns; engage in parenting education; and obtain
and maintain stable housing and employment.
{¶9} Mother completed her mental health assessment. She was diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with depressed mood and stimulant dependence. Mother
commenced treatment. Because Mother was often late to her appointments and
eventually failed to attend appointments altogether, her case was closed. Mother did not
reengage in counseling. Mother refused to accept responsibility for her actions and
avoided accountability for the removal of the Children. Mother became suspicious and
believed there was a conspiracy by LCJFS to keep the Children. Mother was belligerent
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re J.M., 2020-Ohio-1410.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER: JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. J.M. Hon. John W. Wise, J. J.M. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 2019 CA 00058 & 2019 CA 00059
O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. F2017-0063 & F2017-584
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 9, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For LCJFS For Eric Moss
WILLIAM C. HAYES JERMAINE COLQUITT Licking County Prosecutor 33 W. Main Street, Suite #109 Newark, Ohio 43055 PAULA M. SAWYERS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Guardian Ad Litem 20 S. Second Street, Fourth Floor Newark, Ohio 43055 JOHN OBORA 29 S. Park Place Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 2 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
For Naisha Moss
CAROLYNN FITTRO FITTRO LAW, LLC 1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D Columbus, Ohio 43215 Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 3 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00051 and 2019 CA 00052, appellant
Naisha Moss (“Mother”) appeals the June 21, 2019 judgment entries entered by the
Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which overruled her objections
to the magistrate’s May 22, 2019 decision, recommending her parental rights, privileges,
and responsibilities with respect to her two minor children (“the Children”, collectively;
“Child 1” and “Child 2”, individually) be terminated, and permanent custody of the Children
be granted to appellee Licking County Job and Family Services, Children Services
Department (“LCJFS”). In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00058 and 2019 CA 00059,
appellant Eric Moss (“Father”) appeals the same judgment entries with respect to the
termination of his parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the Children.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of Child 1 and Child 2. On
February 1, 2017, Mother and Child 1 presented at New Beginnings Domestic Violence
Shelter where Mother reported she was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of
Father. Mother received notice to leave the shelter on February 7, 2017, due to her failure
to follow shelter rules and comply with the requests of the staff. LCJFS filed a request for
an emergency ex-parte order of removal on February 7, 2017. Following a shelter care
hearing on the same day, the trial court issued an ex-parte order placing Child 1 in the
emergency temporary custody of LCJFS. The trial court appointed Attorney John Obora
as guardian ad litem for Child 1.
{¶3} On February 8, 2017, LCJFS filed a complaint alleging Child 1 was
dependent. Mother had reported being homeless since November, 2016. Mother was Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 4 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
unemployed and had no independent financial means to support herself and Child 1.
While at the shelter, Mother’s room, at times, smelled of marijuana and alcohol. The
shelter staff observed Mother display unusual behavior including bathing Child 1 at
3:30a.m.; leaving Child 1 alone in a car seat while she went outside to smoke; and calling
Child 1 various names such as “demon spawn”. Mother’s behavior was erratic while she
was residing at the shelter. Mother refused to submit to drug screens at the shelter and
at LCJFS. LCJFS also had concerns regarding a domestically violent relationship
between Mother and Father. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on April
6, 2017, and found Child 1 to be dependent. Child 1 was placed in the temporary custody
of LCJFS.
{¶4} Mother gave birth to Child 2 on August 17, 2017. Mother admitted using
methamphetamine days prior to Child 2’s birth. In addition to ongoing substance abuse
issues, LCJFS continued to have concerns pertaining to Mother and Father’s housing
and financial instability, their volatile relationship, their mental health issues, as well as
their lack of parent education. The trial court issued an ex-parte order placing Child 2 in
the emergency temporary custody of LCJFS on August 18, 2017. On August 21, 2017,
LCJFS filed a complaint alleging Child 2 was dependent. The trial court appointed
Attorney Obora as guardian ad litem for Child 2. Parents were ordered to undergo
evaluations and attend counseling at the Licking County Alcoholism Prevention Program
or other approved drug and/or alcohol treatment program, and submit to random drug
screening and breathalyzer testing. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on
October 16, 2017, and found Child 2 to be dependent. Child 2 was also placed in the
temporary custody of LCJFS. Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 5 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
{¶5} On January 18, 2018, LCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody. The
magistrate conducted a hearing on LCJFS’s motion on March 30, 2018. Via decision filed
May 1, 2018, the magistrate denied LCJFS’s motion and ordered a six month extension
of temporary custody of Child 1. The magistrate did not order an extension of temporary
custody relative to Child 2 as his case was only 8 months from its inception. The trial
court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision via judgment entry filed May 1,
2018.
{¶6} On July 6, 2018, LCJFS filed a second motion for permanent custody. The
trial court scheduled the matter for hearing on October 22, 2018. The guardian ad litem
filed his written report on October 15, 2018. The trial court subsequently continued the
matter to January 2, 2019. At the hearing, LCJFS requested a second extension of
temporary custody of Child 1 and a first extension of temporary custody of Child 2. The
magistrate granted the extensions until February 7, 2019, and February 18, 2019,
respectively.
{¶7} On January 8, 2019, LCJFS filed a third motion for permanent custody. The
motion came on for hearing before the magistrate on March 27, 2019.
{¶8} Kelsey Weisentstein, an ongoing social worker for LCJFS, testified she was
assigned to the case in February, 2017, due to concerns over Parent’s mental health,
drug and alcohol abuse, unstable and unsafe housing, unemployment and economic
instability, as well as domestic violence. Mother and Father’s case plans required them
to complete mental health assessments and follow all recommendations; complete
substance abuse assessments and follow any recommendations; submit to random drug Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 6 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
screens; address domestic violence concerns; engage in parenting education; and obtain
and maintain stable housing and employment.
{¶9} Mother completed her mental health assessment. She was diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with depressed mood and stimulant dependence. Mother
commenced treatment. Because Mother was often late to her appointments and
eventually failed to attend appointments altogether, her case was closed. Mother did not
reengage in counseling. Mother refused to accept responsibility for her actions and
avoided accountability for the removal of the Children. Mother became suspicious and
believed there was a conspiracy by LCJFS to keep the Children. Mother was belligerent
with Weisenstein and made threats of killing the social worker in Facebook posts.
{¶10} Mother continued to use methamphetamines. Mother was discharged from
substance abuse treatment in February, 2019. Mother’s counselor, Deborah Esterline,
testified Mother told her she had not used methamphetamine since October, 2017. At
the hearing, Mother denied telling that to Esterline. When advised of the results of one
of her drug screens during a visit with the Children, Mother began to scream obscenities
at Weisenstein and accused LCJFS of trapping her. A sheriff’s deputy eventually
escorted Mother out of the facility. Social worker Stephanie Stevenson was assigned to
the family thereafter. During a meeting with Stevenson on February 27, 2019, Mother
admitted she had used methamphetamine that month. Mother also disclosed to
Stevenson Father was emotionally abusive to her. At the hearing, Mother testified her
last abuse of methamphetamine was December, 2018. Mother had not been employed
at any time during the life of the case. Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 7 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
{¶11} Father completed his mental health assessment and was not referred for
services. Father completed a substance abuse assessment in March, 2017. Father had
two negative drug screens during the summer. After Father refused multiple drug screens
in late 2017, he was asked to complete a second assessment in November, 2017. Father
was attending a men’s group and meeting with a counselor, but he had not been
successfully discharged at the time of the hearing. Loretta Snoke, Father’s counselor at
Licking County Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program, testified Father continues to deny
having any substance abuse issues. Father told Weisenstein his private time was not
her business as he could use methamphetamines and still parent fine. In October, 2018,
and again in February, 2019, Father told LCJFS staff if his drug screen was positive it
was caused by being pricked by a dirty needle when he was renovating the apartment
above his residence.
{¶12} Father had been employed with the Licking County Auto Auction for a period
of time and reported having side jobs. In lieu of rent, Father is employed by the landlord
refurbishing the entire duplex in which they live. Father also performs property
maintenance tasks and side jobs for the landlord.
{¶13} Parents had each completed three out of ten parenting classes. Parents
were living in the duplex Father was helping to renovate. The inside of the residence was
last observed by LCJFS personnel in February, 2019, at which time the room designated
for the Children was filled with unassembled furniture. Between February 27, 2019, and
March 25, 2019, Stevenson attempted to contact Parents on seven occasions, but such
efforts were fruitless. Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 8 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
{¶14} During the best interest portion of the hearing, Weisenstein testified the
Children do not have any special needs. The Children are placed together in a family
foster home. The placement is a foster to adopt situation. The Children are bonded to
each other and with their foster family. Child 1, who is 3 ½ years old, refers to his foster
mother as “mommy”. The Children are comfortable in their foster family’s care and home.
Although Parents display appropriate interactions with the Children during visitation and
they are bonded with the Children, Parents do not have insight into the issues which
caused the removal of the Children from their care.
{¶15} Via decision filed May 22, 2019, the magistrate recommended Parents’
parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to the Children be terminated
and permanent custody of the Children be granted to LCJFS. The magistrate found
Parents continued and repeatedly failed to remedy the concerns which led to the
Children’s removal. The magistrate also found Parents had refused to accept
responsibility for and lacked insight into the issues which led to the Children’s removal.
The magistrate further found it was in the best interest of the Children to grant permanent
custody to LCJFS. The trial court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision via
Judgment Entry filed May 22, 2019. Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision
on June 3, 2019. Via Judgment Entry filed June 21, 2019, the trial court overruled
Mother’s objections.
{¶16} It is from this judgment entry Parents appeal.
{¶17} In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00051 and 2019 CA 00052, Mother
raises the following assignments of error: Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 9 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FINDING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF J.M. AND J.M. TO PERMANENTLY
TERMINATE THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THEIR PARENTS AND
PLACE THEM IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF LICKING COUNTY
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILDREN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT FOUND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT J.M.
AND J.M. COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THEIR MOTHER WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THEIR
MOTHER.
{¶18} In Licking County App. Nos. 2019 CA 00058 and 2019 CA 00059, Father
raises the following assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO THE LICKING COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES BECAUSE THE STATE
FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
THE FACTS CONTAINED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING, ADMITTING Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 10 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
OVER OBJECTION FINDINGS OF FACT CONTAINED IN A PRIOR
PERMANENT CUSTODY ADJUDICATION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING THE
GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO FILE A WRITTEN REPORT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH R.C. 2151.414(C).
{¶19} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
LICKING APP. NO. 2019 CA 00051
LICKING APP. NO. 2019 CA 00052
I, II
{¶20} We elect to address Mother’s first and second assignments of error
together. In her first assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court erred in finding
it was in the Children’s best interest to terminate her parental rights and grant permanent
custody to LCJFS. In her second assignment of error, Mother challenges the trial court's
finding the Children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not
be placed with her.
{¶21} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent
and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v.
Jeffries, Stark App. No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by
some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 11 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v.
Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶22} 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.
{¶23} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to
grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant
permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not
abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents
within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (b) the child is
abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able
to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or
more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or
more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,
1999.
{¶24} 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 child's 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 Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 12 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard
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.
{¶25} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
{¶26} 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.
{¶27} As set forth in our statement of the facts and case, supra, as well as the
magistrate’s thorough 17 page May 22, 2019 decision, Mother failed to complete her case
plan services. Mother continued to use methamphetamines. Mother lied about her last
usage which resulted in her substance abuse counselor discharging her from treatment.
Mother failed to reengage in mental health counseling after her case was closed due to
her failure to attend. Mother’s failure to address her own mental health issues prevented
her from addressing Parent’s domestic violence issues. Mother refused to accept Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 13 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
responsibility for her actions and avoided accountability for the removal of the Children.
Mother had not completed parenting classes. LCJFS was unable to verify whether
Mother had appropriate housing. Mother was unemployed throughout the pendency of
the case.
{¶28} The Children do not have any special needs. They are placed together in
a family foster home. The placement is a foster to adopt situation. The Children are
bonded to each other and with their foster family. Child 1, who is 3 ½ years old, refers to
his foster mother as “mommy”. The Children are comfortable in their foster family’s care
and home.
{¶29} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding it was in the best
interest of the Children to grant permanent custody to LCJFS is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence. We further find the trial court's finding the Children could not be
placed with Mother within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with her is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶30} Mother’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
LICKING APP. NO. 2019 CA 00058
LICKING APP. NO. 2019 CA 00059
I, II, III
{¶31} We need not address Father’s assignments of error. Father appealed the
trial court’s June 21, 2019 judgment entry, overruling Mother’s objections to the
magistrate’s May 22, 2019 decision. However, a review of the record reveals Father
failed to file timely, written objections to the magistrate's decision.
{¶32} Civ. R. 53 provides: Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 14 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
b) Objections to magistrate's decision. * * *
ii) Specificity of objection. An objection to a magistrate's decision
shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.
***
iv) Waiver of right to assign adoption by court as error on appeal.
Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal
the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or
not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under
Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or
conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
{¶33} Because Father failed to properly object to the magistrate's May 22, 2019
decision in accordance with Civ .R. 53(D)(3), Father has waived the right to assign those
issues as error on appeal. See, Adams v. Adams, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 13CA0022, 2014–
Ohio–1327, ¶ 6.
{¶34} Based upon our Statement of the Facts, supra, and our review of the record,
we do not find any of Father’s assignments of error have merit, let alone rise to the level
of plain error.
{¶35} Father’s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. Licking County, Case Nos. 2019 CA 00051, 2019 CA 00052, 15 2019 CA 00058, 2019 CA 00059
{¶36} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J. Wise, John, J. and Baldwin, J. concur