[Cite as In re J.W., 2024-Ohio-5142.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
IN RE: :
J.W., et al. : CASE NOS. CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009 : OPINION : 10/28/2024
:
APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case Nos. 20193045 and 20193046
The CMW Law Firm, and Anthony D. Maiorano, for appellant.
Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle Sollars, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant ("Grandmother"), the maternal grandmother of minor children
J.W. ("James") and J.H. ("Jill"), appeals the decision of the Clinton County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the children to the Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
Clinton County Department of Job and Family Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons
outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} The facts of this case paint a picture of instability and recurring issues that
have plagued these children's lives for several years. Nine-year-old James (born
September 29, 2015) and 12-year-old Jill (born February 17, 2012) were first removed
from their home and placed in the Agency's custody on August 31, 2019. The children's
mother ("Mother") was in prison and the children were in Grandmother's care and living
with her. She had power of attorney over both children.2 The police were called, and
Grandmother was arrested for domestic violence for inappropriately disciplining James.
Two months later, the children were adjudicated dependent. A case plan was created by
the Agency that involved Grandmother. In January 2020, the children were returned, and
Grandmother was granted temporary custody, with the Agency having protective
supervision.
{¶ 3} Over the next few years, the children were removed two more times and
custody alternated between the Agency, Grandmother, and Mother. In December 2021,
the children were again removed after Grandmother was hospitalized due to
complications from COVID-19. The children returned home in March 2023. The following
month, Mother, who was living with Grandmother, was granted temporary supervision
with Grandmother assisting and the Agency having protective supervision. But just over
1. "James" and "Jill" are pseudonyms adopted in this opinion for the purposes of privacy and readability. In re D.P., 2022-Ohio-4553, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.).
2. Since Mother was incarcerated and the locations of the fathers of the children were unknown, Grandmother was treated as a party. See Juv.R. 2(BB); In re J.T.S., 2015-Ohio-364 (12th Dist.). Grandmother received the benefit of court-appointed counsel, was a party to the case plans created by the Agency and was granted temporary custody of the children at times during the case.
-2- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
a month later, in June, the children were removed for a third time, after Mother had a
mental health crisis in Grandmother's home.
{¶ 4} At the end of June 2023, the Agency filed a motion to remove Grandmother
as a party. A hearing was held in July at which several witnesses testified, including the
caseworker, the children's Court Appointed Special Advocate ("CASA"), as well as
Grandmother's brother, son, and sister. In August, the trial court entered a decision
denying the Agency's motion and allowing Grandmother to continue as a party. The court
found that Grandmother "has a lot of problems to overcome which include her health,
living arrangement, including keeping house, and seems at times to have her priorities
wrong." The court questioned whether Grandmother was up to the challenging task of
custody and parenting that the children needed. Ultimately, the court gave Grandmother
the benefit of the doubt that living with her still could be an option for the children. But
the court said that "it will take a lot of life changes, lifestyle changes, and for grandmother
to stay healthy before the children's best interest would be to reside with her."
{¶ 5} In October 2023, the Agency moved for permanent custody of the children.
A hearing on the motion was held on February 15, 2024. The court heard testimony from
the Agency caseworker. The caseworker testified about ongoing concerns with the
cleanliness and safety of Grandmother's home, Grandmother's relationship with Mother,
and Grandmother's ability to consistently implement parenting skills. Grandmother
testified about her desire to care for the children and her efforts to improve her situation.
The parties stipulated to the admission of the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine if Grandmother should be removed as a party. Initially, Mother opposed the
motion for permanent custody, but she withdrew her opposition during the hearing.
Disgruntled with the testimony, Mother walked out during the hearing and did not return.
-3- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
{¶ 6} The court received the written report and recommendation of the CASA.
The CASA did not think that placement with Grandmother was in the best interest of the
children. Grandmother had been given several chances to provide the care required by
the case plan, the CASA noted, but she has never been able to do so. She has not been
able to keep a reasonably clean house or provide the appropriate level of care for the
children, and the children had to be removed from her care three times. "And so," said
the CASA, "it's just been a continual process of not being able to provide sufficient care
and a safe environment for the children." The CASA recommended that permanent
custody be granted to the Agency.
{¶ 7} On April 3, 2024, the trial court issued its decision granting permanent
custody to the Agency, finding that the children had been in the Agency's custody for 12
of the prior 22 months and that permanent custody was in their best interests. The court
found that the children's fathers (each child had a different father) had abandoned them.
As for Grandmother, the court noted that Mother had lived with Grandmother for
substantial periods of time during the case. The relationship between them, though, was
"toxic," and their interactions around the children were inappropriate and exposed them
to domestic violence. The court noted that despite reporting long-term verbal and
physical abuse from Mother, Grandmother had only started working with protective
services the week before the hearing. Grandmother had been told by the Agency that
Mother should no longer live with her, but Grandmother still allowed Mother to move back
in late November 2023. Grandmother testified that Mother did not leave until February 8,
2024, a week before the permanent custody hearing. Grandmother claimed that she
would not allow Mother to live with her again, but the court did not believe her.
Grandmother, said the court, is unable to put the needs of herself and the children before
-4- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
the needs of others who appear to require assistance. The court found that Mother was
homeless and living in her vehicle and still abusing alcohol.
{¶ 8} Based on the testimony, the trial court noted that the concerns it had
expressed in its August 24, 2023 entry had not been alleviated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re J.W., 2024-Ohio-5142.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
IN RE: :
J.W., et al. : CASE NOS. CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009 : OPINION : 10/28/2024
:
APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case Nos. 20193045 and 20193046
The CMW Law Firm, and Anthony D. Maiorano, for appellant.
Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle Sollars, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant ("Grandmother"), the maternal grandmother of minor children
J.W. ("James") and J.H. ("Jill"), appeals the decision of the Clinton County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the children to the Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
Clinton County Department of Job and Family Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons
outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} The facts of this case paint a picture of instability and recurring issues that
have plagued these children's lives for several years. Nine-year-old James (born
September 29, 2015) and 12-year-old Jill (born February 17, 2012) were first removed
from their home and placed in the Agency's custody on August 31, 2019. The children's
mother ("Mother") was in prison and the children were in Grandmother's care and living
with her. She had power of attorney over both children.2 The police were called, and
Grandmother was arrested for domestic violence for inappropriately disciplining James.
Two months later, the children were adjudicated dependent. A case plan was created by
the Agency that involved Grandmother. In January 2020, the children were returned, and
Grandmother was granted temporary custody, with the Agency having protective
supervision.
{¶ 3} Over the next few years, the children were removed two more times and
custody alternated between the Agency, Grandmother, and Mother. In December 2021,
the children were again removed after Grandmother was hospitalized due to
complications from COVID-19. The children returned home in March 2023. The following
month, Mother, who was living with Grandmother, was granted temporary supervision
with Grandmother assisting and the Agency having protective supervision. But just over
1. "James" and "Jill" are pseudonyms adopted in this opinion for the purposes of privacy and readability. In re D.P., 2022-Ohio-4553, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.).
2. Since Mother was incarcerated and the locations of the fathers of the children were unknown, Grandmother was treated as a party. See Juv.R. 2(BB); In re J.T.S., 2015-Ohio-364 (12th Dist.). Grandmother received the benefit of court-appointed counsel, was a party to the case plans created by the Agency and was granted temporary custody of the children at times during the case.
-2- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
a month later, in June, the children were removed for a third time, after Mother had a
mental health crisis in Grandmother's home.
{¶ 4} At the end of June 2023, the Agency filed a motion to remove Grandmother
as a party. A hearing was held in July at which several witnesses testified, including the
caseworker, the children's Court Appointed Special Advocate ("CASA"), as well as
Grandmother's brother, son, and sister. In August, the trial court entered a decision
denying the Agency's motion and allowing Grandmother to continue as a party. The court
found that Grandmother "has a lot of problems to overcome which include her health,
living arrangement, including keeping house, and seems at times to have her priorities
wrong." The court questioned whether Grandmother was up to the challenging task of
custody and parenting that the children needed. Ultimately, the court gave Grandmother
the benefit of the doubt that living with her still could be an option for the children. But
the court said that "it will take a lot of life changes, lifestyle changes, and for grandmother
to stay healthy before the children's best interest would be to reside with her."
{¶ 5} In October 2023, the Agency moved for permanent custody of the children.
A hearing on the motion was held on February 15, 2024. The court heard testimony from
the Agency caseworker. The caseworker testified about ongoing concerns with the
cleanliness and safety of Grandmother's home, Grandmother's relationship with Mother,
and Grandmother's ability to consistently implement parenting skills. Grandmother
testified about her desire to care for the children and her efforts to improve her situation.
The parties stipulated to the admission of the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine if Grandmother should be removed as a party. Initially, Mother opposed the
motion for permanent custody, but she withdrew her opposition during the hearing.
Disgruntled with the testimony, Mother walked out during the hearing and did not return.
-3- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
{¶ 6} The court received the written report and recommendation of the CASA.
The CASA did not think that placement with Grandmother was in the best interest of the
children. Grandmother had been given several chances to provide the care required by
the case plan, the CASA noted, but she has never been able to do so. She has not been
able to keep a reasonably clean house or provide the appropriate level of care for the
children, and the children had to be removed from her care three times. "And so," said
the CASA, "it's just been a continual process of not being able to provide sufficient care
and a safe environment for the children." The CASA recommended that permanent
custody be granted to the Agency.
{¶ 7} On April 3, 2024, the trial court issued its decision granting permanent
custody to the Agency, finding that the children had been in the Agency's custody for 12
of the prior 22 months and that permanent custody was in their best interests. The court
found that the children's fathers (each child had a different father) had abandoned them.
As for Grandmother, the court noted that Mother had lived with Grandmother for
substantial periods of time during the case. The relationship between them, though, was
"toxic," and their interactions around the children were inappropriate and exposed them
to domestic violence. The court noted that despite reporting long-term verbal and
physical abuse from Mother, Grandmother had only started working with protective
services the week before the hearing. Grandmother had been told by the Agency that
Mother should no longer live with her, but Grandmother still allowed Mother to move back
in late November 2023. Grandmother testified that Mother did not leave until February 8,
2024, a week before the permanent custody hearing. Grandmother claimed that she
would not allow Mother to live with her again, but the court did not believe her.
Grandmother, said the court, is unable to put the needs of herself and the children before
-4- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
the needs of others who appear to require assistance. The court found that Mother was
homeless and living in her vehicle and still abusing alcohol.
{¶ 8} Based on the testimony, the trial court noted that the concerns it had
expressed in its August 24, 2023 entry had not been alleviated. The court expressed
concern regarding Grandmother's continuing health difficulties. The Agency had
observed recent declines in the condition of her home as well as her personal hygiene.
The court further noted that while Grandmother appeared to have assistance and support
from her extended family, the support was inconsistent. The court also pointed out that
Grandmother had not filed a motion for custody of the children.
{¶ 9} After considering the various factors required by law, the court determined
that it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to the Agency.
Mother and Grandmother had repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions causing the
children's removal, and the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable
time. Indeed, it appeared that Mother no longer wanted custody. Granting the Agency
permanent custody, said the court, was the only way that a secure permanent placement
could be achieved. Consequently, the court ordered that permanent custody of the
children be granted to the Agency, terminating the parental rights of their biological
parents.
{¶ 10} Grandmother appealed.
II. Analysis
{¶ 11} Grandmother assigns two errors to the trial court's permanent-custody
decision, arguing that the Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family
and that the trial court's best-interest finding was not supported by sufficient evidence and
was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
-5- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
A. Applicable law and standards of review
{¶ 12} We begin with the standard of review. The termination of parental rights is
a matter of profound constitutional significance, striking at the heart of fundamental
liberties safeguarded by our Constitution. In re M.G., 2023-Ohio-1316, ¶ 44 (12th Dist.).
Before the state may sever the sacred bonds between parent and child, it must satisfy
the stringent requirements set forth in R.C. 2151.414, shouldering the burden of proof by
clear and convincing evidence. See In re A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102, ¶ 18.
{¶ 13} The framework established by R.C. 2151.414 demands a two-pronged
inquiry before permanent custody may be granted to a children services agency. In re
K.P., 2022-Ohio-1347, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). First, the juvenile court must determine that at
least one of five statutory grounds exists. In re R.B., 2022-Ohio-1705, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.).
The establishment of any single ground suffices. In re C.S., 2020-Ohio-4414, ¶ 16 (12th
Dist.). These grounds include a determination that "[t]he child has been in the temporary
custody of . . . [a] public children services agencies . . . for twelve or more months of a
consecutive twenty-two-month period." R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Second, the court must
conclude that granting permanent custody to the children services agency serves the
child's best interests. In re M.H., 2022-Ohio-48, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.). This latter
determination embodies the paramount consideration in these weighty proceedings: the
welfare of the child.
{¶ 14} Appellate review of these determinations is appropriately deferential,
acknowledging the juvenile court's unique vantage point to assess credibility and weigh
evidence. The appellate inquiry typically centers on whether sufficient credible evidence
buttresses the court's decision. In re A.S., 2019-Ohio-4127, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). In rare
-6- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
instances, however, where the judgment appears manifestly at odds with the weight of
the evidence, reversal may be warranted. In re G.A., 2023-Ohio-643, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.).
This manifest weight review does not invite a mere rebalancing of the evidentiary scales.
Rather, it asks whether the trial court has so clearly lost its bearings as to create a
manifest miscarriage of justice. In re S.M., 2019-Ohio-198, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.), citing Eastley
v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20.
{¶ 15} In undertaking this analysis, the reviewing court must remain cognizant of
the strong presumption favoring the juvenile court's findings, particularly in the sensitive
realm of child custody determinations. In re R.K., 2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.).
When the evidence lends itself to multiple reasonable interpretations, the reviewing court
is duty-bound to embrace the one consonant with the juvenile court's judgment. In re
D.S., 2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 63 (12th Dist.).
B. The Agency made reasonable efforts
{¶ 16} The first assignment of error alleges:
{¶ 17} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE AGENCY USED
REASONABLE EFFORTS.
{¶ 18} Grandmother first contends that the Agency failed to make reasonable
efforts to reunify the family. R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) requires a juvenile court to determine
whether the children services agency "has made reasonable efforts . . . to eliminate the
continued removal of the child from his home, or to make it possible for the child to return
safely home."
{¶ 19} The juvenile court here made multiple reasonable-efforts determinations
throughout this case. The record shows that the Agency made extensive efforts to reunify
the family over the course of several years. These efforts included service referrals,
-7- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
supervised visitations, transitional visits, in-home visits, and transportation assistance.
The Agency provided Grandmother opportunities to engage in mental health and
substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and other supportive services. And she
attended mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. But ultimately, the
Agency determined that Grandmother would not be a safe and stable placement option.
{¶ 20} While it is true, as Grandmother contends, that the Agency did not conduct
a formal kinship placement study with her, the caseworker testified that no study was
done due to the Agency's belief that Grandmother's home would fail an inspection. In
any event, not conducting such a study alone does not negate the Agency's overall efforts
to work towards reunification.
{¶ 21} The court's custody decision is based on a broader assessment of
Grandmother's situation rather than solely on the absence of a formal home study.
Grandmother continued to allow Mother to live in the home against the Agency's advice.
The Agency repeatedly told Grandmother that she had to keep her home clean, which
she did not do consistently. Thus the recurring issues with home conditions and the
volatile relationship between Grandmother and Mother persisted despite the Agency's
interventions. "[T]he Agency was not required to make 'all available efforts' to assist her."
In re D.D., 2024-Ohio-2769, ¶ 28 (12th Dist.), quoting In re S.U., 2014-Ohio-5748, ¶ 16
(12th Dist.) ("'Reasonable efforts' does not mean all available efforts"). Given the length
of this case and the multiple attempts at reunification, the trial court did not err in finding
that the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children and work
towards reunification.
{¶ 22} The first assignment of error is overruled.
-8- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
C. The best-interest finding is supported by the evidence
{¶ 23} The second assignment of error alleges:
{¶ 24} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
THE CHILDREN TO THE AGENCY.
{¶ 25} Grandmother next contends that the trial court's best-interest finding to
grant permanent custody of the children to the Agency was not supported by sufficient
evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 26} "In determining a child's best interest—perhaps the paramount
consideration in custody cases—R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) mandates that courts weigh the
factors enumerated in the statute. These factors include the child's relationships and
interactions, wishes, custodial history, and need for a legally secure placement. R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e)." In re D.D., 2024-Ohio-2769, at ¶ 33. "A court may also consider
additional relevant factors in determining a child's best interest." (Citation omitted.) In re
X.S.R.S., 2024-Ohio-1636, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). Our review of the record here reveals that
the juvenile court analyzed each of these factors and that its findings are supported by
the evidence.
{¶ 27} The trial court found, and the record supports, that the children had been in
the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month
period, satisfying R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This finding alone can support an award of
permanent custody if it is in the children's best interests. In re C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411, ¶
21.
{¶ 28} As for the best-interest factors, regarding the children's interactions and
interrelationships (R.C. 2151.414[D][1][a]), the trial court noted the children's bond with
Grandmother but also highlighted the inappropriate interactions between Grandmother
-9- Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
and Mother that often occurred when they were together. The court conducted in camera
interviews with the children, who said they wanted to live with Grandmother. While the
court considered the children's wishes to be reunited with Grandmother (R.C.
2151.414[D][1][b]), it balanced this against other factors. The court also considered the
custodial history of the children (R.C. 2151.414([D][1][c]), which showed that they had
been removed from Grandmother's home three times in the past few years.
{¶ 29} The factor weighed most heavily by the court was its finding that a legally
secure permanent placement could not be achieved without granting permanent custody
to the Agency (R.C. 2151.414[D][1][d]). The court noted Grandmother's repeated
allowance of Mother to live in her home despite the Agency's recommendations against
it, Grandmother's inconsistent family support system, and the ongoing issues with the
condition of her home. While Grandmother argues she was not given sufficient time to
demonstrate her parenting skills without Mother present, the record reveals otherwise.
Grandmother made detrimental choices in allowing Mother to repeatedly return to the
home. As she had done in the previous proceeding, Grandmother mentioned her support
system, but the court noted that the past support had been inconsistent, which suggests
that the court gave more weight to the reliability of support over its potential existence.
We note that unlike the previous proceeding, no member of Grandmother's support
system testified at the permanent-custody hearing.
{¶ 30} While Grandmother asserts her compliance with the case plan, the trial
court found ongoing issues with home conditions and her relationship with Mother, both
of which are addressed in the case plan. The court focused on whether the underlying
issues were resolved, rather than mere compliance with the plan. Ohio courts have
consistently held that even substantial compliance with a case plan does not preclude a
- 10 - Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
grant of permanent custody to a children services agency. See, e.g., In re C.C., 2010-
Ohio-780, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.). The focus is on whether the parent has substantially remedied
the conditions that caused the child's removal. In re Shchigelski, 2000 WL 1568388 (11th
Dist. Oct. 20, 2000).
{¶ 31} Here, the evidence demonstrates that despite some progress on the case
plan, the fundamental issues that led to the children's initial removal in 2019–unsuitable
home conditions and a volatile relationship between Grandmother and Mother–persisted
through February 2024. The trial court's determination that Grandmother had failed to
remedy these circumstances is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In addition,
Grandmother's health has not improved. She was taking 12 different prescription
medications, including Suboxone, which according to the prescribing physician "is
prescribed for someone who has a history of an opiate use disorder or an opiate
dependence." While we recognize that this may not be entirely within her control, it is still
a factor that the court properly considered.
{¶ 32} "When assessing evidence, the finder of fact determines witness credibility
and assigns weight to their testimony." (Citation omitted.) In re X.S.R.S., 2024-Ohio-
1636 at ¶ 35. We see no reason here to disturb the court's assessment of the evidence
in this case. Given the evidence, we conclude that the court did not err in determining
that it was in the children's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 33} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 34} In conclusion, the trial court based its decision on a comprehensive
assessment of the situation over an extended period, considering factors beyond those
emphasized by Grandmother. The court saw Grandmother as overwhelmed by
- 11 - Clinton CA2024-05-008 CA2024-05-009
competing demands on her time and energy. She must balance her own health and well-
being, her (detrimental) commitment to Mother, and the needs of the children. As a result,
the children lack the consistent, stable, and healthy environment necessary for their well-
being. While we recognize the profound impact of terminating parental rights, our role is
not to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, given the
deference typically afforded to trial courts in these matters. The record before us contains
clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings that the Agency made
reasonable efforts to reunify the family and that granting permanent custody to the
Agency was in the best interests of the children. Therefore the court's judgment is
affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
- 12 -