[Cite as In re K.C., 2024-Ohio-1759.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: K.C., J.C., & Z.C. JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2022 AB 0023, 2022 AB 0024 & 2022 AB 0025
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee State of Ohio For Appellant J.G.
R. KYLE WITT JAMES S. SWEENEY Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney 285 S. Liberty Street Powell, Ohio 43065 GENYLYNN COSGROVE Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For K.C. 239 West Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 CEDRIC COLLINS P.O. Box 564 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 2
Guardian ad Litem For Fairfield County Child Protective Services
BRIAN HERZBERGER PAUL MORRISON 2770 East Main Street, Suite #25 Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office Columbus, Ohio 43209 239 W. Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 3
Hoffman, J. {¶1} In Fairfield App. Nos. 23-CA-47, 23-CA-48, and 23-CA-49, appellant J.G.
(“Mother”) appeals the October 25, 2023 Judgment Entry entered by the Fairfield County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights with
respect to her three (3) minor children (“Child 1,” “Child 2,” and “Child 3,” individually; “the
Children,” collectively) and granted permanent custody of the Children to appellee
Fairfield County Child Protective Services (“FCCPS”).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother and E.C. (“Father”) are the biological parents of the
Children.1 FCCPS received a report in early December, 2021, due to concerns Mother
was smoking methamphetamine in front of the Children and the Children had access to
drug paraphernalia. In addition, FCCPS received a report the Children were taken on
“drug runs” and had witnessed incidents of violence between Father and Mother, in which
Father was the aggressor. FCCPS made multiple attempts, including phone calls,
unannounced home visits, and scheduled home visits, to speak with Parents to assess
the concerns. Parents refused to engage or cooperate. When FCCPS made an
unannounced visit on January 24, 2022, Child 1 advised FCCPS Mother was asleep and
several minutes passed before Child 1 was able to wake Mother.
{¶3} Due to continued concerns and a lack of engagement, FCCPS sought an
order of protective supervision, which the trial court granted on January 27, 2022. FCCPS
filed complaints, alleging the Children were dependent, on the same day. The trial court
1 Father is not a party to this appeal. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 4
conducted a shelter care hearing on February 2, 2022, and placed the Children in the
temporary shelter custody of FCCPS.
{¶4} Following an adjudicatory hearing on April 4, 2022, the trial court found the
Children to be dependent and immediately proceeded to disposition. The trial court
ordered the Children remain in the temporary custody of FCCPS. The trial court
conducted review hearings on July 20, 2022, October 19, 2022, and January 27, 2020,
and maintained the status quo each time. The trial court made reasonable efforts findings
at each hearing. FCCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on April 4, 2023.
{¶5} The magistrate conducted a hearing on FCCPS’s motion for permanent
custody on August 15, 2023. The following evidence was presented at the hearing:
{¶6} Erynn Alexander, an intake caseworker, testified FCCPS received an initial
report regarding the family on December 7, 2021, and, as a result, she began an
investigation. Alexander explained she was not able to fully assess the concerns due to
Mother’s lack of cooperation. Mother refused to comply with the initial assessment. The
Children were ultimately removed from the home. FCCPS was unable to move forward
with kinship placement with the maternal grandmother because she tested positive for
methamphetamine.
{¶7} Rebecca Deem, who monitors FCCPS visits between parents and their
children, testified she began overseeing visits between Mother and the Children in June,
2023. Deem described Mother as “very angry” when she came to one visit, explaining,
“our visit was spent with her being angry with me, angry, you know, with the children. She
was just angry. And so she didn’t interact most of the visit with the kids.” Transcript of
August 15, 2023 Proceedings at p. 146. During a visit on July 12, 2023, Mother “did not Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 5
participate with the kids in a visiting manner * * * she was angry. She told me she was
angry.” Id. Mother had two visits with the Children in August, 2023, which were “very good,
very positive.” Id. at p. 148. Deem recalled Mother interacted with the Children, playing
and talking with them.
{¶8} Valkari Dietzel, a parent services support coordinator with FCCPS,
supervised visits between Mother and the Children from March, 2022, until May,
2023. Dietzel recalled Mother struggled with setting boundaries with the Children and, at
times, Mother was distracted and failed to correct the Children’s behaviors. Dietzel
indicated “for the most part [the visits] were good.” Tr. at p. 178. Mother’s parenting time
was moved from the agency to her home, then to grandmother’s home after Mother lost
her housing.
{¶9} On May 31, 2023, Dietzel contacted Mother several times about arranging
a ride to the scheduled visit. Mother did not respond. Dietzel finally left a message stating
she would have to cancel the visit if Mother did not contact her by 11:30 a.m. When Dietzel
did not hear from Mother, Dietzel canceled the transportation for the Children and
informed the foster parents the visit would not occur. Mother called Dietzel at 11:43 a.m.,
explaining she had been in the shower. Mother became upset when Dietzel informed her
the visit had been canceled. During the conversation, Mother called Dietzel a “stupid
bitch,” and told Dietzel she “better watch herself. You’re next.” Tr. at p. 183. As a result,
a TAP plan (threat assessment plan) was put in place. From that point on, Mother’s visits
with the Children were supervised at the agency.
{¶10} Ashton Clark, the ongoing caseworker assigned to the family, testified the
Children have been in their current foster home since January, 2023. The Children are Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 6
doing well in their placement. The foster mother reported Child 1 has some behavioral
issues including lying and physical aggression towards Child 2 and Child 3. Child 2 is
primarily non-verbal, but is currently in speech therapy and making some progress. The
foster mother reported some behavioral concerns largely associated with Child 2’s
inability to speak. Child 3 is developmentally on target. The Children are bonded with
the foster mother and her family. The foster mother has linked the Children with
appropriate services to assure their needs are met.
{¶11} Clark detailed Mother’s case plan, which required her to meet with her
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re K.C., 2024-Ohio-1759.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: K.C., J.C., & Z.C. JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2022 AB 0023, 2022 AB 0024 & 2022 AB 0025
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee State of Ohio For Appellant J.G.
R. KYLE WITT JAMES S. SWEENEY Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney 285 S. Liberty Street Powell, Ohio 43065 GENYLYNN COSGROVE Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For K.C. 239 West Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 CEDRIC COLLINS P.O. Box 564 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 2
Guardian ad Litem For Fairfield County Child Protective Services
BRIAN HERZBERGER PAUL MORRISON 2770 East Main Street, Suite #25 Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office Columbus, Ohio 43209 239 W. Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 3
Hoffman, J. {¶1} In Fairfield App. Nos. 23-CA-47, 23-CA-48, and 23-CA-49, appellant J.G.
(“Mother”) appeals the October 25, 2023 Judgment Entry entered by the Fairfield County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental rights with
respect to her three (3) minor children (“Child 1,” “Child 2,” and “Child 3,” individually; “the
Children,” collectively) and granted permanent custody of the Children to appellee
Fairfield County Child Protective Services (“FCCPS”).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother and E.C. (“Father”) are the biological parents of the
Children.1 FCCPS received a report in early December, 2021, due to concerns Mother
was smoking methamphetamine in front of the Children and the Children had access to
drug paraphernalia. In addition, FCCPS received a report the Children were taken on
“drug runs” and had witnessed incidents of violence between Father and Mother, in which
Father was the aggressor. FCCPS made multiple attempts, including phone calls,
unannounced home visits, and scheduled home visits, to speak with Parents to assess
the concerns. Parents refused to engage or cooperate. When FCCPS made an
unannounced visit on January 24, 2022, Child 1 advised FCCPS Mother was asleep and
several minutes passed before Child 1 was able to wake Mother.
{¶3} Due to continued concerns and a lack of engagement, FCCPS sought an
order of protective supervision, which the trial court granted on January 27, 2022. FCCPS
filed complaints, alleging the Children were dependent, on the same day. The trial court
1 Father is not a party to this appeal. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 4
conducted a shelter care hearing on February 2, 2022, and placed the Children in the
temporary shelter custody of FCCPS.
{¶4} Following an adjudicatory hearing on April 4, 2022, the trial court found the
Children to be dependent and immediately proceeded to disposition. The trial court
ordered the Children remain in the temporary custody of FCCPS. The trial court
conducted review hearings on July 20, 2022, October 19, 2022, and January 27, 2020,
and maintained the status quo each time. The trial court made reasonable efforts findings
at each hearing. FCCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on April 4, 2023.
{¶5} The magistrate conducted a hearing on FCCPS’s motion for permanent
custody on August 15, 2023. The following evidence was presented at the hearing:
{¶6} Erynn Alexander, an intake caseworker, testified FCCPS received an initial
report regarding the family on December 7, 2021, and, as a result, she began an
investigation. Alexander explained she was not able to fully assess the concerns due to
Mother’s lack of cooperation. Mother refused to comply with the initial assessment. The
Children were ultimately removed from the home. FCCPS was unable to move forward
with kinship placement with the maternal grandmother because she tested positive for
methamphetamine.
{¶7} Rebecca Deem, who monitors FCCPS visits between parents and their
children, testified she began overseeing visits between Mother and the Children in June,
2023. Deem described Mother as “very angry” when she came to one visit, explaining,
“our visit was spent with her being angry with me, angry, you know, with the children. She
was just angry. And so she didn’t interact most of the visit with the kids.” Transcript of
August 15, 2023 Proceedings at p. 146. During a visit on July 12, 2023, Mother “did not Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 5
participate with the kids in a visiting manner * * * she was angry. She told me she was
angry.” Id. Mother had two visits with the Children in August, 2023, which were “very good,
very positive.” Id. at p. 148. Deem recalled Mother interacted with the Children, playing
and talking with them.
{¶8} Valkari Dietzel, a parent services support coordinator with FCCPS,
supervised visits between Mother and the Children from March, 2022, until May,
2023. Dietzel recalled Mother struggled with setting boundaries with the Children and, at
times, Mother was distracted and failed to correct the Children’s behaviors. Dietzel
indicated “for the most part [the visits] were good.” Tr. at p. 178. Mother’s parenting time
was moved from the agency to her home, then to grandmother’s home after Mother lost
her housing.
{¶9} On May 31, 2023, Dietzel contacted Mother several times about arranging
a ride to the scheduled visit. Mother did not respond. Dietzel finally left a message stating
she would have to cancel the visit if Mother did not contact her by 11:30 a.m. When Dietzel
did not hear from Mother, Dietzel canceled the transportation for the Children and
informed the foster parents the visit would not occur. Mother called Dietzel at 11:43 a.m.,
explaining she had been in the shower. Mother became upset when Dietzel informed her
the visit had been canceled. During the conversation, Mother called Dietzel a “stupid
bitch,” and told Dietzel she “better watch herself. You’re next.” Tr. at p. 183. As a result,
a TAP plan (threat assessment plan) was put in place. From that point on, Mother’s visits
with the Children were supervised at the agency.
{¶10} Ashton Clark, the ongoing caseworker assigned to the family, testified the
Children have been in their current foster home since January, 2023. The Children are Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 6
doing well in their placement. The foster mother reported Child 1 has some behavioral
issues including lying and physical aggression towards Child 2 and Child 3. Child 2 is
primarily non-verbal, but is currently in speech therapy and making some progress. The
foster mother reported some behavioral concerns largely associated with Child 2’s
inability to speak. Child 3 is developmentally on target. The Children are bonded with
the foster mother and her family. The foster mother has linked the Children with
appropriate services to assure their needs are met.
{¶11} Clark detailed Mother’s case plan, which required her to meet with her
caseworker, in person, at least once a month; undergo a substance use and mental health
assessment and follow all recommendations; participate in the random call and screen
program; and maintain safe and stable housing. Clark noted Mother did not consistently
participate in the random call and screen program. Mother “[o]verwhelmingly, * * * would
not show up to her scheduled screens.” Tr. at p. 205. Mother had been compliant with her
substance use and mental health counseling during the six months prior to the hearing.
Clark indicated Mother had been “relatively inconsistent in meeting with [her] on a regular
basis.” Id. Mother met with Clark in June, 2023, but canceled their July meeting.
{¶12} Between February 3, 2022, and January 12, 2023, Mother tested positive
for tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) 29 times,2 positive for amphetamines two (2) times, and
missed 66 tests. Mother had a clean test on January 13, 2023, then missed 56 tests
between January 14, 2023, and August 4, 2023.
{¶13} Based upon the recommendations of the guardian ad litem, Mother was
referred for a full psychological assessment. The assessment was scheduled for July,
2 THC is the main psychoactive ingredient in the cannabis plant. https://WebMD.com/CBD vs. THC: What's the Difference? Accessed 25 April 2024. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 7
2023, but Mother canceled the appointment. Mother informed Clark she was in the
hospital, but failed to provide verification of the hospitalization.
{¶14} On cross-examination, Mother testified she initially complied with her case
plan and followed as much as she could until she “lost faith in all that.” Tr. at p. 27. Mother
acknowledged she did not comply with drug screens, but denied using methamphetamine
after the Children were removed. Mother lost her housing in April, 2023, after the friend
with whom she was living passed away. She “was currently in the middle of trying to figure
[her housing situation] out.” Tr. at p. 31. Mother stated she did not miss any visits with the
Children until the visits were moved back to the agency. Mother explained she “missed a
few visits due to a lot of miscommunication.” Tr. at p. 35. At the time of the hearing,
Mother was earning $600.00/month, under the table, doing landscaping and painting.
Mother stated she no longer has contact with Father.
{¶15} The magistrate issued her decision on August 25, 2023, recommending
Mother and Father’s parental rights be terminated and permanent custody of the Children
be granted to FCCPS. Parents filed their respective objections to the magistrate’s
decision. FCCPS filed responses thereto.
{¶16} Via Judgment Entry/Orders on Objection to Magistrate’s Decision filed
October 25, 2023, the trial court overruled Mother and Father’s objections. The trial court
found Parents “failed to demonstrate to the Court a CONSISTENT PATTERN of
independent living and parenting that creates confidence in the Court that Mother and
Father are able to manage sobriety and mental heal concerns while meeting the demands
emotionally, physically, developmentally, educationally, and financially of [the Children].”
October 25, 2023 Judgment Entry/Orders on Objection to Magistrate’s Decision at p. 5. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 8
The trial court further found the Children had been in the temporary custody of FCCPS
for “twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period” and granting
permanent custody was in the best interest of the Children.
{¶17} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals, raising as her sole assignment
of error in all three (3) cases:
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING MOTHER’S
PARENTAL RIGHTS AND GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE
MINOR CHILDREN TO FCCPS.
{¶18} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
F23-CA-47, F23-CA-48, F23-CA-49
I
{¶19} 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.
{¶20} 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 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 9
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.
{¶21} 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.
{¶22} 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, 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.
{¶23} The second prong of the analysis requires the juvenile court to determine,
by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent
custody to the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). “ ‘Clear and
convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 10
“preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required
“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ” In re
Z.C., 173 Ohio St.3d 359, 361, 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 7, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio
St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶24} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing,
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) mandates the trial court must 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 parents and out-of-home providers, and any
other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) the wishes of the child as
expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard
for the maturity of the child; (c) the custodial history of the child; (d) the child's need for a
legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved
without a grant of permanent custody; and (e) whether any of the factors in division (E)(7)
to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶25} Mother concedes the Children had been in the temporary custody of
FCCPS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, but asserts
the trial court’s finding it was in the best interest of the Children to grant permanent
custody to FCCPS was not based upon clear and convincing evidence. We disagree.
{¶26} As set forth in our Statement of the Case and Facts, supra, Mother failed to
remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the Children from her care. Mother
missed over 100 drug screens. Between February 3, 2022, and January 12, 2023, Mother
tested positive for THC 29 times, amphetamines twice, and missed 66 tests. Mother had Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 11
a clean test on January 13, 2023, then missed 56 tests between January 14, 2023, and
August 4, 2023. In the last six (6) months of the case, Mother began to consistently attend
substance use and mental health counseling.
{¶27} Mother also failed to meet with her caseworker on a consistent basis. At
the time of the hearing, Mother did not have stable housing. Mother was referred for a
full psychological assessment, but did not present at the scheduled appointment. Mother
stated she was hospitalized at the time, but failed to provide verification of the
hospitalization. Mother never moved beyond supervised visitation with the Children.
{¶28} The Children are currently together in a foster home and are doing well in
their placement. The foster mother reported Child 1 has some behavioral issues including
lying and physical aggression towards Child 2 and Child 3. Child 2 is primarily non-verbal,
but is currently in speech therapy and making some progress. The foster mother reported
Child 2’s behavioral issues were largely associated with Child 2’s inability to speak. Child
3 is developmentally on target. The Children are bonded with the foster mother and her
family. The foster mother has linked the Children with appropriate services to assure their
needs are met.
{¶29} Based upon the foregoing, we find there was clear and convincing evidence
to support the trial court’s finding a grant of permanent custody to FCCPS was in the best
interest of the Children. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00047, 2023 CA 00048 & 2023 CA 00049 12
{¶30} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶31} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Baldwin, J. concur