[Cite as In re K.C., 2025-Ohio-114.]
COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: K.C. & R.C. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2018-0365 & 2018-0366
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 15, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant
CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL BRIAN A. SMITH Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney Brian A. Smith Law Firm, LLC 123 South Miller Road, Suite 250 JOSHUA T. ASPIN Fairlawn, Ohio 44333 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Cottage Street, Third Floor Ashland, Ohio 44805 Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} In Ashland App. Nos. 24-COA-014 and 24-COA-015, Appellant P.A.
(“Mother”) appeals the March 25, 2024 Decision and Judgment Order entered by the
Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated her parental
rights with respect to her two minor children (“Child 1” and “Child 2,” individually; “the
Children,” collectively) and granted permanent custody of the Children to appellee
Ashland County Department of Job and Family Services (“ACJFS”).1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Mother and T.C. (“Father”) are the biological parents of the Children (We
will refer to Mother and Father collectively as “Parents”).2 On December 11, 2018, ACJFS
filed two complaints, alleging Child 1 and Child 2, respectively, were neglected and
dependent. ACJFS filed the complaints after law enforcement executed a search warrant
at Parents’ home on December 10, 2018, and discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia
in the residence. Mother admitted to recent illegal drug use and had drug paraphernalia
on her person. Parents were arrested and the Children were removed.
{¶3} The trial court conducted a shelter care hearing on December 11, 2018, and
placed the Children in the temporary custody of ACJFS. The trial court appointed Attorney
Christina Reiheld as Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for the Children. The trial court
subsequently permitted Attorney Reiheld to withdraw as she had taken a new job.
Attorney Shantell George was appointed as GAL.
{¶4} Father was initially charged in a nine (9) count Indictment. He subsequently
plead guilty to four (4) counts, to wit: aggravated trafficking, trafficking, weapons under
1 ACJFS has not filed a brief or otherwise appear in this appeal. 2 Father is not a party to this appeal. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 3
disability, and child endangering. The trial court sentenced Father to a period of
incarceration of 42 months. Father was released in August, 2022. Mother was charged
as a co-defendant in the same Indictment. Mother plead guilty to three counts, to wit:
complicity to aggravated trafficking, complicity to trafficking, and child endangering. On
August 20, 2019, Mother was sentenced to 120 days house arrest, which ended on
December 19, 2019.
{¶5} Following an adjudicatory hearing on February 14, 2019, the trial court
found the Children to be neglected and dependent. The first case plan, which was filed
on February 21, 2019, required Mother to engage in mental health and substance abuse
services and complete a parenting education program. The trial court conducted a
dispositional hearing on March 13, 2019, and ordered the Children be placed in the
temporary custody of ACJFS
{¶6} Mother was arrested for violating her community control on December 3,
2019. Specifically, Mother contacted Father without the permission of her probation
officer, which was prohibited by the terms of her community control. The trial court
conducted a review hearing on December 5, 2019, and maintained the status quo. The
case plan was updated on December 5, 2019, and again on December 13, 2019. On
January 13, 2020, Mother was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 30 months resulting
from the violations of the terms of her community control.
{¶7} On April 24, 2020, ACJFS filed a motion to modify disposition, requesting
the Children be placed in the legal custody of Mother’s sister (“Aunt”) and her husband
(“Uncle”). The trial court originally scheduled the hearing on ACJFS’s motion to modify
disposition for October 29, 2020, but continued the matter twice upon Mother’s request. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 4
Mother was placed on judicial release on November 3, 2020. Mother made some
progress on her case plan, including parenting education and substance abuse services.
{¶8} The magistrate conducted a hearing on ACJFS’s motion to modify
disposition on May 5, 2021. Via Decision filed July 2, 2021, the magistrate granted
ACJFS’s motion and ordered the Children be placed in the legal custody of Aunt and
Uncle. Mother filed timely objections to the magistrate’s decision. Before the trial court
could rule on Mother’s objections, Aunt and Uncle decided they were no longer willing to
accept legal custody of the Children. Despite this decision, Aunt and Uncle consented to
the Children remaining in their home until the trial court issued a new order. On March
16, 2022, Mother filed a notice informing the trial court of the change of circumstances
relevant to the trial court’s decision on ACJFS’s motion to modify disposition. The trial
court scheduled a hearing for May 3, 2022, in response to Mother’s notice. On March 17,
2022, the trial court permitted the GAL to withdraw due to Attorney George’s relocation.
{¶9} Mother filed a motion for reunification on May 3, 2022. The magistrate
conducted the hearing on Mother’s notice of change of circumstances as scheduled on
May 3, 2022. Following the hearing, the magistrate filed an amended decision and
judgment entry on May 6, 2022, and ordered the Children remain in the temporary custody
of ACJFS. The magistrate also granted Mother visitation. Mother was advised by the
caseworker it was likely ACJFS would move for permanent custody if she went back to
prison. Mother’s judicial release was revoked on June 23, 2022, due to unauthorized
contact with Father. Mother was ordered to serve the approximate 15-month balance of
her 30-month sentence. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 5
{¶10} Via Order filed July 5, 2022, the trial court instructed ACJFS to file an
alternative permanency motion on or before July 8, 2022. ACJFS filed a motion for
permanent custody on July 7, 2022. On August 15, 2022, Michael “Mick” McPherran,
Mother’s grandfather, filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court granted. McPherran
filed a motion for legal custody of the Children the following day, August 16, 2022. On
August 24, 2022, ACJFS filed a motion to continue the permanent custody hearing and
motion to appoint a new GAL. The trial court appointed Attorney David Hunter as the new
GAL, but Attorney M. Lore’ Whitney was subsequently appointed.
{¶11} Mother was released from prison on October 6, 2022. The case plan was
updated on October 8, 2022, and provided for visitation between Mother and the Children.
Mother objected and proposed a case plan with expanded visitation. Mother did,
however, re-engage in some case plan services. Mother filed a motion for reunification
and a motion for temporary orders on November 10, 2022. Although Mother tested
positive for cocaine on November 28, 2022, she denied any drug use.
{¶12} Sometime in November or December, 2022, ACJFS placed the Children
with McPherran. However, ACJFS filed an emergency case plan on May 16, 2023, after
it was alleged the Children had been touched inappropriately while in McPherran’s care.
In addition, ACJFS learned McPherran was allowing Mother to have unsupervised access
to the Children. The Children were removed from McPherran’s home and placed in foster
care. Police closed the investigation into the allegations against McPherran after finding
the allegations were unsubstantiated.
{¶13} On February 13, 2024, Mother appeared in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio and pled guilty one count of felon in possession of Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 6
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8); and one count of transfer
of ammunition to a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(1) and 924(a)(8), in the matter
of United States of America v. Paige R. Acker, Case No.: 1:23-CR-00199-DAP(3). Father
was indicted separately based upon the same underlying activity. Mother was placed on
community control and ordered to pay restitution.
{¶14} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for permanent custody as
well as a number of pending motions over the course of several days.
{¶15} Heidi Glass, the ongoing caseworker assigned to the family, provided a
comprehensive history of Mother’s involvement with the criminal justice system during the
pendency of the matter. Mother continually had contact with Father despite repeatedly
being instructed not to do so. Glass met with Mother in June, 2022, prior to Mother being
sentenced yet again on violations of her community control. Glass informed Mother
ACJFS would move for permanent custody if she was reincarcerated. When Mother was
released from prison on October 6, 2022, she immediately met with Glass and Glass’
supervisor. Mother agreed to complete new substance use disorder and mental health
assessments as well as parenting education. Mother tested positive for cocaine on
November 28, 2022, and positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and cocaine on
August 30, 2022. Mother had participated in the parent education program at Ashland
Parenting Plus in 2019, but had not re-engaged since her release from prison.
{¶16} Aunt testified the Children were placed in her home following their initial
removal from Parents’ home. Neither Child 1 nor Child 2 has special needs. Child 1 was
in first grade. Child 1 was receiving extra help with reading and writing, but otherwise
was doing well. Child 2 was enrolled in a Headstart preschool program. Child 2 was doing Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 7
well and not having any issues. Prior to Mother returning to prison in June, 2022, Mother
was spending every weekend with the Children. Mother had supervised visits with the
Children following her release from prison in October, 2022.
{¶17} The Children are bonded with one another. Aunt described the two as
inseparable. Aunt explained she and Uncle were no longer willing to be legal custodians
for the Children due to the “never ending” drama in the family. Aunt noted the Children’s
behavior changed when they spent time with Mother. The Children became disrespectful
and acted out. The Children began quarrelling with each other. Child 2 became
destructive, taking joy in breaking things and deliberately engaging in behavior which was
not permitted. Aunt thought it would be difficult for McPherran to care for the children on
a full-time basis. Aunt believed the Children should be placed together. Aunt added she
felt it was in the Children’s best interest to live with a family not associated with Mother’s
family.
{¶18} Ashland Police Detective Brad Scarl testified, at approximately 11:00 a.m.
on Friday, April 28, 2023, he and Detective Cantor stopped for fuel at a BP Station in
downtown Ashland on their way to a follow-up investigation. While Detective Scarl was
pumping gas, he observed Mother drive her vehicle into the station and park at an
adjacent fuel pump. Detective Scarl was familiar with Mother’s passenger, Cody
Lawrence, through other investigations. Lawrence was wanted on an active warrant.
Detective Scarl called for backup. Officers arrested Lawrence following a brief chase.
Lawrence was subsequently charged with illegal conveyance and possession of cocaine.
As part of the investigation, Detective Scarl recovered text messages between Lawrence
and Mother, which revealed Mother was trading her Suboxone strips for drugs. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 8
{¶19} Heidi Glass learned of Lawrence’s arrest from Mother’s vehicle on May 9,
2023. After ACJFS learned about the text messages, the Agency decided to move the
Children from McPherran’s home because the Children were in a potentially dangerous
environment. Glass added ACJFS learned the Children were in the vehicle on the day of
Lawrence’s arrest. Glass contacted Child 1’s school and was informed McPherran called
Child 1 off due to illness. Child 2 did not have preschool that day. Glass determined
McPherran was allowing Mother to have significant, unsupervised time with the Children.
{¶20} Mother testified on her own behalf, and claimed the whole case centered
around concerns about Father and her being around Father. Mother denied having any
contact with Father since April, 2023. Mother stated she would “fight tooth and nail” for
the Children. Mother downplayed her relationship with Cody Lawrence. With regard to
the federal case, Mother believed she would be placed on house arrest, followed by three
(3) years probation. Mother had no concerns about McPherran’s ability to properly care
and nurture the Children.
{¶21} On cross-examination, Mother claimed she ended her relationship with
Lawrence after he was arrested. Mother was pregnant at the October 12, 2023 hearing,
but did not know who the father of the child was. Mother stated it was either Father or an
individual named Montell Taylor. Mother denied trading her Suboxone to Father in
exchange for narcotics. Mother could not recall sending text messages to Lawrence
revealing that fact. She claimed she was taking her Suboxone as prescribed, but could
not explain why her drug screens were not positive for it.
{¶22} McPherran testified on his own behalf. He lives by himself in a three (3)
bedroom home. The Children share a room when they stay with him. McPherran is a Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 9
retired Ashland City firefighter and was honorably discharged from the Navy. He is
physically active, working out at the YMCA and clearing and cleaning trails with a trail
club. McPherran stated he was in good health, drank a beer on occasion, did not use
illegal drugs, and had no criminal history. McPherran raised Mother, Aunt, and their
younger sibling for seven (7) or eight (8) years when they were children. He believed he
would be able to prioritize the needs of the Children over Mother’s desires. McPherran
added permanent custody was not in the Children’s best interest as ACJFS could not
guarantee the Children would remain together and the Children should not be separated
from family.
{¶23} On cross-examination, McPherran indicated Mother lives in a home he
owns. McPherran advised Mother Father was not permitted to stay in the home.
McPherran believed he was able to handle the Children’s behavior, especially Child 2
whom he described as “a pistol.”
{¶24} Via Decision and Judgment Order filed March 25, 2024, the trial court
terminated Mother’s parental rights and granted permanent custody of the Children to
ACJFS. The trial court found the Children had been in the temporary custody of ACJFS
for 12 or more consecutive months of a consecutive 22-month period and the Children
could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. The trial court
further found it was in the best interest of the Children to grant permanent custody to
ACJFS.
{¶25} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals. In Ashland App. Nos. 24-
COA-014 and 24-COA-015, Mother raises the following identical assignments of error: Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 10
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT
CUSTODY TO APPELLEE, ASHLAND COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES, SINCE APPELLEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT GROUNDS EXISTED FOR
PERMANENT CUSTODY, AND SINCE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION
WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT
WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
SERVICES, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT COMPETENT, CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE THAT APPELLEE MADE “REASONABLE EFFORTS” TO
REUNIFY THE FAMILY.
{¶26} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
I, II
{¶27} For ease of discussion, we shall address Mother’s first and second
assignments of error together. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 11
{¶28} 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. (Citation
omitted.) In re D.R., 2024-Ohio-1819, ¶28 (5th Dist.). 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 Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus (1978).
{¶29} 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.
{¶30} 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. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 12
{¶31} 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.
{¶32} 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.
{¶33} As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there
was sufficient and substantial competent evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems
which initially caused the removal of the Children from Parents’ home, and the Children
cannot or should not be placed with Parents in a reasonable time. Mother had periods of
compliance with her case plan, however, her work on the case plan was repeatedly
disrupted for significant periods of time due to her incarcerations.
{¶34} The Children had not lived with Mother in over five (5) years. Mother denied
any current involvement with Father despite their lengthy history together. Twice during
the pendency of this matter, Mother was incarcerated for having contact with Father
although she was prohibited from doing so. Mother was involved with two (2) other men Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 13
in the five (5) years the matter was pending. Both men had extensive criminal histories
which included drug abuse.
{¶35} Although Mother participated in parenting education, the parenting
instructor opined Mother just went through the motions and did not benefit from the
program. Mother also participated in substance abuse services at Ashland County
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. She was diagnosed with anxiety, depression and
post-traumatic stress disorder, but only minimally addressed those mental health issues.
Mother was pregnant with her fourth child at the time of the final hearing. Mother did not
know who the father of the baby was. Her oldest child was born when Mother was 14-
years old. Mother lost custody of that child.
{¶36} The trial court also found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the Children
had been in the temporary custody of SCJFS for a period of time in excess of twelve of
the prior twenty-two consecutive months. The 12 of 22 finding alone, in conjunction with
a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re
Calhoun, 2008-Ohio-5458, ¶ 45 (5th Dist.).
{¶37} Mother further asserts ACJFS did not meet its burden, by clear and
convincing evidence, to demonstrate permanent custody was in the best interest of the
Children, and the trial court’s best interest finding was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
{¶38} We review a trial court's best interest determination under R.C. 2151.414(D)
for an abuse-of-discretion. In re D.A., 2010-Ohio-5618, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.). A trial court's
failure to base its decision in consideration of the best interest of the child constitutes an
abuse-of-discretion. In re R.S., 2022-Ohio-4387, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.), quoting In re N.B., 2015- Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 14
Ohio-314, at ¶ 60 (8th Dist.). “The term ‘abuse-of-discretion’ connotes more than an error
of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶39} 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.
{¶40} In its March 25, 2024 Decision and Judgment Order, the trial court
considered the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) and concluded granting
permanent custody to ACJFS was in the best interest of the Children. The trial court
specifically found the Children have always lived together and are bonded to one another;
therefore, should remain together wherever they go.
{¶41} Aunt and Uncle provided care from the Children for approximately four (4)
years, commencing when the Children were initially removed from Parents’ home in
December, 2018. Aunt and Uncle loved the Children, but had to make the difficult
decision not to accept legal custody. Aunt cited the never-ending drama within the family
as well as the chaos caused by and bad decisions made by Mother and other member of Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 15
the family. Aunt noted the Children’s' behaviors always changed for the worse after
spending time with Mother. The Children became disrespectful and disobedient. Aunt and
Uncle recognized if they accepted legal custody, Mother and the family would remain
involved which Aunt and Uncle saw as detrimental to the Children. Aunt reluctantly
concluded it was in the best interests of the Children to be away from Mother and the
{¶42} Aunt believed McPherran could probably care for the Children, if he, in fact,
did so. Aunt was concerned McPherran, as he had historically done, would allow Mother
and her mother, who has significant mental health issues, to participate and care for the
Children.
{¶43} Mother’s poor choices resulted in repeated incarcerations, which had a
direct negative and detrimental impact on the Children. During her incarcerations, Mother
was unable to visit with, care for, or provide for the Children.
{¶44} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding the Children could
not and should not be placed with Mother in a reasonable time was supported by
competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We further find the trial court's finding it was in the Children’s best interest to grant
permanent custody to ACJFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶45} Mother's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
III
{¶46} In her third assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court erred in
granting permanent custody to ACJFS because the Agency failed to make reasonable
efforts to reunify Mother and the Children. Specifically, Mother contends ACJFS’s failure Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 16
to provide Mother with sufficient parenting time created “a substantial obstacle to
reunification.” Brief of Appellant at p. 27. We disagree.
{¶47} The Ohio Revised Code imposes a duty on the part of children services
agencies to make reasonable efforts to reunite parents with their children where the
agency has removed the children from the home. R.C. 2151.419. “Case plans are the
tools that child protective service agencies use to facilitate the reunification of families
who * * * have been temporarily separated.” (Citation omitted.) In re Z.G.A.A., 2024-Ohio-
326, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). To that, case plans establish individualized concerns and goals, along
with the steps the parties and the agency can take to achieve reunification. (Citation
omitted.) Id.
{¶48} R.C. Chapter 2151 does not define “reasonable efforts,” but the term has
been construed to mean “[t]he state's efforts to resolve the threat to the child before
removing the child or to permit the child to return home after the threat is removed.”
(Citation omitted.) In re C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 28. “Reasonable efforts means that a
children's services agency must act diligently and provide services appropriate to the
family's need to prevent the child's removal or as a predicate to reunification.” (Citation
and internal quotations omitted.) In re H.M.K., 2013-Ohio-4317, ¶ 95 (3rd Dist.).
{¶49} What constitutes “reasonable efforts” requires consideration of the nature
of a case plan and varies with the circumstances. In re S.M., 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 31 (12th
Dist.). “In determining whether the agency made reasonable efforts [pursuant to R.C.
2151.419(A)(1)] to prevent the removal of the child from the home, the issue is not
whether the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the
reasonableness standard under the statute.” In re Lewis, 2003-Ohio-5262, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.). Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 17
“ ‘Reasonable efforts’ does not mean all available efforts.” Id. A “reasonable effort” is “* *
* an honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and the design to defraud or to seek an
unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 63 (12th Dist. 1992).
{¶50} As stated, supra, the issue is not whether there was anything more the
agency could have done, but whether the agency's case planning and efforts were
reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. We find ACJFS's case
planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of this case.
ACJFS had been involved with the family since 2018. Throughout this time, Mother was
repeatedly incarcerated. Each time she was released, ACJFS reinstated visitation.
Mother’s visits were not expanded through no fault but her own. She chose to make bad
decisions over and over.
{¶51} Upon review of the entire record, we find the trial court did not err in
concluding ACJFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother with the Children. Ashland County, Case Nos. 24-COA-014 & 24-COA-015 18
{¶52} Mother’s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶53} The judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J. Baldwin, J. and King, J. concur