In re M.S.

2025 Ohio 2644

Opinion

[Cite as In re M.S., 2025-Ohio-2644.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: IN RE: M.S. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Y.C. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. Y.S. : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. : : : Case No. 24-COA-032 : 24-COA-033 : 24-COA-034 : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos.20213024;20213026;20213025

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 21, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL JOSEPH P. KEARNS Ashland County Prosecutor P.O. Box 345 BY DREAMA KAY REESE 153 West Main Street Assistant Prosecutor Ashland, OH 44805 110 Cottage Street Ashland, OH 44805 Popham, J., {¶1} Appellant-mother R.S. [“Mother”] appeals the August 23, 2024 Judgment

Entry of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division that terminated

her parental rights with respect to her minor children, M.S.1, Y.C. 2, and Y.S.3 and granted

permanent custody of the children to appellee, the Ashland County Department of Jobs

and Family Services (“ACDJFS”)4. For the reasons below, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} R.S. is the biological mother of M.S. (b. 08-13-2013), Y.C. (b. 12-12-2011),

and Y.S. (b. 04-17-2019). The father of M.S. and Y.C. is A. S-G. The father of Y.S. and

a fourth child A.S. (b. 06-06-2022) is E.S.5 Neither E.S. nor A. S-G. are U.S. citizens. 6T.

at 1045. Neither speak English. Id. at 1072. The fathers are not parties to the Mother’s

appeal.

{¶3} Allegations in the Complaint concerned the minor children, M.S., Y.C., and

Y.S. being left home alone. On April 14, 2021, law enforcement was called to the home,

and a safety plan was initiated. While the family was participating in a safety plan with

the ACDJFS, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Law enforcement removed

the minor children pursuant to Juvenile Rule 6 on April 22, 2021. On that same day,

Complaints were filed by the ACDJFS alleging M.S., Y.C. and Y.S. to be dependent under

R.C. 2151.04(C).

1 5th Dist. No. 24COA032 / Ashland Juvenile Court Number 20213024 2 5th Dist. No. 24COA033 / Ashland Juvenile Court Number 20213026 3 5th Dist. No. 24COA034 / Ashland Juvenile Court Number 20213025 4 Recognizing the heightened privacy interests of minors, we identify the parents and the minors

only by their initials in accord with Sup.R. 1(A), 44(C), 44(H) and 45(D); S.Ct.Prac.R.3.12; R.C. 2303.901; Juv.R.4. 5 A.S. is the subject of a separate, yet related permanent custody proceeding. 5th Dist. No.

24COA035 / Ashland Juvenile Court Number 20223022. {¶4} An Emergency Shelter care hearing was held on April 23, 2021. [Docket

Entry No. 10]. The children were placed in the temporary custody of the ACDJFS at that

time. An adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for May 19, 2021, but the hearing could not

proceed because the Fathers were in need of language translation services and

appointed counsel. Judgment Entry filed June 1, 2021. [Docket Entry No. 21] A Court

Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”), Emily Huestis, was appointed for the children.

{¶5} Proposed Initial Case Plan 1.0 was filed on June 16, 2021. [Docket Entry

No. 31]. Recommendations for Mother included completing a mental health assessment

and following recommendations, counseling, and remain clean and sober from drugs and

alcohol.

{¶6} At a June 16, 2021, Adjudicatory Hearing Mother stipulated to a finding of

dependency.

{¶7} A Dispositional Hearing was held July 16, 2021. Judgment Entry filed Dec.

23, 2021. [Docket Entry No. 53]. The trial court noted that Mother “is still demonstrating

troubling behavior in her interactions with the [ACDJFS],” allegedly making threats and

being unwilling to have “normal” conversations. The court further noted that Mother was

inconsistent with her attendance at the Ashland County Council of Alcohol and Drug

Abuse (“ACCADA”) for substance abuse counseling, and that she continues to test

positive for THC. The court found that Mother must make advancements in parent

education and mental health treatment to achieve reunification. The court found that it

is in the best interests of the minor children to remain in the temporary custody of the

ACDJFS. {¶8} The trial court received a filing from the ACDJFS dated July 16, 2021,

regarding the conditions of the foster home in which the minor children were placed.

Judgment Entry, Filed Jan. 3, 2022. [Docket Entry No. 56]. The ACDJFS did not see any

immediate safety concerns that would warrant an emergency removal of the children from

the foster home. However, the ACDJFS acknowledged it would be in the best interests of

the minor children to be placed in a different foster home.

{¶9} Proposed Case Plan 1.01 was filed with the trial court on August 2, 2021.

A Review hearing was conducted the same day. Judgment Entry filed Sept. 17, 2021.

[Docket Entry No. 40]. The CASA, Huestis, advised the court of concerns regarding the

home in which the minor children were placed. The trial court was advised that the

ACDJFS can improve the home conditions, and the minor children should not endure an

immediate placement disruption. An objection to proposed Case Plan 1.01 was filed by

Mother on August 25, 2021. [Docket Entry No. 39].

{¶10} A Case Plan Review hearing was conducted on September 17, 2021.

Judgment Entry filed Sept. 20, 2021. [Docket Entry No. 41]. The trial court noted that the

ACDJFS had not secured translation services for the two fathers despite having

temporary custody of the children since April 14, 2021. The court ordered the ACDJFS

to report to the court every Friday to determine what progress the department has made

in securing interpreter services on an ongoing and regular basis.

{¶11} The court further found that Mother had obtained a medical marijuana card.

The court ordered any person who had a medical marijuana card to provide a copy of the

card and current prescription to the ACDJFS with information about renewal, modification

or termination of the card or prescription. The court further ordered that the person “shall not” use medical marijuana within six hours preceding the time he or she will be in contact

with the minor children; shall use the medical marijuana only as prescribed by his or her

physician and as permitted by Ohio law; and, keep written records concerning his or her

purchases of marijuana products at dispensaries in Ohio, and his or her daily use of

medical marijuana. The court found that Case Plan 1.01 is in the best interest of the minor

children and adopted Case Plan 1.01 as a Dispositional Order.

{¶12} A Notice of Compliance was filed by the ACDJFS with the trial court on

September 31, 2021. The Notice advised that the ACDJFS has complied with the court

order requiring the Department to arrange for translation services.

{¶13} Proposed Case Plan 1.02 was filed with the trial court on October 15, 2021,

proposing a change in placement for the minor children and an expansion of parenting

time for Mother, E.S., father of minor child Y.C, and A.S-G., father of the minor children

M.S. and Y.C. [Docket Entry No. 44]. The Plan also required Mother to participate in a

mental health assessment to determine any underlying mental health concerns and follow

any recommendations. Further, Mother was to engage in drug/alcohol diagnostic services

and follow any recommendations. The trial court adopted Case Plan 1.02 as a

Dispositional Order of the court by an entry journalized on October 22, 2021.

{¶14} Proposed Case Plan 1.04 was filed with the trial court on January 25, 2022.

This plan proposed a transitional plan for all the children to be transitioned back into the

home of Mother. A Review hearing was conducted on March 4, 2022. The court conducted

a review of Case Plan 1.04, which was approved and adopted as an Order of the court.

{¶15} Proposed Case Plan 1.07 was filed with the trial court. This case plan

proposed an adjustment to the visitation between Mother and the children - to move their then current visitation to supervised visitation in their home. Case Plan 1.07 was adopted

as an Order of the court by Judgment Entry filed July 6, 2022.

{¶16} Proposed Case Plan 1.09 was filed with the trial court on August 15, 2022.

The case plan proposed visitation for Mother with the minor children be changed to four

hours a week unsupervised. Case Plan 1.09 was adopted as an Order of the court in a

Judgment Entry filed August 30, 2022.

{¶17} A Motion to Modify Disposition was filed with the trial court on September

2, 2022. This motion sought to Modify the Disposition by terminating the previous Order

placing the minor children in the temporary custody of the ACDJFS and returning the

minor children to the care and legal custody of Mother, with a Protective Supervision

Order. In the motion, the ACDJFS noted that Mother had completed intensive parenting

education. The motion further noted that Mother allowed her medical marijuana card to

expire, that she has been compliant with the Children Services drug testing program and

had tested negative for all illegal drugs since March of 2022. Mother completed her

substance use assessment at ACCADA with Rick Ford. There were no further treatment

recommendations.

{¶18} Proposed Case Plan 1.10 was filed with the trial court on October 3, 2022.

This case plan proposed the removal of Father E.S. from the case plan because he had

been arrested after admitting to reports of molestation involving the minor child Y.C. The

ACDJFS proposed moving the visitation for the minor children and Mother, back to

supervised at the ACDJFS.

{¶19} The trial court conducted a hearing on October 3, 2022, for the purposes of

an eighteen-month review, and hearing on the Motion to Modify Disposition. The ACDJFS moved to withdraw the Motion to Modify Disposition after both Mother and

stepfather of the minor children, E.S. tested positive for THC. The court was advised

during the hearing that E.S. had been charged with Gross Sexual Imposition and was

currently in the Ashland County Jail. The court declined to adopt case plan 1.10 and

entered a no contact order between E.S. and the minor children.

{¶20} The trial court conducted a review hearing on December 19, 2022. At the

time of that hearing, E.S., father of Y. S., and stepfather to the other two minor children,

who are the subject of these cases, was awaiting sentencing for the Gross Sexual

Imposition charge.

{¶21} ACDJFS filed a Motion for Permanent Custody with the trial court on March

17, 2023. [Docket Entry No. 150]. The motion was heard on October 18, October 19,

November 3, December 1, December 12, 2023, January 12, January 19, and January 30,

2024.

The permanent custody hearing

Mother’s drug tests

{¶22} Matthew Levitas, a Board-Certified Forensic Toxicologist with Forensic

Fluids Laboratory, testified regarding Mother’s drug testing. 1T. at 71; 77; 82; State’s

Exhibit 7 and 8.6 Levitas testified that Delta-8 and Delta-9 THC are nearly identical in their

chemical properties, with the only difference being a single carbon bond. Id. at 74. Levitas

testified that the drugs are both psychoactive and impairing, with Delta-9 being stronger

than Delta-8. Levitas testified that when Delta-8 is seen in a test result it has been

synthesized in a laboratory. Levitas testified that, with such a test result, the person is

6 For clarity, the transcript of Mother’s permanent custody hearing will be referred to as “__T.__”

signifying the volume and page number. not smoking a joint, but rather is usually ingesting pure Delta-8 THC. Levitas testified that

Delta-8 THC can be purchase legally at gas stations. Id. at 111.

{¶23} Levitas testified that on November 10, 2022, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 43.9 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 95.7 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 97. Levitas testified that the medication Wellbutrin would not cause a

positive test result for methamphetamine because the two have different chemical

structures. Id. Levitas testified that the levels were a relatively low concentration. Id. at

84. Levitas further testified that amphetamine is a metabolite of methamphetamine.

Levitas testified that when the body breaks down methamphetamine, it creates

amphetamine, therefore, it is very typical to see those two drugs together. Id. at 85.

{¶24} Levitas testified that on November 17, 2022, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 72.4 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 290.7 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 96.

{¶25} Levitas testified that on December 16, 2022, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 26.0 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 33.6 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 95. Levitas testified Mother further tested positive for Delta-9 THC at

a concentration greater than 500 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 95. Levitas testified that

none of the medications Mother was taking by prescription would yield a false positive

test for methamphetamine. Id. Levitas further testified the reason for the high level noted

in the THC testing result is that the person smoked marijuana a short time before the

sample was taken. Id. at 92.

{¶26} Levitas testified that on January 11, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-

9 THC at a concentration of 6.8 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 94. {¶27} Levitas testified that on January 25, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-

9 THC at a concentration of 26.4 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 94.

{¶28} Levitas testified that on February 15, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-

9 THC at a concentration of 1.7 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 93.

{¶29} Levitas testified that on February 24, 2023, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 166.7 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 822.2

nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 92. Levitas testified that Mother also tested positive for

Delta-9 THC at a concentration greater than 500 nanograms per milliliter.

{¶30} Levitas testified that on February 27, 2023, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 33.7 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 49.6 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 91. Levitas testified that Mother further tested positive for Delta-9 THC

at a concentration of 110.6 nanograms per milliliter.

{¶31} Levitas testified that on March 8, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-9

THC at a concentration of 19.6 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 89.

{¶32} Levitas testified that on March 10, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-9

THC at a concentration of 17.2 nanograms per milliliter. 1T. at 89.

{¶33} Levitas testified that on March 29, 2023, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 41.7 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 110.0 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 88. Levitas also testified that Mother tested positive for Delta-9 THC

at a concentration of 30.8 nanograms per milliliter.

{¶34} Levitas testified that on June 7, 2023, Mother tested positive for Delta-9

THC at 4.0 nanograms per milliliter. Levitas testified that the report notes Mother has a

medical marijuana card. Id. at 87. {¶35} Levitas testified that on June 14, 2023, Mother tested positive for

amphetamine at 25.6 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 26.9 nanograms

per milliliter. 1T. at 83. Levitas testified that Mother also tested positive for Delta-9 THC

at a concentration of 6.2 nanograms per milliliter. Levitas testified that it was reported

Mother had a medical marijuana card at that time. 1T. at 85.

{¶36} Levitas testified that the laboratory verifies positive test results using LC-

MS/MS technology. 1T. at 101. Levitas testified that this is done to confirm there is a

positive test result, or to make sure the result is a true and accurate positive. Id. Levitas

testified that the molecular fingerprint of Delta-8 THC is different than Delta-9 THC. 1T.

at 73. Levitas testified that the mass spectrometer used for testing can differentiate

between the two substances. Id. at 74.

Mother’s Substance Abuse Treatment

{¶37} Mother was referred to Mary Jo Janchar, a substance abuse counselor with

ACCADA, in June 2021. 1T. at 140. Marijuana, alcohol, and methamphetamines were

the reported concerns. Janchar met with Mother to complete a substance abuse

assessment. Janchar testified that Mother was diagnosed with cannabis dependence

and alcohol dependence. 1T. at 142-143. Janchar testified that Mother self-reported the

alcohol and marijuana problems but consistently denied using methamphetamines. Id.

at 143; 159. Janchar testified that Mother further reported smoking marijuana since the

age of thirteen. Id. at 159.

{¶38} Janchar testified that Mother also reported that she had a medical marijuana

card for post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Janchar testified that Mother reported

using ninety-five percent THC known as “shatter.” Id. Janac testified that on July 29, 2021, Mother drove to her appointment; however, Mother appeared to be under the

influence. Janchar testified that, when asked, Mother reported that she had used “shatter”

for anxiety. 1T. at 149-150. When asked if someone could pick her up, Mother left the

office.

{¶39} Janac testified she was unable to develop a treatment plan for mother. 1T.

at 147. Janchar testified that Mother was a no-show, or canceled, five out of ten

scheduled appointments. Janchar testified that Mother became agitated when the subject

of her husband’s drinking in the home was broached. Id. at 148. Janchar testified that

Mother indicated she was more comfortable with doing her services at Appleseed. Id.

Accordingly, treatment with ACCADA was stopped. Id. at 149.

Mother’s Mental Health Treatment

{¶40} Christine Myers, a Licensed Professional Counselor with Appleseed worked

with Mother from January 2021 through September 2022. 1T. at 166. Myers testified that

she conducted a mental health assessment of Mother in January 2021. Myers testified

that she diagnosed Mother with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder,

and generalized anxiety disorder. Id. at 168. Myers testified that Mother was also treated

by Dr. Roy Vellanki, a psychiatrist, whom Mother saw every three months for medication

management. Id. at 171. Myers testified that Mother was prescribed Vistaril, Trazodone,

Effexor, and Topamax. Id. at 172. Myers testified that she would not recommend taking

marijuana with the prescribed medications. Id. at 177. Myers testified that Mother was

also using alcohol on a regular basis. Id. at 176. {¶41} Myers testified Mother made progress in treatment while she was pregnant

with A.S., who was born June 6, 2022.7 1T. at 173-174. Myers testified that Mother

reported that she had stopped using marijuana during that time. Id. at 175-176; 198.

{¶42} Myers testified that Mother stopped attending treatment in September 2022.

1T. at 174; 190. Myers further testified that attempts were made in May 2023 to engage

Mother in family counseling with her children. 1T. at 178. Myers testified that Mother

appeared in the office on May 1, 2023, but left without checking in for the appointment.

Id.

ACDJFS Involvement

{¶43} Carla Wilkinson, the ongoing caseworker for ACDJFS was assigned

Mother’s case on September 23, 2022. 3T. at 513. Wilkinson testified that there have

been approximately six different caseworkers assigned to the case. 3T. at 668-669.

{¶44} Wilkinson testified the initial concerns reported in April 2021 were that the

children were left alone while Mother took her husband to work. The oldest child at that

time was nine years old; the youngest had just turned two. Id. at 515. Additional

concerns were that the children did not have access to a telephone or cell phone in the

event of an emergency, and the home had no working smoke detectors.

{¶45} Wilkinson testified that while the family was participating in a safety plan

with the ACDJFS, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, and law enforcement

removed the minor children on April 22, 2021. Id. at 516. Wilkinson testified that Mother

admitted at that time that she was not emotionally well, that she was a recovering

alcoholic, and that she was self-medicating with THC. Wilkinson testified that it was

7 A.S. in the subject of a separate permanent custody case, 5th Dist. No. 24COA035 / Ashland

Juvenile Court Number 20223022. reported that Mother appeared almost manic at times. Wilkinson testified that from the

time of their removal on April 22, 2021, until the date of her testimony on November 3,

2023, the children have continuously been in the custody of the ACDJFS. Id. at 518.

{¶46} Wilkinson testified that a Case Plan was developed that included drug,

alcohol and mental health assessments and counseling, parenting services, monthly drug

screens, and home visits by the ACDJFS. 3T. at 524.

{¶47} Wilkinson testified that Mother completed a drug and alcohol assessment

through ACCADA in May 2022. 3T. at 525. Wilkinson testified that there were no

recommendations for further services as a result of that assessment. Id. Wilkinson

testified that Mother did nothing further until July 2023.

{¶48} Wilkinson testified that Mother reported to ACDJFS that her positive

methamphetamine tests were because she was taking Wellbutrin. 3T. at 528-529.

Wilkinson testified that Mother never admitted to using methamphetamine. Id. at 529.

Wilkinson testified that Mother was not in a substance abuse program from July 2021 to

July 2023. Id.

{¶49} Wilkinson testified that in July 2023, Mother reportedly contacted Affect

Therapeutics concerning drug and alcohol treatment. 3T. at 530-531. It was reported that

Affect Therapeutics is a virtual service. Drug testing was done at home during a video

chat with her counselor. Id. During this time it was reported that Mother was in a physical

altercation with her paramour, F.C. 3T. at 536. Wilkinson testified that Mother declined

domestic violence services through Affect and the ACDJFS. Wilkinson testified that

Mother was terminated from the Affect Therapeutics program for non-attendance. 3T. at 537. Wilkinson testified that Mother has not successfully completed any substance abuse

services.

{¶50} Wilkinson testified that, beginning in July 2022, Mother was enrolled in

Forensic Fluids Drug Testing Randomization Program. 3T. at 540. She would call into a

number each morning to see if her color had been called for that day, and if it had, she

would need to appear within a certain period of time for a drug screen. Id. at 541.

Wilkinson testified that Mother appeared for testing only five of the fourteen times8 that

she was required to appear. Id. at 542.

{¶51} Wilkinson testified Mother would also be screened for drug usage during in-

home visits by the ACDJFS and before visitations with the children. Id. at 543. The last

time Mother appeared for a randomized drug screen was March 2023. Wilkinson testified

that Mother was not tested by anyone for drugs from April to May 17, 2023, and during

the entire month of September 2023. Id. at 544.

{¶52} Wilkinson testified Mother obtained a medical marijuana card in July 2021.

Mother allowed the card to lapse in July 2022. 3T. at 544. Mother renewed the card in

November 2022. Id. at 545. Wilkinson testified that Mother tested positive for THC three

to five times during the time she did not have a current medical marijuana card. Wilkinson

testified that Mother signed a release for a company reported by Mother to have issued

the referral for the medical marijuana card; however, when contacted by the ACDJFS, the

company stated that they did not know Mother. Id. at 546.

8 We note that in Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 20223022,

Wilkinson testified that Mother appeared for drug testing only five of the seventeen times that she was required to appear. {¶53} Wilkinson testified Mother has not been engaged in mental health services

since September 2022. 3T. at 550.

{¶54} Wilkinson testified Mother told her that she was taking herself off her

prescription medication and was going to self-medicate with high levels of THC. 3T. at

551-552. Wilkinson testified that it was during this time that Mother renewed her medical

marijuana card in November 2022.

{¶55} Wilkinson also testified that on July 5, 2021, Mother was arrested for driving

with a suspended driver’s license and obstructing official business. Mother was allegedly

fighting with the officer trying to arrest her for the driving under suspension charge,

jumped into her car in an attempt to keep the car from being towed, and attempted to kick

out a window in the police cruiser. 3T. at 561-563; State’s Exhibit 2. Wilkinson testified

that Mother pled no contest. Mother was sentenced to ten days jail time, 170 days

suspended jail time, one hundred hours of community service, ordered to refrain from

drug or alcohol use, and pay a $250.00 fine and court costs. Wilkinson testified that

Mother successfully completed her sentence and her probation. Id. at 564-565.

Wilkinson testified that Mother has obtained a valid driver’s license. 3T. at 587.

{¶56} Wilkinson testified Mother did successfully complete parenting classes

through Advocates for Families. Id. at 566.

{¶57} Wilkinson testified the ACDJFS was not able to conduct home visits with

Mother at her apartment in April, May, June, September, and October 2023 because

Mother was not home or did not answer the door. 3T. at 574. {¶58} Wilkinson testified Mother is employed working third shift on a line

assembling weed whackers9. 3T. at 585. Wilkinson testified that Mother’s three-bedroom

apartment is paid for with a voucher, and the lease was set to expire in February 2024.

3T. at 571.

{¶59} Wilkinson testified family counseling with the children began in September

2023 with Chris Lewis at Appleseed. 3T. at 607. Two sessions took place during

visitations.

{¶60} Wilkinson testified the ACDJFS filed a Motion on September 2, 2022, to

terminate the temporary custody granted to the Department and return legal custody, with

protective supervision, to Mother. 3T. at 609; 5T. at 845. Wilkinson testified that, at that

time, Mother had five months of negative drug screens. However, during the first

unsupervised home visit, Mother and father/stepfather E.S. took the children out to dinner.

Wilkinson testified that E.S. had a beer and was reported to be drinking in the car while

Mother was driving. Wilkinson testified that E.S. tested positive for THC. Wilkinson

testified that the visits were moved back to supervised visits.

{¶61} Wilkinson testified the ACDJFS moved to withdraw their Motion to Modify

Disposition after both Mother and E.S. tested positive for THC, and it was further alleged

that E.S had been charged with Gross Sexual Imposition and was currently in the Ashland

County Jail. 3T. at 612; 5T. at 848. Wilkinson testified that Mother continued to have

telephone contact with E.S. at least forty-nine times between January and March of 2023.

Id. at 619.

Mother’s Testimony

9 Mother’s testimony regarding her employment is slightly different. See paragraph 70 below. {¶62} Mother testified that she had been sexually abused as a child. 6T. at 991.

Mother testified that she has been self-medicating with marijuana since age 13. Id. at

993. She claimed it does not affect her; it helps her stay focused and calm. Mother

testified that she was prescribed Effexor, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and Topamax. Id. at 994. Dr.

Vellanki, from Appleseed, prescribed the medications for mood swings, depression, and

migraines. Id. at 996. Mother testified she was prescribed Wellbutrin to help her quit

smoking. Id. at 995. Mother testified to stopping all her prescribed medications between

November 2022 and January 2023. Id. Mother testified that she has not seen Dr. Vellanki,

nor has she participated in any mental health counseling, since September 2022. Id. at

996. Mother testified that she does not believe she needs mental health counseling. Id.

at 1049.

{¶63} Mother testified she obtained a medical marijuana card because she was

testing positive for THC, and her caseworker advised her to obtain one. 6T. at 998.

Mother testified that when she ingested Delta-8 she would feel the same as if “I were to

take a couple hits off of a bowl or smoke a dube.” 6T. at 1001. Mother testified that she

has never used methamphetamines. Id. at 1003. Mother testified she will continue to

use Delta-8, even though Delta-9 is now legal in Ohio. Id. Mother also testified that she

allowed her medical marijuana card to lapse, because it makes no sense to pay $300.00

for a card when she can legally buy marijuana over-the counter now. Mother testified that

she used Delta-8 the night before her testimony. 7T. at 1194. Mother testified that she

uses the substance once or twice per day, every day. Id.

{¶64} Mother testified that her actions during the arrest for obstructing official

business and driving under suspension were the result of withdrawing from her prescribed medications. Id. at 1005. Mother testified that she had a “PTSD blackout after she

advised [the officer] that she was on her way home to take her medicine.” Id. at 1142; 7T.

at 1181. Mother testified that she was given a drug test at the police station that tested

negative for drugs, even THC. Mother testified that she does have blackouts. 7T. at

1182. Mother testified that the last time she used alcohol was the day the ACDJFS took

her kids. 6T. at 1007.

{¶65} Mother testified to leaving the children alone as she earned money working

for Door Dash, giving people rides, and taking E.S. to work. Id. at 986-989. Mother further

testified to leaving the children with her sister in Tennessee while she and A.S-G.

attempted to work on their marital problems. 7T. at 1199-1200; 1230-1232; 1234. Mother

testified this was like a summer vacation for the children. Id. at 1232.

{¶66} Mother testified she was unaware that E.S. had inappropriately touched

Y.C. 6T. at 990; 1019. Mother testified that no one told her what conduct the gross sexual

conduct allegations concerned. Id. at 1021. Mother testified that she took E.S.’s calls

from the jail because she was financially dependent on his family for rent, utilities, food,

and gas. Id. at 1023. Mother testified that when she ceased contact with E.S., the support

stopped. Id. Mother testified that the children found out about Mother taking E.S.’s phone

calls because they were told by the CASA worker and the children’s foster parents. Id.

at 1026. Mother testified that she believed that the CASA worker and the previous foster

parents, the Hernandez’s, spoke to the children about the Hernandez’s adopting the

children. Id. at 1052-1054.

{¶67} Mother testified that she had filed for divorce from E.S.; however, she

overslept and missed the court date resulting in the case being dismissed. Id. at 1042; 1139. Mother further testified that she has another child from her first marriage. 6T. at

1075-1076; 1132-1133. Mother testified that she agreed to sign over custody of the child

to his father. Id. at 1133. Mother testified that the child lives in Louisiana with his father.

Id.

{¶68} Mother testified that her paramour, F.C., hit her, leaving a mark on her face.

6T. at 1095. She agreed that she refused any referrals for domestic violence services.

Id. at 1096. Mother testified that A.S-G. was physical with her during their relationship.

Id. at 1126-1128. Mother testified that her first husband and father of their child was

abusive toward her. Id. at 1133. In all, Mother testified that she has had abusive

relationships with four different men over the years. 7T. at 1184. Mother testified that

she does not see her mental health as having anything to do with that pattern. Id. Mother

further testified that when she was younger, she engaged in cutting herself, and now her

oldest child is engaging in similar behavior. Id. at 1185.

{¶69} Mother testified that she had eleven positive tests for methamphetamines

during the case; however, she denied ever using the drug. Id. at 1098-1101. Mother

further testified that the positive THC test results while she was pregnant with A.S. were

false positives. Id. at 1102.10 Mother testified that she missed her last visit with the

children because she did not have transportation. 6T. at 1036.

{¶70} Mother testified that she is employed at Speed North America making a

weed whacker line, working Monday through Friday, with weekends optional. 6T. at 1029.

She testified that her employer would help her find childcare, and that she has a friend

that can help. 6T. at 1045-46.

10 February 16, 2022, and March 7, 2022. The Court Appointed Special Advocate’s Testimony- Emily Huestis

{¶71} Huestis testified that she recommends that Y.C. and M.S. be placed in the

custody of their father, A.S-G. 7T. at 1245. Further, Huestis testified that she

recommends Y.C.’s last name be changed to that of her father. Id. She also recommends

that Y.C. and M.S. begin extended unsupervised visits with their father.

{¶72} Huestis testified that she has no concerns with the fact the Father speaks

Spanish and the children do not. Id. at 1264. Huestis testified that the ACDJFS asked

A. S-G. whether if he would agree to allow his children to be adopted if he were allowed

to have regular visitation. Id. at 1265. Huestis testified that it is not legally possible to

continue visitation after parental rights are terminated. Id. at 1265-1267; 1284-1285.

Huestis testified that she believes the ACDJFS failed to seriously consider A. S-G. for

reunification due to his immigration status. 7T. at 1272-1273. Huestis testified that, due

to the backlog of cases, and with advance notice to the person, deportation is a lengthy

process. Id. at 1276-1277.

{¶73} Huestis testified that she told the children that Mother had tested positive

for drugs. 7T. at 1354. She admitted that she never observed Mother hit her children. Id.

at 1381-1382.

{¶74} Huestis testified that she recommends that permanent custody of Y.S. be

granted to the ACDJFS, with placement remaining with the current foster parents. 7T. at

1245. Huestis testified she further recommends that Mother’s parental rights to all three

children be terminated. Id. at 1246. The Children

{¶75} A Review hearing was held on August 2, 2021, addressing cleanliness

issues of the foster home where the children were placed. While not an emergency, the

children were later removed and placed into another home. The children were ultimately

placed into three different foster homes over the course of the case, due to cleanliness

issues with the first foster care placement, and later alienation concerns with the second

placement. At the last placement, there was a concern with a broken arm of the child,

Y.S., but abuse was not proven.

The Trial Court’s Decision

{¶76} By Judgment Entry filed August 23, 2024, the trial court issued findings of

fact granting permanent custody of the children to the ACDJFS. Specifically, the trial

court found that the children have been in the temporary custody of the ACDJFS for

twelve months out of a consecutive twenty-two month period as of the filing of the Motion

for Permanent Custody, and also, that, by clear and convincing evidence, the minor

children cannot or should not be placed with Mother of the minor children because she

failed to remedy the problems which resulted in the initial removal of the children. The

court cited concerns with Mother’s self-medicating with illegal drugs, her erratic and

unstable behavior, and leaving the children unsupervised. The court noted that Mother

continued to self-medicate with illegal drugs, as evidenced by positive drug screens, and

that she has been non-compliant with case plan services and case management

requirements designed to allow her to resume and maintain parental duties. Further, the

court found that granting permanent custody to the ACDJFS was in the best interests of

the children. Assignment of Error

{¶77} Mother raises one assignment of error,

{¶78} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE ASHLAND

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND FAMILY SERVICES.”

I.

{¶79} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re

Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

A parent's interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child is

“fundamental.” Id.; Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). The permanent

termination of a parent's rights has been described as “* * * the family law equivalent to

the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 (6th Dist. 1991).

Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law

allows.” Id. An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and convincing

evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

Standard of Review

{¶80} The Supreme Court of Ohio has delineated our standard of review as

follows, “the proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a juvenile

court’s decision under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody of a child and to

terminate parental rights are the sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-

the-evidence standards, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that

are presented by the parties.” In re: Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶18. {¶81} Mother challenges both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the

evidence.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

{¶82} Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law reviewed de novo. State v.

Walker, 2016-Ohio-8295, ¶ 30; State v. Jordan, 2023-Ohio-3800, ¶ 13.

{¶83} “‘[S]ufficiency is a test of adequacy.’” In re Z.C. at ¶ 13, quoting State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997) superseded by constitutional amendment on

other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 n.4 (1997). “When

applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial

court when the evidence is legally sufficient to support the [factfinder's determination] as

a matter of law.” (Cleaned up.) In re Z.C. at ¶ 13.

{¶84} The Supreme Court of Ohio held that where the degree of proof required to

sustain an issue must be “clear and convincing” means “[t]he measures or degree of proof

that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the

allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere

preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as required beyond a reasonable

doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.” In re Estate of

Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-104 (1986); Accord, In re: Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶7. A

court of appeals will examine the record to determine whether the judge had sufficient

evidence before it by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that

the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been

established. 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶8; In re Adkins, 2006-Ohio-431, ¶17 (5th Dist.); In re L.A.,

2024-Ohio-3436, ¶59 (5th Dist.). Manifest Weight

{¶85} The term “manifest weight of the evidence” relates to persuasion. Eastley

v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 19. It concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of

credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.”

(Emphasis deleted.) Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387; State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-4175,

¶ 26.

{¶86} When reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence, the question is

whether the jury clearly lost its way in resolving conflicts, resulting in a manifest

miscarriage of justice, even if the evidence is legally sufficient. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d

at 386 - 387; State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 67 (2001). In this role, an appellate court

acts as a “thirteenth juror” and may disagree with the jury’s assessment of conflicting

testimony. State v. Jordan, 2023-Ohio-3800; Thompkins at 387, citing Tibbs v. Florida,

457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982); State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25.

{¶87} Appellate courts traditionally presume the jury’s assessment is correct,

given its ability to observe witnesses’ demeanor, gestures, and tone, all critical factors in

evaluating credibility. Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21; Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v.

Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984).

{¶88} However, the Eighth District Court of Appeals recently noted in State v.

Reillo, 2024-Ohio-3307, ¶ 20, appeal allowed, 2025-Ohio-705 (Table), that Eastley

arguably extended this presumption from civil to criminal cases. Id. at ¶ 27. The court

cautioned that deferring to credibility determinations would collapse the distinction

between sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Reillo at ¶ 23. It observed that if

credibility findings were insulated from review, there would be little reason to raise a manifest-weight challenge. Id. See also State v. Butler, 2024-Ohio-5879, ¶ 27 (5th Dist.).

Thus, acting as a thirteenth juror, the appellate court reviews credibility de novo. Id.

{¶89} A manifest-weight claim succeeds only in “the exceptional case in which the

evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387,

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

Requirements for Permanent Custody Awards

{¶90} 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 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.

{¶91} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) 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, has not been in the

temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or

private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive

twenty-two-month period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one

or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies

for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, as

described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the

child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state, 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 placing agencies for twelve or

more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has

been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services

agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a

consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1) of

section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the

temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.

{¶92} 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.

Temporary Custody For at Least Twelve Out of a Consecutive 22-month

Period-R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

{¶93} The “12 of 22” provisions set forth in R.C. 2151.413(D)(1) and R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) balance the importance of reuniting a child with the child’s parents against the importance of a speedy resolution of the custody of a child. In re C.W., 2004-

Ohio-6411, ¶22. Through the “12 of 22” provisions in the permanent-custody statutes,

the legislature provides parents with 12 months to work toward reunification before an

agency can institute a permanent-custody action asserting R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)

grounds. Id.

{¶94} “Before a public children-services agency or private child-placing agency

can move for permanent custody of a child on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) grounds, the child

must have been in the temporary custody of an agency for at least 12 months of a

consecutive 22-month period.” In re: C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411 at paragraph one of the

syllabus. When calculating this period, the Court in C.W. cautioned, “the time that passes

between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing

does not count toward the 12-month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” 2004-

Ohio-6411, ¶26.

{¶95} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) states that, “[f]or the purposes of division (B)(1) of

this section, a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an

agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of

the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from home.”

{¶96} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are

alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the motion

for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 2007-Ohio-5805 (5th Dist.); In re: K.C., 2024-Ohio-

2081, ¶45 (10th Dist.). This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is

sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 2008-Ohio-5458 (5th

Dist.) In re: K.C., 2024-Ohio-2081, ¶45 (10th Dist.). {¶97} Mother has not challenged that the children had been in the temporary

custody of the ACDJFS for over twelve months of a consecutive 22-month period at the

time the motion for permanent custody was filed. Because Mother has not challenged

the twelve of twenty-two-month finding as to the children, we would only need to address

the best interest of the children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D).

{¶98} However, the trial court also found that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) was

applicable. Even if we consider this argument, the trial court did not err in determining

the children cannot be placed with Mother at this time or within a reasonable time.

Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time– R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)

{¶99} The trial court must consider all relevant evidence before determining the

child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed

with the parents. R.C. 2151.414(E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a

finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) - (15), the court shall determine the children cannot or

should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child

cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a

parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of

one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent

within a reasonable time. See In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996); In re Hurlow,

1997 WL 701328 (4th Dist. Sept. 21, 1998); In re Butcher, 1991 WL 62145 (4th Dist. Apr.

10, 1991).

{¶100} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to consider in determining

whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. Specifically, Section (E) provides, in pertinent part,

as follows:

(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the

Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a

reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, the court

shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and

convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the

Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child’s

parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with

either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either

parent:

(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and

notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency

to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child

to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and

repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be

placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have

substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental

utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and

maintain parental duties.

(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual

disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is

so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate

permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within

one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this

section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the

Revised Code;

…

(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

{¶101} The trial court found that the ACDJFS had made reasonable efforts to

prevent the removal, to eliminate the continued removal, or to make it possible for the

children to return home safely to Mother’s home. The record supports the court’s finding

that Mother has not shown consistent, sustained progress to have the children returned

to her custody.

{¶102} It does not appear that Mother has been able to apply any behavioral

changes that she has attempted to learn. Despite being offered numerous services,

Mother was unable or unwilling to mitigate the concerns that led to the children’s removal.

As set forth in our Facts and Procedural History, 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 her home. {¶103} Despite being diagnosed with significant mental health problems, Mother

rejected the help she was offered. The record clearly shows that Mother would prefer to

self-medicate with Delta-8 and Delta-9 rather than remain on medications prescribed by

her health care professionals. Despite suffering trauma in her own childhood and

continually entering abusive relationships, Mother has rejected all attempts to engage in

counseling and other programs to learn to overcome her problems and live a drug free

life. She does not believe that she has a substance abuse problem, or that she is in need

of mental health services.

{¶104} The ultimate question under R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) is whether the parent has

substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal. A parent can

successfully complete the terms of a case plan yet not substantially remedy the conditions

that caused the children to be removed—the case plan is simply a means to a goal, but

not the goal itself. Hence, the courts have held that the successful completion of case

plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services

agency. In re J.L., 2004-Ohio-6024, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.); In re Mraz, 2002–Ohio–7278 (12th

Dist.). In the case of In re: Summerfield, 2005-Ohio-5523 (5th Dist.), this Court found

where, despite marginal compliance with some aspects of the case plan, the exact

problems that led to the initial removal remained in existence, a court does not err in

finding the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. Accord, In re:

K.C., 2024-Ohio-2081, ¶56 (10th Dist.).

{¶105} No doubt, Mother loves and is bonded with her children. However, the

evidence demonstrates that Mother made very few successful efforts on the case plan.

On that point, the evidence further demonstrates that any improvement Mother has made in her life is tentative and, perhaps, temporary, and that she is at risk of relapse. The trial

court found that Mother is not able to be a successful parent to the children. Mother has

made virtually no progress in the three years this case has been open. Nothing in the

record indicates that, given more time, Mother will make a sincere and successful effort

to remedy the problems.

{¶106} We find there is competent and credible evidence, which, if believed, would

convince the average mind that the children cannot be placed with Mother within a

reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother.

The Best Interest of the Children

{¶107} An agency that seeks permanent custody of a child bears the burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the

child’s best interest. In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 26.

{¶108} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors

in determining whether the child’s best interests would be served by granting the

permanent custody motion. These factors include but are not limited to: (a) the

interrelationship of the child with others; (b) the wishes of the child; (c) the custodial history

of the child; (d) the child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether such a

placement can be achieved without permanent custody; and (e) whether any of the

factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply.

{¶109} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11), which are referred to in

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), involve a parent having been convicted of or pleaded guilty to

specific criminal offenses against the child, the child’s sibling or another child who lived

in the parent’s household; a parent withholding medical treatment or food from the child; a parent repeatedly placing the child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or

drug abuse; a parent abandoning the child; and a parent having had parental rights as to

the child’s sibling involuntarily terminated.

{¶110} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re

C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to make

specific findings regarding each best-interest factor listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or to

include in its decision or judgment entry a written discussion of each of those factors. In

re: A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102, ¶33.

{¶111} A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he

discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent

custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the

nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determination will have on the lives

of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 2000 WL 1700073 (5th Dist. Nov. 13,

2000), citing in re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316 (8th Dist. 1994).

{¶112} In the case at bar, the ACDJFS investigated potential placement with

relatives and found none to be suitable. Considering the many obstacles in Mother’s life,

the trial court found the children’s need for a legally secure placement cannot be achieved

without awarding permanent custody to the ACDJFS. Nothing in the record before us

demonstrates that more time, or a return of custody to the Mother, will in any way benefit

the children. This case has been ongoing for over three years.

{¶113} Here, the trial court concluded the children's need for legally secure

placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to the ACDJFS. Upon review, the record supports the trial court's finding that granting the motion for

permanent custody is in the children’s best interest.

{¶114} In short, the trial court’s judgment entry demonstrates that the court satisfied

its statutory duty to consider the best interest factors set out in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)

through (e).

Conclusion

{¶115} For these reasons, we find that the trial court correctly found that the

children had been in the temporary custody of the ACDJFS for over twelve months of a

consecutive 22-month period.

{¶116} We further find the trial court’s determination that Mother had failed to

remedy the issues that caused the initial removal, and, therefore, the children could not

be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her, was based

upon competent credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency

of the evidence.

{¶117} We further find that the trial court’s decision that permanent custody to the

ACDJFS was in the children’s best interest was based upon competent, credible evidence

and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. {¶118} Because the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s judgment, we

overrule Appellant-Mother’s assignment of error and affirm the decision of the Ashland

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.

By Popham, J.,

King, J., concur;

Hoffman, P.J., concurs

separately Hoffman, P.J., concurring

{¶119} I concur in the majority's thorough and well written opinion with one single exception.

{¶120} The majority holds an appellate court reviews credibility de novo under a manifest

weight of evidence argument. (Maj. Op. at ¶88). I do not believe that is the appropriate

standard of review. When reviewing issues de novo (e.g., statutes, summary judgments,

contracts, etc.), no deference need be given to the trial court's decision. The majority opinion

recognizes appellate courts traditionally presume the trier-of-fact's assessment of conflicting

testimony is correct, given its ability to observe witnesses' demeanor, gestures and tone as

critical factors in evaluating credibility. Yet it holds review of credibility is de novo, which I

maintain is non-deferential. This seems inherently contradictory to me and I remain

unpersuaded such is the appropriate standard of review.