[Cite as In re U.B., 2025-Ohio-1265.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE U.B. : No. 114341 A Minor Child :
[Appeal by J.W., Mother] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 10, 2025
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-23-900061
Appearances:
Edward F. Borkowski, Jr., for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michele L. Wessel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:
Appellant-mother, J.W. (“Mother”), appeals the juvenile court’s
decision terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody of her minor
child, U.B., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services
(“CCDCFS” or “the agency”). Mother claims that the juvenile court’s decision to grant permanent custody to the agency was against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Our review of the record reflects that the juvenile court’s findings and
order granting permanent custody are supported by competent, credible evidence,
and we affirm the juvenile court’s decision.
I. Procedural History and Relevant Facts
A. Initial Removal
In May 2021, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and temporary
custody of four of Mother’s children, including U.B. The complaint alleged that
Mother lacked stable and appropriate housing, had a substance-abuse problem, and
had untreated mental-health problems, all of which prevented her from providing
appropriate care for the children. Predispositional temporary custody was initially
granted to the father of one of the children. In June 2021, the agency was granted
predispositional temporary custody of the children. The complaint was ultimately
dismissed since the matter could not be resolved within the statutory time frame.
B. Case at Issue
On January 5, 2023, the agency filed a complaint with juvenile court for
dependency and temporary custody of U.B.1 The complaint alleged that Mother
lacked appropriate housing and had mental-health and long-standing-substance-
abuse issues. The juvenile court granted predispositional temporary custody to the
agency the same day.
1 The remaining three children in the initial complaint were adjudicated neglected in a
separate case. Two were in the temporary custody of the agency at the time of the filing of this complaint, and the third had been recently emancipated. An adjudicatory hearing was held on March 28, 2023. U.B. was
adjudicated to be dependent and placed in the temporary custody of the agency.
On May 10, 2023, the agency filed a motion to modify temporary
custody to permanent custody. A hearing was held on this motion on August 5,
2024.
C. Permanent Custody Hearing and Appeal
Mother was represented by counsel at the permanent-custody hearing.
U.B.’s guardian ad litem, Cynthia Morgan (“GAL”), was also present. The agency’s
social worker, Chaquelya Patterson, testified on behalf of the agency. Mother and
Mother’s chemical dependency counselor, Christine Ferguson, testified on behalf of
mother. The GAL also testified to her report and recommendation.
1. Chaquelya Patterson
Chaquelya Patterson (“Patterson”) is a case manager at CCDCFS. She
had been assigned to this case since July 2023. She testified that Mother had been
involved with the agency since 2002 and that Mother had previously lost permanent
custody of four of her children to the agency. At the time of trial, Mother also had
three additional children that had been adjudicated neglected, one of whom was
ultimately emancipated.
Patterson testified that in this case, the agency was initially granted
temporary custody of U.B. due to Mother’s failure to provide adequate housing,
Mother’s substance-abuse issues, and Mother’s mental-health issues. A case plan was filed in 2021 with the goal of reunification. Mother was required to obtain
suitable housing and to receive substance-abuse and mental-health services.
Patterson testified that Mother told her that she had been diagnosed
with bipolar disorder, depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Mother was referred to a
mental-health counselor through OhioGuidestone and with Care Alliance.
However, Mother was inconsistent with her appointments with Care Alliance and
went to OhioGuidestone only once in 2021 or 2022. Patterson stated that it was not
until late 2023 that Mother started to consistently see a therapist2 with Key
Counseling. She further testified that Mother had informed her that she stopped
taking her mental-health medication in January 2024.
With respect to Mother’s substance-abuse issues, Patterson testified
that Mother had been diagnosed with cannabis disorder. Patterson stated that
Mother had not made any progress with respect to this part of her case plan. She
testified that Mother had been testing positive for over a year.3 Patterson testified
that Mother refused to submit to a drug test in July 2024.
Patterson stated that Mother obtained housing in June 2024, two
months prior to the trial. She testified that Mother had been without adequate
2 Mother treated with Christine Ferguson at Key Counseling Services. Ferguson is a
licensed clinical social worker and licensed clinical independent chemical dependency counselor. However, some witnesses referred to her as a “therapist.”
3 Mother had tested positive for cocaine and marijuana in September 2023; for marijuana
in December 2023; twice for marijuana in January 2024; for marijuana in March 2024; twice for marijuana in April 2024; twice for marijuana in May 2024; and twice for marijuana in June 2024. housing for over three years. Patterson stated that she had been unable to verify if
the home was appropriate. She testified that she had a visit scheduled with Mother
to view the house but Mother did not show up. She attempted to reschedule with
Mother but was unsuccessful.
Patterson testified that while U.B. has been in the agency’s custody,
Mother has had weekly supervised visits with U.B. Patterson believed that U.B. and
Mother bonded at these visits; however, sometimes she would have to redirect
Mother on certain things “that’s not in the best interest of the child.” She explained,
for example, Mother would continue to bring candy to the visits even though she
had told Mother that candy is not appropriate due to U.B.’s oral health.
Patterson also testified that U.B. has bonded with her foster parents.
U.B. has told Patterson that she would like to stay with her foster parents.
2. Christine Ferguson
Christine Ferguson (“Ferguson”) is a licensed clinical social worker
and chemical dependency counselor with Key Counseling Services. She testified
that Mother became her client in 2022. She met with Mother three to four times a
week to begin with, ultimately settling on a biweekly schedule. There was eventually
a gap in Mother’s treatment, but in November 2023, they began meeting
consistently again.
Ferguson testified that Mother’s treatment plan was for her to address
her substance-use disorder with marijuana. She stated that Mother has been
diagnosed with PTSD, general anxiety disorder, and major depression. Mother told Ferguson that she smokes marijuana to address the symptoms associated with these
disorders and that the medications prescribed to Mother were having a negative
effect on her. Ferguson testified that she advised Mother “that there was a
reasonable way for her to therapeutically use her marijuana and to watch out, so-to-
speak, for issues concerning abuse or over use.” Ferguson testified that Mother did
not have a legal medical marijuana card.
Ferguson also testified that she did not believe that Mother was a
danger to herself or U.B. She had witnessed Mother with U.B. and stated that
Mother is very strongly bonded with U.B. and that U.B. should be returned to
Mother.
3. Mother
Mother also testified at trial. She admitted that she had been
diagnosed with cannabis disorder and tobacco addiction. She testified that she was
consistent with her mental-health medications but that there were side effects, such
as paranoia, agitation, and teeth grinding. She stated that she spoke to the agency
and they told her she did not need the medications.
Mother stated that she has been smoking marijuana for over 20 years.
She testified that she smoked marijuana therapeutically to treat her mental-health
issues because she did not like the way her mental-health medications made her feel.
She also acknowledged that she has been consistently testing positive for marijuana.
With respect to her housing situation, Mother testified that she had
signed up for housing three years earlier but only obtained housing on June 3, 2024. She testified that she had been approved for housing in 2021 but nobody told her
she had been approved.
4. The GAL
At the conclusion of testimony, the GAL presented her report and
recommendation. The GAL noted that the case plan was initially started in June
2021, yet Mother did not obtain housing until June 2024 and continued to use
marijuana. She also noted the extensive dental work U.B. required as well as her
limited learning and educational skills when the agency was first granted temporary
custody. Specifically, when U.B. entered kindergarten, she could only recite her first
and last name, identify come colors, and hold a pencil. U.B. did not have any other
readiness skills. The GAL stated that the skills U.B. possessed today were all learned
during the school year of 2023-2024. The GAL recommended that permanent
custody of U.B. be awarded to the agency.
D. Order and Appeal
On August 20, 2024, the juvenile court issued an order granting
permanent custody to the agency. It is from this order that Mother appeals, raising
the following assignment of error:
The trial court abused its discretion by granting permanent custody of Appellant’s child to CCDCFS against the manifest weight of the evidence.
II. Law and Argument
We begin our analysis with the recognition that “‘[a]ll children have
the right, if possible, to parenting from either biological or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.’” In re L.W., 2017-
Ohio-657, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.).
Similarly, a “‘parent’s right to raise a child is an essential basic civil right.’” In re
N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48
(1997). By terminating a person’s parental rights, the goal “is to make a more stable
life for the dependent children and to facilitate adoption to foster permanency for
children.” N.B. at 67, citing In re Howard, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7860, *5 (5th
Dist. Aug. 1, 1986).
A. Standard of Review
Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414, a juvenile court’s judgment granting
permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and
convincing evidence has been defined as “‘that measure or degree of proof which is
more than a mere “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 K.H., 2008-Ohio-4825, ¶ 42, quoting Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. “We will not
reverse a juvenile court’s termination of parental rights and award of permanent
custody to an agency unless the judgment is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” In re L.A., 2024-Ohio-5103, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing N.B. at ¶ 48.
Here, Mother argues that the award of permanent custody was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. When reviewing for manifest weight in permanent custody cases, we “must weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in
resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created
such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new
trial ordered.” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 14. As such, the “juvenile court’s
decision to grant permanent custody will not be reversed as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains some competent, credible
evidence from which the court could have found that the essential statutory
elements for permanent custody had been established by clear and convincing
evidence.’” In re A.S., 2021-Ohio-3829, ¶ 39 (8th Dist.), quoting In re A.P., 2016-
Ohio-5849, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).
B. Analysis
“R.C. 2151.414 sets out specific findings a juvenile court must make
before granting an agency’s motion for permanent custody of a child.” In re A.M.,
2020-Ohio-5102, ¶ 18, citing In re C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 22. In order to grant
permanent custody, the juvenile court is required to engage in a two-prong
approach. The juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) one
or more of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) exist and (2) a grant
of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
1. First Prong – R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)
Here, the juvenile court found, under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), that the
child had been in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-
month period. Mother does not dispute this finding. As such, our analysis is focused
only on the second prong: the juvenile court’s determination that a grant of
permanent custody was in U.B.’s best interest.
2. Second Prong – Best Interest of the Child – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and/or (D)(2)
In determining whether permanent custody is in the best interest of
the child, the juvenile must court consider the relevant factors set forth in either
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or (D)(2). Here, the juvenile court found “by clear and
convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the
permanent custody of the CCDCFS [Cuyahoga County Division of Children and
Family Services.]” The court made this determination under both subsections
(D)(1) and (D)(2).
Mother disputes the juvenile court’s determination that granting
permanent custody of U.B. was in the child’s best interest. Mother only challenges
the findings the juvenile court made with respect to subsection (D)(1) of
R.C. 2151.414. Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s findings under
subsection (D)(2). We do not need to address the juvenile court’s findings under
(D)(1) if the court also determined that it was in the child’s best interest to be placed
into permanent custody under subsection (D)(2). See A.S., 2021-Ohio-3829, at ¶ 42
(8th Dist.) (noting that “[w]e do not need to determine if the trial court correctly
applied the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors, however, because the trial court also found that it was in [the child’s] best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the
agency under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2).”). Rather, “[a] finding under section (D)(2) of
R.C. 2151.414 mandates that the trial court find it is in a child’s best interest to be
placed in the agency’s permanent custody.” Id., citing In re G.A., 2020-Ohio-2949,
¶ 59 (8th Dist.).
We begin our analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) that provides:
If all of the following apply, permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall commit the child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency:
(a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the factors in division (E) of this section exist and the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.
(b) The child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code.
(c) The child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code.
(d) Prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of the child.
If the juvenile court makes the four enumerated findings set forth in
subsection (D)(2), “permanent custody is per se in the child’s best interest and the
court ‘shall’ commit the child to the permanent custody of the agency.” A.S. at ¶ 44,
citing G.A. at ¶ 61. The juvenile court found each of the above factors were satisfied. a. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a)
To satisfy the (D)(2)(a) factor, the juvenile court must find that “one
or more of the factors in division (E) of this section exist and the child cannot be
placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be
placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a). This factor is satisfied if the
juvenile court finds that at least one of the factors in division (E) exists. Here, the
court found several of the statutory factors exist, including R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2),
(4), (11), and (16). The juvenile court found “the child cannot be placed with one of
the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either
parent.” We will address each of the factors found by the juvenile court.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) Factors
With respect to subsection (E)(1), the court found “the parent has
failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing
the child to be placed outside the child’s home.” With respect to (E)(2), the court
found, “[t]he chronic chemical dependency of the parent . . . 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.” There is competent and credible
evidence in the record that Mother failed to remedy the conditions that caused U.B.
to be removed from the home and that Mother’s chronic chemical dependency is so
severe that she is unable to provide a permanent home for U.B.
In May 2021, U.B. was initially removed from Mother’s custody due
to inadequate housing, substance abuse, and mental health of Mother. Mother was diagnosed with PTSD, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. She was prescribed
medications to address these issues but had stopped taking the medications as of
January 2024.
Mother testified that she has been smoking marijuana for 20 years,
and despite receiving treatment for her mental health and substance abuse as part
of her case plan, she continues to test positive for marijuana. She had also tested
positive for cocaine within a year prior to the trial. Mother and her chemical
dependency counselor each testified that Mother continues to use marijuana for
therapeutic purposes. Mother does not have a medical marijuana card, and her
chemical dependency counselor testified that Mother has not been prescribed
marijuana. The GAL also testified that Mother was never advised to get a medical
marijuana card.
With respect to Mother’s lack of adequate housing, the evidence
demonstrates that Mother eventually obtained housing in June 2024. However,
Patterson testified that she was unable to visit the apartment to determine if it is
appropriate. Patterson stated that Mother did not show up to the scheduled
appointment and she had been unable to schedule a follow-up appointment with
Mother. Prior to obtaining housing, Mother did not have adequate housing for over
three years. For these reasons, there exists competent and credible evidence in the
record to support the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) that
Mother failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal of U.B. and that Mother
continues to have a chronic chemical dependency. R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) Factor
With respect to subsection (E)(4), the juvenile court found that “[t]he
parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to
regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or provide
an adequate permanent home for the child.” With respect to U.B.’s father, Patterson
testified that he was on the case plan but has not made any progress. Patterson had
not made contact with him, nor had he had any involvement in case-plan services.
With respect to Mother, as addressed above, the testimony revealed that after three
years of U.B. being placed in the agency’s custody, Mother has failed to remedy the
conditions that caused U.B.’s removal. There is competent and credible evidence in
the record that after three years, Mother has failed to provide an adequate
permanent home for U.B.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) Factor
With respect to subsection (E)(11), the juvenile court found that
[t]he parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or section 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Ohio Revised Code . . . and the parent has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child.
CCDCFS presented journal entries that Mother had four of her
children previously committed to the permanent custody of the agency. Under this
factor, the burden thus shifts to Mother. See R.C. 2151.141(E)(11). As discussed
above, the record indicates that Mother cannot demonstrate that she can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and
safety of U.B. As such, there is competent and credible evidence in the record to
support the juvenile court’s finding.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) Factor
With respect to subsection (E)(16), the juvenile court found that
“Mother has shown a pattern of not putting child’s best interest first.” Specifically,
the juvenile court noted Mother brought other individuals to visitations, even after
being instructed not to due to U.B.’s anxiety; Mother would bring sweets to U.B.
after being instructed not to due to U.B.’s dental health; and Mother failed to address
U.B.’s educational needs prior to removal. These facts were presented through the
testimony of the case worker and are supported by the record.
In order to satisfy the first enumerated factor R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a),
only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) need be met. Here, the juvenile
court found multiple applicable factors under subsection (E) are satisfied. Each of
these findings are supported by credible and competent evidence. Therefore, the
juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a) is satisfied.
b. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(b)
To satisfy the R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(b) factor, the juvenile court must
find that “[t]he child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and no
longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415
of the Revised Code.” Here, it is undisputed that U.B. had been in CCDCFS’s custody
since 2021. At the time of trial, U.B. had been in the uninterrupted custody of the agency for three years and no longer qualifies for temporary custody under
R.C. 2151.415.
R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall not
order an existing temporary custody order to continue beyond two years after the
date on which the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care,
whichever date is earlier, regardless of whether any extensions have been previously
ordered pursuant to division (D) of this section.” At the time of trial, U.B. no longer
qualified for temporary custody. As such, this finding is satisfied.
c. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c)
The R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c) factor is satisfied if “[t]he child does not
meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to
division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code.” The juvenile court found
that U.B. did not meet these requirements.
R.C. 2151.353 provides if a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected,
or dependent child, the court may
[p]lace the child in a planned permanent living arrangement with a public children services agency or private child placing agency, if a public children services agency or private child placing agency requests the court to place the child in a planned permanent living arrangement and if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that a planned permanent living arrangement is in the best interest of the child, that the child is sixteen years of age or older, and that one of the following exists:
The child, because of physical, mental, or psychological problems or needs, is unable to function in a family-like setting and must remain in residential or institutional care now and for the foreseeable future beyond the date of the dispositional hearing held pursuant to section 2151.35 of the Revised Code.
The parents of the child have significant physical, mental, or psychological problems and are unable to care for the child because of those problems, adoption is not in the best interest of the child, as determined in accordance with division (D)(1) of section 2151.414 of the Revised Code, and the child retains a significant and positive relationship with a parent or relative.
The child has been counseled on the permanent placement options available to the child, and is unwilling to accept or unable to adapt to a permanent placement.
There is no evidence presented to satisfy any of the requirements to
place U.B. into a planned permanent living arrangement. Rather, the record
demonstrates that U.B. has been placed in a family-like setting with foster parents.
Patterson testified that U.B. has bonded with her foster parents and U.B. has advised
Patterson that she would like to stay with her foster parents. There was also no
testimony that U.B. was unable to function in a family-like setting. There is nothing
in the record that supports any of the requirements under this section. As a result,
the record supports the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c).
d. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d)
Under the final factor, R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d), the juvenile court
found that “[p]rior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested
person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal Custody.” Here, there
is nothing in the record concerning a relative or other interested person filing a
motion for legal custody of U.B. The juvenile court’s findings under this factor are
supported by the record. The juvenile court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) are supported
by competent and credible evidence in the record. Since all of the factors under
R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) apply, “permanent custody was necessarily in the best interest
of the child and the juvenile court was required to grant permanent custody to
CCDCFS.” In re P.J., 2021-Ohio-1821, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). “A finding under section
(D)(2) of R.C. 2151.414 mandates the trial court find it is in a child’s best interest to
be placed in the agency’s permanent custody.” A.S., 2021-Ohio-3829, at ¶ 42 (8th
Dist.), citing In re G.A., 2020-Ohio-2949, at ¶ 59 (8th Dist.).
Since the juvenile court’s determination under (D)(2) is supported by
competent and credible evidence, we do not need to determine if the juvenile court
correctly applied the factors set forth under (D)(1). Id. Accordingly, Mother’s sole
assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court’s
findings are supported by competent and credible evidence within the record.
Therefore, the juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR