[Cite as In re W.R., 2013-Ohio-555.]
COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES: IN THE MATTER OF: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. W. R. and H. E. Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 ALLEGED NEGLECTED/ DEPENDENT CHILDREN OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 11 JN 00264
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 13, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Mother For Appellee
JOHN BRECHBILL DAVID HAVERFIELD ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER TUSCARAWAS COUNTY JFS 153 North Broadway 389 16th Street SW New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
For Father Guardian Ad Litem
E. MARIE SEIBER KAREN DUMMERMUTH Post Office Box 108 349 East High Avenue Dennison, Ohio 44683 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Appellant L. E. (“Mother”) appeals the October 5, 2012, judgment entered
by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas (“TCJFS”), Juvenile Division, which
terminated her parental rights, privileges and responsibilities with respect to her two
minor children, and granted permanent custody of the children to Appellee Tuscarawas
County Department of Job and Family Services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant-Mother is the biological mother of W.R. (dob 10-06-09), and
H.E. (dob 05-22-11). The biological father of the children is T. R. (“Father”).
{¶3} On May 24, 2011, TCJFS sought and was granted custody of both
children after it was learned that Appellant-Mother and Father were living together.
Mother has a significant history of involvement with Tuscarawas County Job & Family
Services, having previously lost permanent custody or legal custody of five other
children due to her abuse of the children while she was intoxicated. W.R. had been the
subject of a case filed in Stark County Family Court that closed prior to the agency's
most recent involvement wherein the child was placed with Father and Appellant-Mother
was ordered to have no contact. Father moved in with Appellant-Mother and they had
another child together, H.E.
{¶4} An adjudicatory hearing was held on June 22, 2011, wherein Father
stipulated to the filed complaint. Appellant-Mother did not appear at said hearing.
Testimony as to Appellant-Mother’s lack of sobriety was presented to the court,
ultimately resulting in the trial court entering a finding the children were neglected and
dependent. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 3
{¶5} At the dispositional hearing on July 19, 2012, the children remained in the
temporary custody of the agency and a case plan was adopted. The proposed case
plan set forth services for both parents. Father was ordered to have supervised
visitation with the children at that time. No visitation was ordered for the Appellant-
Mother at that time.
{¶6} Father’s case plan included, inter alia, attendance and completion of
anger management counseling, securing independent housing and obtaining verified
employment.
{¶7} In April, 2012, as a result of the parents’ failure to comply with and
complete services set forth in their case plans, the agency filed a motion for permanent
custody.
{¶8} Both Appellant-Mother and Father requested a six-month extension of
their case plans, which were denied.
{¶9} Throughout the case, the agency had concerns about the relationship
between the parents. Appellant-Mother entered residential drug treatment and left
shortly thereafter again relapsing. She ultimately entered Harbor House again as a
condition of a sentence handed down in Stark County. She remained at Harbor House
until leaving 15 days before completing the program for reasons she described as
drama in the house. She did ultimately reunite with Father.
{¶10} At a court hearing shortly before the full hearing on permanent custody,
Appellant-Mother discussed with her case manager leaving Father over concerns his
lack of case plan progress was impacting her ability to be reunified with her children.
Unbeknownst to the agency, she and Father had already procured a marriage license Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 4
and were married shortly thereafter. Appellant-Mother ultimately disclosed she was
pregnant with another child.
{¶11} The permanent custody hearing began on September 7, 2012, but could
not be completed that date. Additional evidence was heard on September 26, 2012. The
trial court then issued a judgment entry on October 5, 2012, granting the agency's
permanent custody motion.
{¶12} It is from this judgment entry Appellant-Mother appeals1, assigning as
error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY
TO JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES AS SAID DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶14} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
I.
{¶15} 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.
Cross Truck v. Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA5758. Accordingly, judgments
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of
1 Father also raises the same assignment of error in a separate appeal, 2012 AP 10 0063. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 5
the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E.
Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578.
{¶16} 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.
{¶17} In order to grant a request for permanent custody, the trial court is
required to engage in a two-part analysis. First, as required by R.C. §2151.414, it must
find that one of the factors below exists:
{¶18} (B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may
grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing
held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is
in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency
that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply:
{¶19} (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 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 6
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.
{¶20} (b) The child is abandoned.
{¶21} (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
able to take permanent custody.
{¶22} (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.
{¶23} The trial court is then required to engage in an assessment of whether a
grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child utilizing factors set forth in
R. C. §2151.414(D) as follows:
{¶24} (D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant
to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of section
2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
{¶25} (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other
person who may significantly affect the child; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 7
{¶26} (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;
{¶27} (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether 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;
{¶28} (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
to the agency;
{¶29} (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶30} In the instant case, with regard to the first statutory criteria, the trial court
found the children could not or should not be returned to either parent at the time of the
litigation or within a year thereof.
{¶31} This determination requires the evaluation of another set of factors found
in R.C. §2151.414:
{¶32} (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 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 8
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:
{¶33} (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 the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain
parental duties.
{¶34} (2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation,
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; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 9
{¶35} (3) The parent committed any abuse as described in section 2151.031 of
the Revised Code against the child, caused the child to suffer any neglect as described
in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code, or allowed the child to suffer any neglect as
described in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code between the date that the original
complaint alleging abuse or neglect was filed and the date of the filing of the motion for
permanent custody;
{¶36} (4) The 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 by
other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the
child;
{¶37} (5) The parent is incarcerated for an offense committed against the child
or a sibling of the child;
{¶38} (6) The parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense under
division (A) or (C) of section 2919.22 or under section 2903.16, 2903.21, 2903.34,
2905.01, 2905.02, 2905.03, 2905.04, 2905.05, 2907.07, 2907.08, 2907.09, 2907.12,
2907.21, 2907.22, 2907.23, 2907.25, 2907.31, 2907.32, 2907.321, 2907.322, 2907.323,
2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2911.12, 2919.12, 2919.24, 2919.25, 2923.12, 2923.13,
2923.161, 2925.02, or 3716.11 of the Revised Code and the child or a sibling of the
child was a victim of the offense or the parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to
an offense under section 2903.04 of the Revised Code, a sibling of the child was the
victim of the offense, and the parent who committed the offense poses an ongoing
danger to the child or a sibling of the child. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 10
{¶39} (7) The parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one of the
following:
{¶40} (a) An offense under section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03 of the Revised
Code or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in those sections and the
victim of the offense was a sibling of the child or the victim was another child who lived
in the parent's household at the time of the offense;
{¶41} (b) An offense under section 2903.11, 2903.12, or 2903.13 of the Revised
Code or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in those sections and the
victim of the offense is the child, a sibling of the child, or another child who lived in the
parent's household at the time of the offense;
{¶42} (c) An offense under division (B)(2) of section 2919.22 of the Revised
Code or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to the offense described in that section and the
child, a sibling of the child, or another child who lived in the parent's household at the
time of the offense is the victim of the offense;
{¶43} (d) An offense under section 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.04, 2907.05, or
2907.06 of the Revised Code or under an existing or former law of this state, any other
state, or the United States that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in
those sections and the victim of the offense is the child, a sibling of the child, or another
child who lived in the parent's household at the time of the offense; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 11
{¶44} (e) A conspiracy or attempt to commit, or complicity in committing, an
offense described in division (E)(7)(a) or (d) of this section.
{¶45} (8) The parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment or food from the
child when the parent has the means to provide the treatment or food, and, in the case
of withheld medical treatment, the parent withheld it for a purpose other than to treat the
physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through prayer alone
in accordance with the tenets of a recognized religious body.
{¶46} (9) The parent has placed the child at substantial risk of harm two or more
times due to alcohol or drug abuse and has rejected treatment two or more times or
refused to participate in further treatment two or more times after a case plan issued
pursuant to section 2151.412 of the Revised Code requiring treatment of the parent was
journalized as part of a dispositional order issued with respect to the child or an order
was issued by any other court requiring treatment of the parent.
{¶47} (10) The parent has abandoned the child.
{¶48} (11) The 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 Revised Code, or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or
the United States that is substantially equivalent to those sections, 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.
{¶49} (12) The parent is incarcerated at the time of the filing of the motion for
permanent custody or the dispositional hearing of the child and will not be available to Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 12
care for the child for at least eighteen months after the filing of the motion for permanent
custody or the dispositional hearing.
{¶50} (13) The parent is repeatedly incarcerated, and the repeated incarceration
prevents the parent from providing care for the child.
{¶51} (14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing,
shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering
physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.
{¶52} (15) The parent has committed abuse as described in section 2151.031 of
the Revised Code against the child or caused or allowed the child to suffer neglect as
described in section 2151.03 of the Revised Code, and the court determines that the
seriousness, nature, or likelihood of recurrence of the abuse or neglect makes the
child's placement with the child's parent a threat to the child's safety.
{¶53} (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶54} In the case sub judice, the trial court heard the following evidence as to
whether the children could not or should not be returned home:
{¶55} Jaime Grunder, the ongoing case manager from the agency, testified
regarding all of the other children of Mother who had previously been placed into the
legal custody of other relatives. Ms. Grunder also authenticated a certified judgment
entry from the Tuscarawas County Juvenile Court that terminated the parental rights of
Mother to two prior children. (T. at 5-6). She also testified Mother had a history of
abusing cocaine and had last tested positive for cocaine on September 23, 2011. On
that date, she and the Guardian ad Litem had pulled Mother out of a crack house. (T. at
7). Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 13
{¶56} Ms. Grunder further stated to the best of her knowledge, Mother had
remained sober since that date. (T. at 10). Mother had been at Harbor House for in-
patient drug and alcohol counseling two times during the current case. She left after one
month the first time early into treatment and relapsed thereafter. During her second
stay, she completed almost the entire program, choosing to leave fifteen days before
she was due to successfully complete same. (T. at 8).
{¶57} Ms. Grunder further testified to ongoing concerns regarding Mother's
housing, noting she really had no idea where she was living. (T. at 11-12). She also
expressed concern over the nature of and misrepresentations about her relationship
with Father. She stated despite representations to the contrary, Father and Mother had
been together since Mother left the Harbor House program in March of 2012. (T. at 13).
Mother had represented at a trial court hearing prior to the permanent custody hearing
she was contemplating leaving Father because his lack of progress was jeopardizing
her ability to reunify with her children. However, at the time these representations were
made, Father and Mother had already obtained a marriage license and were
subsequently married. (T. at 24). Ms. Grunder articulated the agency was unable to
view the progress made by Mother in a vacuum when she continued to be in a
relationship with Father. (T. at 15).
{¶58} Ms. Grunder also testified as to Father’s lack of progress on his case plan.
She stated he did complete required CPR training and the agency's parenting class. (T.
at 16). He did not complete a requisite anger management assessment and counseling.
(T. at 16). He did complete a drug and alcohol assessment, but the agency believed he Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 14
had been largely dishonest in the process, reporting he did not drink but then later
contradicting this statement. (T. at 18, 173).
{¶59} Ms. Grunder further testified Father never had any discernible
employment throughout the case. He reported a number of jobs, but never provided
verification of any. (T. at 19-20). She also expressed concern over his housing
situation. While Father provided a number of alleged work addresses to the agency,
none could ever be verified. (T. at 22). Additionally, Ms. Grunder stated that she made
numerous attempts to locate Father at the home address he provided but was never
able to verify he actually lived there. She further stated at one point in the case, the
Father and Mother were denying living together despite the fact the agency's own
transportation was picking them up at the same address. (T. at 28).
{¶60} Ms. Grunder also testified the agency had significant concerns about
Father’s constant lies. Ms. Grunder related incidents of asking Father a question and
receiving an answer from him only to have Mother confront Father about the falsehood.
(T. at 22). Father even lied in front of Mother about the fact he was married while both
were wearing new wedding rings. (T. at. 25).
{¶61} During cross-examination, Father testified he lied because he did not want
bad information about him to get out. (T. at 99).
{¶62} Ms. Grunder further testified regarding her objection to the requested six
month extension. She opined Father had failed to demonstrate any follow through with
some of the services on the case plan during the fourteen to fifteen months the case
was pending, and she saw no reason to believe he would do it in another six months.
(T. at 29, 60). She testified she regularly advised both parents of what services needed Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 15
to be done, including the need for Father to obtain employment and stable housing. (T.
at 33).
{¶63} Star Jones, a chemical dependency counselor at Harbor House, testified
next. Ms. Jones testified regarding Mother's involvement in their program. She stated
Mother entered treatment the first time on July 12, 2011, and subsequently left on
August 1, 2011, admitting cocaine abuse after she left. (T. at 70-72). She subsequently
re-entered treatment in October of 2011, and left on March 4, 2011, when she simply
failed to return from a pass. (T. at 72). Ms. Jones expressed concern over Mother’s
ability to maintain sobriety in light of her just walking out of treatment, as one of the
goals of treatment is teaching individuals to meet their commitments. (T. at 75). Ms.
Jones stated during her stay at Harbor House, Mother tended to focus her attention on
others, failing to address her own issues. (T. at 79).
{¶64} The trial court also heard testimony from Father who was called on cross-
examination by the agency. He testified he did not have a full-time job, but rather that
he had multiple odd jobs. (T. at 96). He admitted to lying to the case worker throughout
the case. (T. at 98). He attributed his actions to not wanting bad information to be
known about him. (T. at 103). He further acknowledged he had missed multiple
appointments that were scheduled to address the anger management component of his
case plan. (T. at 98-100). He also testified he was not concerned about his alcohol
abuse and the role it played in prior violent episodes between him and Mother. (T. at
111). He acknowledged not being honest about the role his alcohol abuse may have
played in past altercations with Mother and admitted he did not report this information to
the counselor doing his drug and alcohol assessment. (T. at 111). Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 16
{¶65} The trial court next heard testimony from Appellant-Mother, who was also
called on cross-examination by the agency. Mother testified she left her residential drug
treatment program fourteen days before completion because she was uncomfortable
regarding the nature of a possible relationship between one of the other clients and an
employee. (T. at 116). Initially, she tried to misrepresent the time frame of obtaining the
marriage license with Father but later acknowledged the dates when confronted with the
documentation. (T. at 118). She also acknowledged her decision to continue to engage
in a relationship with Father was tantamount to choosing him over her children. (T. at
121).
{¶66} The trial court next heard testimony from Barbara Schwartz, a professional
licensed to perform psychological evaluations. Ms. Schwartz testified regarding her
assessment of Mother. She stated she completed her assessment in September of
2011. (T. at 131). She stated Mother only appeared for two of five scheduled
appointments. (T. at 132). She stated she diagnosed Mother with an Axis 1 diagnosis
of poly substance abuse and Axis II diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Traits and
Dependent Personality Traits. (T. at 132). Ms. Schwartz opined Mother would require
intensive treatment for her substance abuse problem, most likely on an inpatient basis.
(T. at 133). She stated the substance abuse issue would need to be addressed first
before further issues could be addressed. (T. at 134). Ms. Schwartz further testified
Appellant's Antisocial Personality Traits would manifest itself as a belief generally
accepted rules of conduct did not apply to her. (T. at 135). Ms. Schwartz testified she
was conservative in her diagnosis, indicating Mother technically fit the criteria for an
Antisocial Personality Disorder, a more severe diagnosis. (T. at 136). With regard to her Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 17
Dependent Personality Traits, the disorder would manifest in terms of a need to be
taken care of and gravitation toward relationships that were not healthy. It was her
opinion a person with these disorders will not protect his or her children from the person
they are dependent upon. (T. at 137).
{¶67} Ms. Schwartz stated she had not seen Mother since completion of her
assessment; however, she testified she would view her marriage as evidence of her
falling into historical patterns of behavior. (T. at 137). She further testified Mother had a
poor prognosis as to ever changing. (T. at 139-140). Ms. Schwartz also clarified
Mother’s substance abuse issues were separate from the personality disorders and
simply addressing the drug problems, while important, would not automatically correct
her other problems. (T. at 145-146).
{¶68} Father was again called to testify, this time on direct examination by his
attorney. By the second hearing date, he had obtained employment, having worked for
two weeks. (T. at 164-165). He also relayed his history of violence with Mother. (T. at
177). This testimony was contradictory to the history provided to the person who
conducted his drug and alcohol assessment.
{¶69} Mother was also called back to the stand to testify by her counsel. During
questioning by the trial court after a recess, she acknowledged she had lived in much
more difficult situations than the one she chose to leave at Harbor House. (T. at 220).
She acknowledged the problems faced by the trial court as to her sobriety and the
choices she had made. (T. at 220).
{¶70} In its Judgment Entry, the trial court recounted Mother’s history of having
previously lost permanent custody of two children and legal custody of three others. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 18
Further, the trial court stated Mother has a “very long, horrendous history of alcohol and
cocaine abuse” and gave an account of one occasion where she had to be removed
from a crack house by the guardian ad litem. Further, the court recounts this case
began when Mother tied her children in bed and left them alone while she went out.
(Oct. 5, 2012, Judgment Entry at 1). The court went on to find Mother’s “continued
attitudes and life choices still put her at great risk of relapse.” The trial court also found
Mother’s actions in leaving her in-patient treatment program prior to completion
“demonstrates the same lack of commitment that she has shown since 2005.” Id. at 2.
Finally, the trial court found both father and Mother “continue to demonstrate pervasive,
maladaptive behavior and have made no long lasting changes in their lives that would
reasonably ensure the safety of any child in their care.” (Oct. 5, 2012, Judgment Entry
at 3).
{¶71} Based on the foregoing, this Court finds there was competent, credible
evidence to support the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of the
parents and place these children in the permanent custody of the agency and the same
was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 19
{¶72} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶73} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
___________________________________
JUDGES WBH/d 0130 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064 20
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : : W. R. and H. E. : JUDGMENT ENTRY : ALLEGED NEGLECTED/ : DEPENDENT CHILDREN : Case No. 2012 AP 11 0064
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
JUDGES