In re Z.W. , 2021 Ohio 3412 ( 2021 )

[Cite as In re Z.W., 2021-Ohio-3412.]
COURT OF APPEALS
COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P. J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Z.W. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Dependent Child Case No. 2021CA0015
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, Case No. 21830070
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 27, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Mother For Appellee CCJFS
JEFFREY A. MULLEN SARA R. CHISNELL
PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE COSHOCTON COUNTY JFS
239 North Fourth Street 725 Pine Street
Coshocton, Ohio 43812 Coshocton, Ohio 43812
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Q.C., appeals the decision of the Coshocton County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated Appellant’s parental rights and
granted Coshocton County Department of Job and Family Services’ (“Agency”) motion
for permanent custody of Z.W. The following facts give rise to this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Z.W. was born on August 23, 2015. Appellant is the biological mother of
Z.W., and G.W. is the natural father of Z.W.
{¶3} On October 17, 2018, the Agency made a request for an ex parte order for
temporary custody of Z.W. The trial court granted the order on the same day.
{¶4} On October 18, 2018, the Agency filed a complaint alleging Z.W. was a
dependent and neglected child due to drug usage of the parents, domestic violence by
the parents, parental mental health issues, unstable living conditions, and the parents’
prior history of non-compliance with the Agency. The Agency also requested visitation be
at the discretion of the Agency and that the parents comply with the Agency.
{¶5} On February 22, 2019, the trial court made a finding Z.W. was dependent
and ordered continued custody with the Agency. The trial court ordered Z.W.’s parents to
comply with the terms of the case plan, including completing an assessment at Coshocton
Behavioral Health Choices and submit to all drug screenings.
{¶6} Appellant tested positive for Percocet in December of 2019, and for
methamphetamine, amphetamine, and fentanyl on March 13, 2020, seven days prior to
giving birth to Z.W.’s sibling, Appellant’s third child. When Tuscarawas County Juvenile
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 3
and Family Services attempted to gain custody of the baby, Appellant hid the baby away
in Coshocton County.
{¶7} On June 11, 2020, the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody of Z.W.
{¶8} On October 23, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for
permanent custody. G.W. was not present at the hearing.
{¶9} At the hearing, caseworker Chelsea Distelhorst testified first. Distelhorst
testified she was employed by the Agency as an intake caseworker and was previously
an ongoing worker for Z.W. The Agency received allegations that Appellant was
hallucinating, acting paranoid, that she had been evicted from her apartment, and that
there had been incidents of domestic violence between Appellant and G.W. While the
police department was questioning Appellant, she was arrested for possessing an illegal
substance. Appellant reported to intake worker Lauren Basham that she was afraid for
her life, that G.W. was beating her, and that he abused Z.W.
{¶10} Distelhorst also testified that the Agency received temporary custody of
Z.W. on October 17, 2018, and was unable to place Z.W. with her grandmothers as both
had criminal histories. Z.W. was placed with the Kittrell family, but was shortly relocated
to another family, the Morton’s.
{¶11} Distelhorst continued that on December 5, 2018, the Agency completed a
case plan for Appellant to cooperate with all home visits, cooperate with the Agency and
maintain plan goals, submit to unannounced random drug screens, complete assessment
at Coshocton Behavioral Health Choices and follow all recommendations, obtain
employment and housing, attend supervised visitation with Z.W., and protect Z.W. from
further abuse and neglect.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 4
{¶12} The case plan for G.W. was to cooperate with in-home visits, complete
behavior health assessments and follow recommendations, submit to random drug
screen, attend supervised visits, obtain employment and housing, and protect Z.W. from
abuse and neglect. The agency was unable to review the case plan with G.W. but did
with Appellant.
{¶13} On December 19, 2018, Appellant tested positive for methamphetamines.
{¶14} In December of 2018, Appellant completed her behavioral health
assessment in January of 2019. G.W. completed his assessment in May of 2019, but
never followed up on recommendations. G.W. was unable to provide verification of
employment but was living at home with his mother.
{¶15} Appellant completed her behavioral health assessments and followed
through on the recommendations. After her discharge from the behavioral health
program, Appellant was sporadic in contacting the Agency.
{¶16} In the winter of 2019 she started missing visits, and in February she brought
Greg to a visit even though he was not permitted.
{¶17} Distelhorst testified Angela King, Z.W.’s godmother, contacted the Agency
to become a temporary foster parent for Z.W. King indicated to Distelhorst that she has a
relationship with Appellant and Appellant’s mother. The Agency said they would move
Z.W. for a permanent placement but did not want to continue moving her from place to
place unless in an attempt to establish some permanency. King was not willing to be
considered for kinship placement during her first contact with the Agency.
{¶18} Z.W. was moved about a month after the Agency spoke with King. The
Agency did not consider King for either kinship placement or foster placement at that time.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 5
{¶19} Z.W. was removed from the Morton’s home in February of 2019 for ongoing
behavioral issues and placed with Lora Beamer in March of 2019. Beamer lived closer to
Appellant at this time.
{¶20} Appellant’s mother attempted to have a home safety audit to attempt
placement of Z.W. with Appellant’s mother. However, Appellant’s mother never followed
through as her attorney advised her not to go through with it at that time.
{¶21} On March 19, 2019, Appellant had a second child.
{¶22} The Agency had a hearing where G.W. admitted he was abusing Percocets.
{¶23} In May of 2019, Tuscarawas County ordered a hair follicle test. G.W. tested
positive for THC and methamphetamines. Appellant refused the test, stating it was
against her religion to cut her hair. A refusal to take a drug test is considered a positive,
and Appellant's visitation through Tuscarawas County was terminated. However,
Appellant’s visitation through Coshocton County was still occurring.
{¶24} On June 23, 2019, the case plan was amended to remove G.W. for his non-
compliance.
{¶25} Next, Natalie Kolb testified she was employed at the Agency and took over
duties of ongoing caseworker for Z.W. when Distelhorst changed positions in August of
2019. At the time Kolb assumed the ongoing caseworker role, Appellant was employed,
living with her mother, and completed her behavioral assessments.
{¶26} During Kolb’s first home visit, Appellant was lying in her room and said she
had been ill. Appellant believed her C-section scar was infected and implied that she was
pregnant.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 6
{¶27} Appellant became inconsistent with her drug screens, only taking them
when the Agency could get in touch with her. In November she missed a visit with Z.W.,
which was a no-call, no-show visit.
{¶28} In December of 2019, Appellant took a drug test that day. She tested
negative for controlled substances, but the test disclosed that Appellant was pregnant.
After this, Appellant started missing visits with Z.W. and stopped her mental health
counseling. Appellant did attend her parenting classes in Tuscarawas County, but was
not successfully discharged from the program due to the lack of coursework she
completed.
{¶29} In January of 2020, Tuscarawas County was granted permanent custody of
Appellant’s second child because of a domestic violence incident reported to law
enforcement. Appellant and G.W. were living together when an argument started. Mr.
Belt, G.W.’s mother’s husband, tried to get them to stop, but then G.W. attacked
Appellant. Belt stepped in to stop the attack, and G.W. threw Belt through a window.
{¶30} Appellant missed her February visit with Z.W.
{¶31} During her March visitation, Appellant had sores on her skin and a green
tint to her skin. Appellant, while pregnant at the March visit, tested positive for
methamphetamine, amphetamines, and fentanyl. A week later she gave birth to her third
child. The Agency turned the baby over to Tuscarawas County Juvenile and Family
Services custody. At this point, Appellant stopped contacting the Agency.
{¶32} In June of 2020, Appellant was drug screened at her reunification hearing
with her third child and tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 7
{¶33} On June 10, 2020, G.W. and Appellant overdosed and had to be brought
back to life with several doses of Narcan.
{¶34} Appellant’s only contact with the Agency since March of 2020, was a voice
mail on August 31, 2020, stating she was receiving services at Spero Health in Zanesville,
but Appellant could not be reached to sign a release to confirm treatment.
{¶35} The Agency has attempted numerous times to establish contact with
Appellant since March but has been unable to establish contact.
{¶36} Z.W. was moved to be placed with the Young family. At the time of
placement, King was not available for placement as a foster home, nor did she make
herself known as a potential kinship home.
{¶37} Z.W. has stated she is happy with the Youngs but has not verbalized that
she wants to live there.
{¶38} Kolb testified that had G.W. and Appellant completed the case plan,
reunification would have been possible, and that Z.W. will positively benefit from adoption.
{¶39} The week of the hearing, King contacted the Agency. Kolb was told that
King did not have an open home at the time of Z.W.’s last placement. The Agency did not
confirm with King if she had changed her mind regarding kinship placement.
{¶40} Next, Denise Nelson testified she works for the Agency in the intake unit,
trained in interviews with sexual abuse victims. Nelson interviewed Z.W. about an
allegation of sexual abuse. Z.W. arrived at the Agency and was frantic, clinging to her
foster parent, Lora Beamer, afraid Appellant was at the Agency. When Nelson was able
to interview Z.W., Z.W. stated she was sexually abused by Beamer’s fourteen year-old
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 8
son. This investigation was turned over to law enforcement and was still open at the time
of the hearing.
{¶41} Next, Dr. Gary Wolfgang testified he is a licensed psychologist and licensed
clinical counselor for the Agency. He testified he met with Appellant but had no contact
with G.W. Dr. Wolfgang expressed that Appellant had multiple manifestations of mental
and emotional disorders, he had concerns over drug use, concerns of her relationship
with G.W., he heard allegations of not taking her child to the doctor when the child was
sick, that Appellant and G.W. were evicted, and that Appellant stored pills in Z.W.’s sock
which was found on the floor.
{¶42} Appellant had been found with a kitchen knife and exhibiting delusional
symptoms. Appellant tested positive for Methamphetamines in March of 2018. During her
first interview, she was very chatty but disjointed. Her thoughts were not aligned, and she
would interrupt an answer to go into an angry speech about various wrongs that had been
done to her by extended family, in-laws, or the Agency.
{¶43} She blamed her drug use of opiates on attempting to dull pain and use of
methamphetamines to stay awake. She eventually claimed ownership of pills found in her
bag, though she initially said G.W.’s mother planted them there to get her in trouble.
{¶44} In January of 2020, when Dr. Wolfgang interviewed Appellant, Appellant
was seven months pregnant. Appellant reported she had not started medical care until
she was already four months pregnant. She stated she used drugs, mostly
methamphetamines, throughout this period to varying levels of intensity.
{¶45} Z.W. had speech and developmental displays which were of some concern.
Appellant did not believe it was due to Appellant’s drug use.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 9
{¶46} Appellant began mental health treatment in the spring of 2018. She missed
a number of appointments and then stopped going altogether a few months later. While
she was in treatment she was medicated, but she unilaterally stopped her medication.
After she stopped her medication, she reported having “brain zaps.” She also has
numerous symptoms of mania and hypomania and has a history of methamphetamine
use. Her reaction after dropping her meds could not be attributed specifically to any one
of these habits.
{¶47} Next, John Turley testified he is employed by the Coshocton Behavioral
Health Choices as a social worker for over five years. Turley completed Appellant’s
behavioral health assessment on December 12, 2018. The assessment was designed to
gather background information on Appellant to evaluate Appellant’s needs. Turley
recommended individual counseling and drug screens.
{¶48} Appellant partially complied with the recommendations. She attended eight
appointments and missed four. She completed fifteen drug screens testing positive for
benzodiazepines once. She did not produce a prescription for benzodiazepines.
{¶49} Jeanette Moll then testified she is guardian ad litem for the Common Pleas
Court of Coshocton County, Juvenile Division. Moll is the guardian ad litem for Z.W. Moll
testified G.W. had not attempted at all to work the case plan. Moll continued that Appellant
had tried to work the case plan in the beginning but had since given up.
{¶50} Moll is unaware of any appropriate kinship placement available. Moll
believes neither parent is able to provide an adequate and permanent home for Z.W. Z.W.
is in need of legally secure and permanent placement with the Agency.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 10
{¶51} Next, Angela King testified that she is a certified foster-to-adopt parent in
Franklin County. Z.W. is King’s goddaughter.
{¶52} In January of 2019, King contacted the Agency to attempt to get Z.W. placed
as a foster child in her home. At the time King was in between jobs and was unable to
agree to kinship care.
{¶53} When Z.W. was being moved from the Beamer residence, King reached out
to try and get Z.W. placed in her home. King offered to take Z.W. under foster care, but
the Agency refused because they were looking for permanent placement. While testifying,
King expressed her willingness to commit to long term placement for Z.W.
{¶54} King produced a letter of recommendation from Roberta White, the foster
networks therapist, recommending King as a foster parent.
{¶55} Under cross-examination, King testified she was under investigation by
Child Protective Services, but was cleared of the allegation her home was unsafe. King
is in regular contact with Appellant’s mother.
{¶56} Appellant then testified she is currently living with her mother, and that she
no longer has a romantic relationship with G.W. She further testified that her visitations
with Z.W. were very good into 2019, and that Z.W. was excited to see her.
{¶57} After Appellant’s third child was born, Appellant says the drug screen had
her name spelled wrong, and that it couldn’t have been her drug screen. Appellant
continued that three days later she had a clean drug screen from a different doctor. As a
result of the positive drug screen, Appellant’s visitations with Z.W. were discontinued.
Appellant also testified that she did not miss the appointments, but that the Agency
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 11
canceled them because of COVID and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation because
of her positive drug screen.
{¶58} Appellant then states the report that she and G.W. overdosed in a car and
had to receive Narcan was false, that she never received Narcan. She said she was with
G.W. when he overdosed. They were on the way to Dollar General and G.W. overdosed.
Police knocked on Appellant’s window, and she rolled down the window to speak with
them. G.W. was unconscious, slumped over the steering wheel. Officers removed G.W.
from the car and administered Narcan.
{¶59} Appellant then expressed her desire for Z.W. to be placed with Angela King.
King is a certified foster parent, and Appellant believes King will be able to raise Z.W. until
she is eighteen, that she has a job and can provide stability for Z.W.
{¶60} On cross-examination, Appellant said she was not involved in any domestic
violence incidents, that she did not take any drugs, nor call for help when G.W. overdosed,
and if she were drug screened on the date of the hearing she would probably test positive
for benzodiazepines.
{¶61} On April 1, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting Appellee’s
Motion for Permanent Custody and placing Z.W. into permanent custody of the Agency.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶62} Thereafter, Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal. She raises the
following Assignment of Error:
{¶63} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 12
I.
{¶64} In Appellant’s first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court
abused its discretion by not placing Z.W. with King as a kinship placement. We disagree.
{¶65} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re
Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must
be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. §2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing
evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St.
469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue
must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine
whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree
of proof.” Id. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all
essential elements of the case supports the trial court’s judgment, an appellate court must
affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E. Morris
Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶66} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal vs. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d
77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is
“crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties’
demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77
Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997-Ohio-260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 13
{¶67} This Court set forth a trial court’s analysis of a permanent custody motion
in In the Matters of: A.R., B.R., W.R., 5th Dist. Stark Nos. 2018CA00091, 2018CA00097,
2018CA00098, 2019-Ohio-389. When deciding a motion for permanent custody a trial
court must follow guidelines provided in R.C. §2151.414. 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.
{¶68} R.C. §2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody
of the child to the public or private agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing
evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency,
and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the
child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should
not be placed with the child’s parents; (b) the child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned
and no relatives of the child are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been
in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies or private
child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month
period.
{¶69} 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.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 14
{¶70} In the case sub judice, the trial court found they granted the Agency
Emergency Temporary Custody of the Child on October 17, 2018 satisfying R.C.
§2151.414(B)(1)(d) as Z.W. has been in the custody of the Agency for longer than twelve
(12) of the last twenty-two (22) consecutive months. Pursuant to R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a),
the trial court also found Z.W. could not be placed with either of the parents within a
reasonable time or should not be placed with Z.W.’s parents.
{¶71} In making this decision, the trial court must consider the factors of R.C.
§2151.414(E), which states, in relevant part:
(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 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 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:
(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
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 15
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.
(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;
(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;
(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;
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 16
***
(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶72} In determining whether the child can be placed with either parent within a
reasonable time, the court stated that it had considered all relevant evidence and all
factors specifically enumerated in R.C. §2151.414(E). Based on the testimony presented,
the trial court found that the minor child had been in temporary custody of the Agency for
more than twelve months out of a consecutive twenty-two month period.
{¶73} The trial court further found that efforts made by the Agency to work with
the parents of Z.W. have been reasonable and appropriate and were consistent with
Z.W.’s best interest. The Agency used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of Z.W.
from the home, to remedy the conditions that led to removal of Z.W., and to make it
possible for Z.W. to return home. Specifically, the trial court found these reasonable
efforts based on the following actions taken by the Agency: facilitation of visits with
Appellant, foster placement, and case planning for both G.W. and Appellant.
{¶74} “The 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, 5th Dist. No.
2000CA0024, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309,
316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994).
{¶75} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing,
R.C. §2151.414(D)(1) requires the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including,
but not limited to the following:
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 17
(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;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or
through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the
child;
(c) The custodial history of the child, 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 placement 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;
(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;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶76} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re
C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 18
{¶77} “A child’s best interest are served by the child being placed in a permanent
situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. In re P.S., 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA-
11, 2016-Ohio-3489, ¶57. A relative’s willingness to care for the child does not alter the
court’s considerations in deciding permanent custody. Id. As such, a trial court need not
consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to an agency.
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532.
{¶78} In In re Schaefer, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio clarified a trial
court’s duty does not include finding by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable
relative was available for placement. Id. “The statute does not make the availability of a
placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor.
The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other
factors.” Id at ¶64.
{¶79} The trial court’s decision indicates it considered the best interest of the child.
The trial court concluded the child’s need for legally secure placement could not be
achieved without awarding permanent custody to the Agency. Upon review of the entire
record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court’s finding that granting the motion
for permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.
{¶80} Appellant and G.W. exposed Z.W. to the parents’ substance abuse, lack of
stable housing, domestic violence, and mental health issues. Appellant stored pills in
Z.W.’s socks, G.W. overdosed in a vehicle, having to receive Narcan, right next to
Appellant. Appellant denies overdosing as well, but confirms she never sought help for
G.W. G.W. never participated in the Agency’s case plan and had to be dropped.
Appellant, failed to successfully complete the Agency’s case plan. If Z.W. is returned to
Coshocton County, Case No. 2021CA0015 19
Appellant or G.W., Z.W. is at risk for abuse and neglect. Z.W. has established a significant
bond with the foster family. The Agency also explored placing Z.W. with Angela King.
King initially expressed interest as a compensated foster provider but was not in a position
to provide uncompensated kinship care. King has not had contact with Z.W. since 2018,
and did not come forward in a timely manner.
{¶81} The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody be granted to the
Agency because Z.W. could not be safely reunited with the parents.
{¶82} For the reasons set forth above, we find that the trial court’s determination
that permanent custody to the Agency was in the children’s best interest was based upon
competent, credible evidence.
{¶83} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶84} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division of Coshocton County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Baldwin, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
JWW/br 0923