In re J.R.

[Cite as In re J.R., 2026-Ohio-3701.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY In re J.R. Court of Appeals No. {22}E-26-007 Trial Court No. 2023 JN 0067 DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: September 22, 2026 ***** Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Autumn Adams, for appellant. ***** ZMUDA, J., I. Introduction {¶ 1} Appellant, K.R. (“Mother”), appeals from the December 17, 2025 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division granting permanent custody of her child, J.R. (“Child”) to the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services (“Department”). 1 For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 Child’s father’s parental rights over Child were also terminated by the trial court’s judgment. Child’s father did not participate in the trial court proceedings and did not appeal the trial court’s judgment. We reference Child’s father only as necessary to describe the underlying facts of this appeal.  A. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On October 24, 2023, the Department filed a complaint requesting that Child be adjudicated neglected and dependent, and seeking an award of temporary custody of Child. Contemporaneous with its complaint, the Department filed an emergency motion for custody. In its complaint, the Department alleged that Mother and Child were homeless and had been living in Mother’s car. The Department offered to assist Mother with her search for housing and to pay for a hotel during that search. Mother declined, stating that she had a friend she could live with during her job search. The Department alleged that this rendered Child neglected and dependent. {¶ 3} The trial court held a hearing the following day. At that time, it granted the Department’s motion for emergency temporary custody and established an adjudication and disposition hearing schedule. The Department filed a case plan on November 20, 2023, with the stated goal of reunification of Child with Mother. The plan outlined the steps Mother must take in order for the Department to recommend that reunification. Following the appointment of James Melle as the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) to represent Child’s interests and the appointment of counsel for Mother, the trial court conducted the initial adjudication hearing on December 19, 2023. At that time, the trial court adjudicated Child as neglected and dependent as defined in R.C. 2151.03 and 2151.04, and reaffirmed the award of temporary custody of Child to the Department. The matter proceeded to a disposition hearing on January 9, 2024, at which the trial court again continued the temporary custody order and adopted the Department’s previously submitted case plan. 2.  {¶ 4} At a review hearing on April 16, 2024, the trial court again extended the temporary custody order. It renewed its order that the parties must continue with actions provided for in the approved case plan and that reunification of Child with Mother remained the goal of the underlying proceedings. {¶ 5} The Department filed a motion for permanent custody of Child on August 20, 2024. In its motion, the Department alleged that Mother had demonstrated “a lack of commitment * * * by failing to support, visit, or communicate with [Child] when able to do so and by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for [Child].” The Department further alleged that despite its efforts to offer support to Mother to reunify her with Child through the case plan, Mother had failed to comply with the case plan services. Specifically, the Department alleged that Mother had failed to engage consistent mental health counseling, obtain and maintain employment, or obtain adequate housing. In doing so, she had “failed to substantially remedy the problems that caused [Child] to be placed outside the home[.]” {¶ 6} Following several delays, the matter proceeded to trial on the Department’s motion for permanent custody on December 8, 2025. At trial, the parties elicited the following testimony during the Department’s case-in-chief:2 2 For ease of reading, some testimony is described in a different order than it was presented at trial. Testimony that is irrelevant to our analysis has been omitted. 3.  Testimony of Child {¶ 7} At the time of trial, Child was 15 years old. From his earliest memory, he had lived with Mother in Virginia before moving in with his father at four years old. He lived with his father for four years before returning to live with Mother. He believed the reason he went to live with his father was due to Mother’s legal issues and her having been arrested. {¶ 8} When he moved back in with Mother, she had relocated to Vermillion, Ohio to live with Child’s grandmother and uncle. He was “very relieved” to move back in with her as his father had been abusive. During that time, Child had his own room, friends in the area, and felt safe despite being “a little concerned sometimes” about Mother appearing angry. He testified that during this time, his uncle was physically abusive to him. {¶ 9} Some time later, Child’s grandmother died. He testified that they “lost the house” and ended up living in Mother’s car. This period of homelessness lasted approximately three months. During that time, they typically parked the vehicle at plazas on the Ohio turnpike due to their 24-hour access to showers and bathrooms. They would also receive free food from restaurants at the plazas. They received this food by asking employees for any food remaining at closing. He estimated that he and mother “begged” an equal amount and that he would typically ask if Mother had been unsuccessful because it was harder to refuse a child. He testified that he was uncomfortable with this arrangement but that he felt safe. He was enrolled in an online school and would go to a local library with free internet access to attend classes during the day. 4.  {¶ 10} Child’s testimony then turned to his foster care placements. He explained that the current proceedings were the second time that he had been placed in foster care. He recalled that the first placement lasted for nearly two years during a previous case with the Department. He had been living with Mother just prior to that placement. Mother had been acting “a bit angry or a bit more, * * * tense[.]” He stated that Mother did not “seem like herself.” His previous foster care placement arose from an emergency room visit. Child testified that he had injured his knee due to the position he had to keep it in while sleeping in the car. Mother took him to the emergency room and he was given a knee brace. Someone at the ER contacted child protective services in the area. Child and Mother were provided with a hotel to stay in for several weeks. During that time, Child spoke with a case worker and “about an hour after that it was an emergency removal to [a foster care facility.]” {¶ 11} Child stated that he spent three months in the facility before being placed with a foster parent. He believed that he was in foster care for “maybe two years.” During that time, he advised his guardian ad litem3 that he wanted to return to his mother because he felt safest with her and “it just made sense to be with one of the only people I knew.” He then began visitation with Mother over a period of six months before being reunified. At that time, Mother was living in a townhouse in Sandusky, Erie County, Ohio. Mother’s lease on that property expired approximately two months after Child 3 The identity of the GAL in the Department’s previous case was not disclosed at trial. 5. moved back in and they again began living in Mother’s car. And again, they spent their time parking at plazas on the Ohio Turnpike. This period of homelessness lasted approximately four months. Despite living in the car, Child stated that he felt safe with Mother. He testified, however, that during this time, Mother “did seem a lot angrier” and appeared to be holding a “vendetta,” although he could not identify the target of that anger. {¶ 12} After some time at the turnpike plazas, Mother and Child were “kicked out” and began seeking food from area restaurants at closing. He could not recall how they showered after losing access to the plazas. He testified that Mother’s anger intensified and manifested in her screaming while driving and hitting the steering wheel. He did not inquire as to the source of her anger and would read books to avoid engaging her while she was upset. He nevertheless described his relationship with Mother at this time as “good.” He was “just sometimes concerned or a bit scared of how she would be acting at times[.]” {¶ 13} Child’s testimony turned to the underlying case during which he was again placed in foster care. He noted that as he and Mother’s homelessness continued, that Mother’s anger was getting worse. While he did not feel like he needed to “get out of [there,]” he did feel “less safe.” Upon being placed into the Department’s custody, Child felt a “mixture” of relief and anxiety. That is, he was relieved to be away from Mother’s anger but was anxious about what would happen to them. {¶ 14} While initially in the Department’s custody for a second time, Child did not wish to speak with or visit Mother. He attributed this desire to his seeking an opportunity 6. to “absorb” the situation and “get [himself] collected.” He began counseling sessions and was still engaged in that treatment at the time of the trial. He said that he finds the counseling sessions helpful. He began attending a private school in Sandusky, Ohio. He described the school’s population as “way nicer than [the public school]” and that it was “a good school for like academics.” He participated in several extracurricular activities and also found part-time employment at a local restaurant. {¶ 15} During the present case, Child was initially placed with the same foster parent as the previous case. He testified that this parent did not understand the mental health issues he was trying to deal with, so he was placed with a new foster family in September, 2024. He described his relationship with his current foster parents as “pretty close” and he described them as being supportive of his education and social activities. {¶ 16} Child was next presented with a letter he had recently written to Mother. In the letter, Child stated that he did not wish to be reunified with Mother. He based this wish on his fear of being homeless again and he believed that Mother had unresolved mental health issues. The letter was then admitted into evidence without objection.4 When asked what he thought was best for him at the time of his testimony, Child stated: I think it is best if I stay with [his foster parents.] * * * I think it’s the best choice for me because I don’t—who knows what would happen if I go back. I mean, I don’t know what would happen, plus, like I said, they’re very supportive, very kind people, very, you know, helpful, and I just think in the future it would be just the most, I guess—I don’t know the words— the best—the best path to go. 4 The letter was not read aloud during Child’s testimony. 7. He then stated that he wished to remain with his foster parents and would be open to them adopting him. {¶ 17} On cross-examination, Child confirmed that he felt safe with Mother when they were homeless and that her anger was never directed at him. He also recalled a then-recent phone conversation with Mother wherein he did not discuss his desire to be adopted. He said that he did not mention his request because he was scared of her potential reaction. Child concluded his testimony by stating that he had written the letter to Mother after this phone call. Testimony of Amanda Turner {¶ 18} At the time of the trial, Ms. Amanda Turner served as the intake and investigation supervisor for the Department. In that role, she oversaw the intake of cases, aided case workers in ensuring the safety of children, and provided support services to the Department’s clients. She had served in “child welfare” positions for 21 years. {¶ 19} Relevant to the present case, she first became familiar with Child when she performed his intake in the underlying case on September 20, 2023. Child was reported to the Department based on concerns that he was homeless and that his educational needs were not being met. She noted that Child had been the subject of a previous investigation that had been closed three months prior to her new intake. {¶ 20} Turner then described the efforts the Department made to prevent removing Child from Mother. She testified that she had difficulty locating them because the Department had only been advised that they were staying at plazas on the Ohio Turnpike. Once Mother and Child were located, the Department placed them in a hotel until Mother 8. found a family member that could assist them. Turner then learned that Child only stayed with the family member one night. The Department then offered to pay one month’s rent and a security deposit on an apartment to assist Mother with finding housing. Mother was arrested for a parole violation from a previous conviction in Virginia prior to accepting the Department’s assistance. Turner testified that the day Mother was arrested, she was placed into custody to be transferred to Virginia and the Department immediately sought, and was granted, custody of Child on October 23, 2023. He had been in the Department’s custody since that time. {¶ 21} On cross-examination, Turner confirmed that she had handled Child’s initial intake only. After that initial process, his case was “passed to an ongoing services worker to provide additional support and services to the family.” She testified that the investigation related to Child’s low grades and his lack of participation in the online education program in which he was enrolled. She also stated that she did not follow up to determine whether Mother had been released from custody and returned to Ohio. Testimony of Brooke Molnar {¶ 22} Ms. Brooke Molnar began her testimony by verifying that she had previously served as an “ongoing case worker in children services” with the Department before accepting another Department position. She was the case worker assigned to Child’s underlying case. She was not assigned to the previous case but was familiar with it through her review of the case with Turner. {¶ 23} Molnar was assigned to the present case in November, 2023. She was tasked with developing a case plan to address Mother’s “mental health and homelessness 9. and stability.” She spent approximately 18 months on Child’s case until it was assigned to a new case worker on June 20, 2025. At that time, she did not believe that the Department’s concerns had been resolved. She specified that the Department’s previous case was intended to address stability, homelessness, mental health, and educational concerns. She noted that when she was assigned to the second case, that Mother and Child were homeless again, and that the concerns to be addressed were identical to those raised in the first case. {¶ 24} Molnar next described the specific issues she sought to address in the underlying case. Contemporaneous to their homelessness, Mother and Child were “begging for food, there had been police involvement, and the Turnpike station would not let them stay there.” “Additionally,” she continued “[Mother] was on parole at the time and was not cooperative with her parole requirements and there was a warrant issued for her arrest.” In order to obtain reunification with Child, the Department established a case plan that required Mother to complete a mental health assessment and follow any recommendations made during that assessment, complete a psychological assessment and follow any recommendations of the psychologist, and to obtain stable housing and income for a period of at least six months. Molnar confirmed that Mother completed mental health and psychological assessments. She also initially followed the recommendations from both that she continue with mental health counseling services while in Virginia. A short time later, however, the agency providing Mother with counseling in Virginia informed the Department that she was “noncompliant and unsuccessfully discharged” from their services. 10.  {¶ 25} Molnar described “[o]ne major incident” that warranted the Department’s requirement that Mother engage in mental health services. She described an incident in which Mother was visiting Ohio while on parole in Virginia. While there, she stood on railroad tracks facing an oncoming train. Law enforcement officers tried to convince her to step aside but she declined. The officers ultimately engaged in a physical altercation with Mother to remove her from the tracks. When they placed her into their vehicle, Mother began telling the officers that the seats had been “stabbed” and that someone had stolen the money contained therein. Mother was involuntarily placed in a hospital’s psychiatric unit for “a few days.” Mother did not recall the incident occurring when Molnar addressed it with her upon discharge. {¶ 26} At the time Molnar accepted her new position and turned the case over to a new case worker, Mother was again homeless, unemployed, and living in her car in Virginia. She had spent some time in a homeless shelter, but that housing was terminated. Molnar did not follow up on the basis for that decision. Mother’s most recent employment had been as a receptionist for a plumbing company. Mother told Molnar that her employment ended because the company “was going in a different direction.” Molnar testified that Mother’s homelessness and her failure to participate in mental health services precluded reunification with Child. Mother’s parole requirements in Virginia made it difficult for Mother to move back to Ohio and engage in services the Department could monitor. {¶ 27} Molnar next described Child’s mental and physical health while she was his assigned case worker. She noted that Child “was doing really well[.]” He was more 11. physically active, eating healthier foods, and “felt good about himself[.]” She also described a chronic throat condition Child suffered from that required consistent monitoring and surgical intervention every few years. One of the surgeries occurred while Molnar served as his case worker. She also testified that Child was refusing visitation with Mother during her time as his case worker, despite her stated desire to have visitation with him. Molnar then stated that at the time the case was assigned to a new case worker, she could not recommend reunification with Mother based on the reasons described in her testimony. {¶ 28} On cross-examination, Molnar testified that she did not know why the Department’s first case with Mother and Child was terminated. She recalled that Mother’s recent criminal charges were related to trespassing allegations but did not believe that Mother’s mental health issues had directly contributed to those charges. Molnar could not recall what medications Mother had been prescribed following her release from the hospital but stated that Mother stopped taking them once the initial supply had been exhausted. Molnar communicated with Mother’s parole officer in Virginia to find services to allow Mother to comply with the case plan. Mother declined, stating that she wanted to remain in a homeless shelter to save up money to return to Ohio to complete the case plan services. The parole officer also informed Molnar that Mother had exhibited paranoid behaviors by claiming that she was being followed by other people she had been incarcerated with despite the officer providing Mother with proof that those individuals were still in prison. On redirect examination, Molnar 12. confirmed that the doctor that performed Mother’s psychological assessment diagnosed Mother with “two personality disorders.” Testimony of Jacob Williams {¶ 29} Mr. Williams served as the ongoing case worker in Mother and Child’s case after it was reassignment from Molnar. Upon receiving the assignment, he met with Molnar and Child to discuss the case. He also reviewed the case plan and testified that in his time as the case worker, he had not made any changes to the case plan. He believed that if Mother followed the case plan and completed the services that it would address the Department’s concerns with reunification. {¶ 30} Williams testified that Mother was not engaged in any mental health services from the time he was assigned to the case up to the time of trial. When he raised this issue with Mother, she informed him that she did not believe that she had any mental health issues and that is why she was not engaging in the required case plan services. Mother also told Williams that she discontinued her prescribed medication because she did “not feel like herself” while taking it. {¶ 31} Williams stated that the biggest barrier to reunification of Mother and Child was Mother’s refusal to recognize her mental health concerns. He further testified that these concerns were the source of her “instability with housing and financial aid.” He acknowledged that he could not diagnose mental health issues but believed she exhibited the listed concerns through her uncooperative nature with his work and the case plan services. For example, Mother was required to communicate with Williams monthly but had recently insisted on having her attorney present for these meetings. At the time of his 13. testimony, Mother had missed the previous two months of required contact. He stated that mother lacked commitment to the case plan. {¶ 32} Despite his concerns with Mother’s lack of compliance with case plan services, Williams recognized that Mother and Child had an appropriate relationship during their phone conversations and the one in-person visit he had supervised. He noted that Child had recently declined Mother’s phone calls following the letter he had written to her. {¶ 33} Williams believed that Child’s foster placement had a positive impact on Child’s life. He described Child as more outgoing and that Child seemed happier. He believed that Child had formed a bond with his foster parents and stated that the foster parents had expressed a willingness to adopt Child. He believes that Child is mature enough to express his wishes and that his understanding is that Child wishes to remain with his foster parents rather than being reunited with Mother. Based on the four years the Department had attempted to reunite Mother and Child, over two separate cases, Williams did not believe that further attempts at case plan services would result in reunification. He based this conclusion on Mother’s failure to comply with her “minimal” case plan obligations. He believes that adoption is in Child’s best interest and that in order to facilitate that process, that permanent custody should be awarded to the Department. Testimony of James Melle, GAL {¶ 34} Mr. James Melle served as Child’s GAL in the present case. He was familiar with the Department’s previous case as he had served as Child’s attorney. He 14. clarified that he was appointed to represent Child near the conclusion of the previous case and served in that capacity only, not as the Child’s GAL. When serving as an attorney for a child, his duties were to advocate for the child based on their wishes. When serving as a GAL, his duty is to advocate for what is in the best interest of the child. As to the prior case, Melle advocated for Child’s return to Mother based on interviews he had with Child about his wishes. Without objection, Melle testified that if he had served as the GAL in the previous case, he would not have recommended the case be terminated based on his concerns about Mother and Child’s lives. {¶ 35} Melle then described his involvement as the GAL in the present case. He noted that he was appointed GAL early in the proceedings. In his initial investigation, Melle found Child to be well-liked by his peers. He noted that Child was overweight and lacked confidence when he first met with him. Child did not want to have contact with Mother during Melle’s investigation. Melle testified that Child would ask if Mother had completed her case plan services and would decline contact with her when informed that she had not. Eventually, Child felt Mother’s refusal to participate in the case plan meant that he would not have a stable life if they were reunified. Melle stated that Child felt he needed to “decide what’s best” for him. {¶ 36} As to his education, Melle described Child as succeeding at the new high school. He noted that Child had succeeded academically and joined several extracurricular activities. He testified that Child’s foster parents have provided him with a “fantastic” environment. Child is more comfortable with them than his original foster placement. 15.  {¶ 37} Melle next described his observations of Mother’s relationship with Child. While conceding that his interaction with her was limited to a single visit while she was in Ohio, he described their relationship as more of a friendship than a parent-child relationship. He attributed this, in part, to Mother’s inability to remain in Ohio for regular visitation to establish such a relationship. {¶ 38} Melle, referring to the report he filed with the court on November 26, 2024, stated that his recommendation was for the trial court to grant the Department permanent custody of Child. He believes that Child is “night and day different” from the first case and that his success and improved self-esteem can be attributed to the current environment in his foster placement. {¶ 39} On cross-examination, Melle clarified several statements in his report. His report indicated that Mother had no “viable plans” to return to Ohio. Melle attributed this to Mother being on parole and noted that she had not informed him that she did not plan to return. He also stated that the public location of the visit he observed between Child and Mother was not conducive to “deep conversations,” contributing to their appearance as friends rather than parent and child. He then stated that his recommendation was also based, in part, on Mother’s failure to establish a stable home in Virginia even if she did not plan to return to Ohio. {¶ 40} The Department rested its case at the conclusion of Melle’s testimony. Mother then proceeded with her presentation of witnesses, during which the parties elicited the following testimony: 16.  Testimony of Leslie Sheriff {¶ 41} At the time of trial, Ms. Leslie Sheriff had known Mother for approximately 30 years. She drove the school bus on Child’s route and served as Child’s “summer time” babysitter from 2014 to 2016. She testified that on days she babysat Child, Mother would drop him off at her residence with snacks and lunches packed for the day. She testified that Mother’s parenting was “very good.” She described Child as well-mannered. She never saw Mother have angry outbursts or yell at Child. During the school year, Mother always ensured that Child was on the bus. She stated that she had no reservations about Mother’s parenting ability. {¶ 42} On cross-examination, Sheriff conceded that she could not describe Mother’s current parenting abilities as Mother did not have custody of Child. She also acknowledged that she had not spoken with Mother in over three years prior to trial. Testimony of Mother {¶ 43} Mother began her testimony by providing an address at which she was living with a friend in Virginia. She had been living with her friend for “a couple months” following the termination of her employment with a man who had hired her to assist with household chores while he recovered from surgery. Prior to that, she had been employed for 10 months as a bookkeeper for a plumbing company in Virginia Beach. As to her probation status, Mother testified that she was required to check in with a probation officer monthly. The officer was supportive of her attempts to move back to Ohio. In order to make that move, Mother believed that she had to find someone to live with in Ohio and to find and maintain employment. To achieve that goal, Mother has contacted 17. her brother who has offered to let her live with him and to support her financially until she finds employment. {¶ 44} Mother testified that her bond with Child had “always been great.” She stated that they were open and honest with one another. She supported him by providing him with healthy meals and opportunities for socializing with his friends. She said that she treats Child like a friend because this encourages him to speak more openly about his life with her. {¶ 45} Over the past year, Mother had 30-minute phone calls with Child each week. She had only seen him in person three times in the previous year during her limited visits to Ohio. She identified her “ideal plan” as finding employment, a suitable home for them, and Child’s continued educational success. She believed that her move to Ohio could be accomplished within 45 days of her brother contacting her probation officer to verify that Mother could live with him. She also described a $200,000 inheritance Child would receive from her father that would help support Child in the future. She claimed that this provision in her father’s will was automatically rescinded if Child was adopted by someone else. {¶ 46} On cross-examination, Mother recalled meeting with a psychiatrist in both cases the Department opened related to Child’s well-being. During those assessments, Mother had shared that she had a good relationship with her father but could not recall why she did not reach out to him when she and Child were homeless. She also informed the psychiatrist that her brother—the one with whom she would live upon returning to Ohio—had alcohol abuse issues but was in treatment at the time of the trial. She had 18. previously been granted a “domestic violence civil protection order” against her brother after he punched her. {¶ 47} She next confirmed that she had been convicted of embezzlement in Virginia, resulting in a nearly four-year prison term beginning when Child was five years old. Upon her release from prison, she returned to Ohio to live with her mother and brother. She became homeless when her mother died. Child lived with his father while Mother was imprisoned. He returned to Mother in October, 2019. {¶ 48} While in prison, Mother was required to undergo psychological services. When she left prison, her records included multiple psychological diagnoses.5 She claimed that she did not really suffer from these conditions but that prison officials told her that they added them to assist her in obtaining social security income benefits. {¶ 49} Mother’s next psychological treatment occurred in November, 2021. At that time, she reported anxiety and depression, and claimed that someone had been stalking her. She believed that her computer had been hacked by a fellow inmate with whom she had been imprisoned. She conceded that she had made several claims that someone was stalking her in the years prior to the trial. In one instance, she sprinkled flour on her floor to catch one of her stalkers breaking into her residence. She also had interactions with law enforcement officers who responded to calls reporting that Mother had been taking pictures of strangers in public. She testified that she photographed 5 Mother did not identify the specific diagnoses. 19. people that she recognized and who were taking pictures of Child. Mother also confirmed that the hotel she was staying at on the Friday before the trial contacted the police because Mother had reported markings on sheets in her room that were not there when she had left to meet with her attorney. She also reported milk having been opened and left out by someone else. She could not explain why someone would have been stalking her and hacking her devices for the past four years since her release from prison. {¶ 50} The Department then asked Mother if she had reviewed the results of her psychiatric assessments. She acknowledged that the assessments identified her as suffering from a paranoid personality disorder. Mother testified that the condition was “in full remission.” Mother also confirmed the incident on the railway tracks as described by Molnar and her subsequent hospitalization. When the officer that pulled her off the tracks returned her to her vehicle, he discovered more than $1,000 in cash cut up in Mother’s car. She recalled that her father had sent her money for living expenses. She offered no reason for cutting up the bills but stated that she was depressed at the time. However, she had “managed to get better and see [her] way out of it.” Mother confirmed that she had been prescribed medication to take upon her release from the hospital following the train incident. {¶ 51} Mother next described her attempts to follow the case plan approved in this case. She completed the required mental health assessments and, according to her, received no recommendations for further treatment. She denied having failed to complete any recommended therapy and stated that she had been discharged from voluntary therapy sessions she engaged in outside of the case plan’s requirements. She 20. disputed Molnar’s testimony that she had been recommended to undergo additional treatment but offered no support for her position. {¶ 52} The trial court asked Mother several additional questions. Specifically, it asked Mother “to explain” why Child did not want to come back to her as he had testified earlier. Mother explained that Child had discussed reunification with her two weeks prior to writing the letter to her. She suggested that this was Child’s true intentions rather than what was contained in the letter. She also informed the court that despite her being homeless during the cases with the Department, that she was financially secure. She could not offer the trial court an explanation for why she was homeless yet financially secure. {¶ 53} Mother spent the balance of her testimony alleging that she had plenty of places to live during all relevant times and that her probation violation in Virginia was unsubstantiated. She also claimed to have provided the Department with the names of several family members who could have taken custody of Child rather than placing him into foster care. She was unable to explain to the trial court why many of the names she listed had not been referenced prior to her testimony at trial or why the Department could not locate them. {¶ 54} Mother rested her case-in-chief at the conclusion of her testimony. Both parties waived closing arguments and the trial court took the matter under advisement. The trial court granted permanent custody of Child to the Department and terminated Mother’s parental rights over Child on December 17, 2025. 21.  B. Assignment of Error {¶ 55} Mother timely appealed and asserts the following error for our review: 1. It was not in [Child’s] best interest to be placed into the permanent custody of the [Department]. II. Law and Analysis {¶ 56} In her single assignment of error, Mother alleges that the trial court erred when it found that the termination of her parental rights and the grant of permanent custody of Child to the Department was in the Child’s best interest. At the outset, we note that the termination of parental rights and the grant of permanent custody is analyzed under a multiple step process described in R.C. 2151.414. The first step in that process requires the trial court to find that “one of the circumstances described in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) exists.” In re. A.B., 2026-Ohio-2691, ¶ 56 (6th Dist). Relevant to the present appeal, if the trial court finds that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies, the court “must consider both whether granting permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest and whether any of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present that would indicate that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 58, citing In re. B.K., 2010-Ohio-3329, ¶ 42-43 (6th Dist.). {¶ 57} Here, the trial court initially determined that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied. Mother does not dispute this finding. Because it made this finding, the trial court was obligated to determine whether it was in Child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the Department and whether any of the R.C. 2151.414(E) 22. factors applied. See Id. The trial court found that being placed in the Department’s permanent custody was in Child’s best interest and that the factors described in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), (14) and (16) applied to Mother. Mother does not dispute that the statutory factors were present. As a result, the single finding that Mother assigns error to is the trial court’s determination that it was in Child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the Department. We limit our analysis accordingly. {¶ 58} An award of permanent custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re I.H., 2020-Ohio-4853, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.), citing In re B.K., 2017-Ohio-7773, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.) (additional citation omitted). “Clear and convincing evidence is 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.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 471 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. The appellate standard of review for permanent custody determinations is sufficiency of the evidence or manifest weight of the evidence, depending on the nature of the arguments presented by the parties. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. In this case, Mother challenges the weight, and not the sufficiency, of the evidence.