In re A.Y.C.

[Cite as In re A.Y.C., 

.]




                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO



 IN RE: A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.                     :   APPEAL NO. C-230496
                                                  TRIAL NO. F19-15X
                                              :

                                              :      O P I N I O N.




Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 13, 2023




Cynthia S. Daugherty, for Appellant Mother,

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Megan E. Busam,
Assistant Public Defender, Attorney for the Guardian ad Litem for A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



CROUSE, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}   Appellant mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting

permanent custody of her children, A.Y.C. and E.Y.C., to the Hamilton County

Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). In a single assignment of error,

mother argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting HCJFS’s motion

for permanent custody. Because the trial court’s judgment was supported by both the

sufficiency and the weight of the evidence, we find mother’s argument to be without

merit and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2}   A.Y.C. was taken into HCJFS custody shortly after his birth on April 25,

2020. HCJFS had concerns with domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. Father

was escorted from the hospital after A.Y.C.’s birth for threatening domestic violence

against mother, and there were allegations that father had previously stabbed mother.

HCJFS had additional concerns about the parents’ mental health, the parents’ drug

activity, the safety of the parents’ housing, and mother’s history with HCJFS

concerning her older children. The agency filed a complaint for temporary custody of

A.Y.C. on April 28, 2020, and was granted an interim order of custody that same date.

A case plan was filed for the family establishing goals for reunification and services to

be engaged in.

       {¶3}   This case was filed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and on

September 22, 2020, the magistrate issued an order continuing the matter for a day-

one hearing and stating that, due to the pandemic, the matter could not be completed

within the 90-day period required by statute. On October 6, 2020, HCJFS dismissed

the complaint filed on April 28, 2020. That same date, it refiled the complaint for


                                           2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




temporary custody, as well as a motion for an interim order of temporary custody. The

complaint alleged that A.Y.C. was neglected and dependent. It restated the domestic-

violence allegations from the initial complaint and the allegations that mother had lost

custody of two older children. The complaint additionally stated that both parents

resided with maternal grandmother in a home without a working furnace, a stove or a

refrigerator, and that electricity and water to the home were being shut off due to

nonpayment of bills. And it contained allegations about both parents’ mental health,

stating that mother was diagnosed with ADHD and Bipolar disorder, and that father

likewise had received those same two diagnoses, as well as a diagnosis of Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”).

       {¶4}   The magistrate conducted a day-one hearing on October 7, 2020, and

granted the motion for an interim order of temporary custody. On November 23,

2020, the magistrate issued an order stating that all parties waived any objection to

completion of the adjudication and disposition within 90 days of the filing of the

complaint.

       {¶5}   On February 23, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision adjudicating

A.Y.C. dependent and committing him to the temporary custody of HCJFS. The

allegation of neglect was dismissed. On March 17, 2021, HCJFS filed a motion to

extend the temporary custody of A.Y.C., stating that progress was being made on the

case plan. That motion was granted.

       {¶6}   E.Y.C. was born on June 25, 2021, and on June 29, 2021, HCJFS filed a

complaint for temporary custody alleging that he was dependent. The agency also filed

a motion for an interim order of temporary custody, which was granted after the

magistrate conducted a day-one hearing.

                                           3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶7}   On August 24, 2021, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody

of A.Y.C. to permanent custody. An amended motion was filed on August 30. A

maternal aunt filed, but later withdrew, petitions for custody of both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.

       {¶8}   On September 16, 2021, the magistrate issued an order stating that all

parties waived any objection to completion of the adjudication and disposition of

E.Y.C. within 90 days. On November 16, 2021, a decision was issued adjudicating

E.Y.C. dependent and committing him to the temporary custody of HCJFS.

Approximately four months later, on March 11, 2022, HCJFS filed a motion to modify

temporary custody of E.Y.C. to permanent custody.

       {¶9}   Over the course of a five-month period, a four-day trial was held on both

motions for permanent custody. The foster mother of A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. testified that

both children were placed in her care within days of their births. She discussed their

significant medical issues and needs. Foster mother testified that A.Y.C. has cerebral

palsy and wears braces to assist with bowing in his legs and toe pointing. He has been

able to walk unassisted since September 2022. She explained that A.Y.C. also requires

an extremely high level of supervision because he engages in self-injuring behavior.

He often has to wear a helmet because he purposefully slams his head against a wall

or other surfaces. A.Y.C. receives physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech

therapy, and behavioral therapy for his self-injuring. Several of these therapies require

foster mother to work with A.Y.C. on various skills and exercises outside of the

appointments. A.Y.C. also has a cyst on his brain that requires monitoring via an MRI

every six months.

       {¶10} Foster mother testified that E.Y.C. has been diagnosed with failure to

thrive. He has no desire to eat and has a feeding tube in his stomach. He receives a

                                           4
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




special formula via the feeding tube because he cannot tolerate normal baby food and

is allergic to a protein in cow’s milk. An emergency kit for E.Y.C.’s feeding tube must

be carried at all times.

       {¶11} Foster mother stated that both children have undergone genetic testing

and have a genetic mutation connected to the X chromosome that affects their

development. She explained that E.Y.C. also suffers from a condition she referred to

as SMAD6, which can affect the formation of the plates in his head and heart

development.

       {¶12} Foster mother kept a list of all of medical appointments that the children

have attended, including whether mother had attended the appointment. According

to foster mother, out of approximately 181 appointments, mother attended 49. Foster

mother stated that she has two biological children that are close in age to A.Y.C. and

E.Y.C., and that she would be willing to adopt the children if it was an option.

       {¶13} Abbey Turner, the HCJFS caseworker for A.Y.C. and E.Y.C., testified

about the services that had been offered to mother and mother’s engagement in those

services. Mother completed a Diagnostic Assessment of Functioning (“DAF”) in 2020.

HCJFS implemented a case plan for mother that required her to submit to random

toxicology screens, complete a Department of Development Services (“DDS”)

assessment, engage in parenting classes, attend the children’s medical appointments

and visitation, and obtain stable housing and income. The DAF did not recommend

that mother engage in any mental-health services. But during the pendency of the

action, mother indicated that she wished to engage in therapy for symptoms related to

depression and PTSD, so she completed a second DAF to assist her in obtaining access

to those services. The second DAF resulted in mother being referred to therapy and

                                           5
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




related services at the Talbert House. While a therapist for mother became available

in September 2021, mother was inconsistent in her attendance until February 2022,

when she began attending therapy regularly.

       {¶14} With respect to the random toxicology screens required by the case plan,

Turner testified that mother missed a few screens early on, but was otherwise

consistent. Turner explained that mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on

her first screen. In response to the positive test, mother admitted to using marijuana,

but stated that, unknown to her, it had been laced with cocaine. Mother’s screens

presented no further concern, and mother eventually received a medical marijuana

card. Turner testified that HCJFS has no substance-abuse concerns with mother.

       {¶15} Mother engaged in the DDS assessment, but did not qualify for DDS

services. Turner testified that she has concerns about mother’s ability to understand

what is happening in this case, as mother at times struggles to understand how to do

basic things and to retain information. Mother also engaged in parenting classes two

times, but was unsuccessfully discharged on both occasions due to her inability to

understand the children’s needs.

       {¶16} Turner testified that while mother had a somewhat stable income from

social security disability, she had concerns about mother’s ability to manage her

finances and live within her means. She also had concerns about mother’s inability to

obtain stable housing. Mother resided four different places during the pendency of this

action. For over a year, mother and maternal grandmother resided in what they

referred to as a “cabin.” According to Turner, not only was the cabin unsafe for

children, but it was generally unhabitable. It had no heat, lacked hot water at times,

and the basement was covered from floor to ceiling in black mold and filled with a

                                          6
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




layer of trash. During the course of the permanent-custody hearing, mother left the

cabin and was temporarily residing with a friend’s mother while looking for more

permanent housing.

       {¶17} According to Turner, mother has never progressed past the facilitated

level of visitation, which is the most restricted level. Mother was scheduled to visit with

the children every Friday, first at the Family Nurturing Center (“FNC”), and then at a

maternal aunt’s house. After mother missed several visits, she had to resume visitation

at the FNC for a period of time. Turner was concerned about the consistency of

mother’s visits, in addition to mother’s inability to independently care for the children

without assistance.

       {¶18} Turner testified that Mother was also not consistent in her attendance

at the children’s medical appointments. While mother blamed transportation issues

for many of these missed appointments, Turner testified that she had frequently

provided mother with gas cards to use for transportation. When mother still failed to

attend the appointments, Turner stopped giving her the gas cards for a period of time

because they were not used for the proper purpose. Turner also arranged for

transportation to pick mother up on multiple occasions, but mother still had issues

with missing appointments. While Turner conceded that many of her clients have had

problems with the prearranged transportation not arriving when it was supposed to,

she felt that mother had more issues than most. According to Turner, mother was in

denial for a period of time about the children’s medical needs. One of mother’s case-

plan goals was to help her understand these needs, which made her attendance at the

medical appointments vital.



                                            7
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶19} Turner testified that HCJFS was recommending terminating mother’s

parental rights based on the agency’s concern for mother’s ability, despite her

participation in services, to consistently and safely parent the children without

assistance given their significant needs and because of concerns with mother’s

housing.

       {¶20} Turner also testified about father’s participation in services and the

agency’s concerns about father. Father completed a DAF, which recommended that he

engage in a psychological assessment, parenting education, and random toxicology

screens. Father attended one session of the requested psychological assessment,

resulting in the recommendation of additional services, including outpatient drug

treatment and therapy. Turner stated that father participated in a drug-treatment

program in Indianapolis, where he completed only the in-patient portion of the

program. According to Turner, father was recently incarcerated and placed in the

River City program, where he participated in drug treatment.

       {¶21} Father attended only one drug screen, which was positive. Father did

not attend any parenting classes and does not have a stable income. He has not visited

A.Y.C. since sometime in 2020 and has never visited E.Y.C. Turner testified that the

agency was recommending a termination of father’s parental rights due to his failure

to participate in case-plan services and demonstrate a significant behavioral change,

his failure to visit with the children, and his failure to attend their medical

appointments.

       {¶22} Mother’s therapist at the Talbert House, Donna Vondrell, testified that

mother suffers from PTSD and has an intellectual disability that impacts her judgment

and cognitive abilities. Vondrell explained that she works with mother on controlling

                                          8
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




her anger and her reactions, as well as on making better decisions and processing the

traumas that she has experienced. Mother initially missed quite a few appointments

when beginning treatment with Vondrell, but has attended therapy regularly since

February 2022. Vondrell testified that she has seen growth in mother over the past

year, explaining that mother understands more of her purpose in life, including

mother’s role in taking care of maternal grandmother. She stated that mother is eager

to learn and is an active listener and participator in therapy.

       {¶23} Lori Hartman, an FNC visitation facilitator, testified about observations

that she made when supervising mother’s visits with A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. Hartman stated

that mother has visitation with the children at a maternal aunt’s house for four hours

every Friday, and that some combination of maternal grandmother, maternal aunt,

maternal uncle, and a cousin were also present at every visit. Mother has never

engaged in a visit with the children by herself. With the exception of a three-week span

where mother was ill, mother has been consistent with her visitation.

       {¶24} Hartman explained that mother is working on multitasking with the

children, but often needs to be reminded to follow the children’s schedule. Hartman

stated that she needed to intervene on a few occasions when mother unintentionally

engaged in behavior that could harm the children, including serving A.Y.C. food that

was too hot, giving E.Y.C., who cannot eat, a cupcake with a candle in it, and using a

bleach wipe when changing a diaper. Hartman has also had to direct mother not to use

profanity in front of the children, not to use her cell phone during visits, and to

reengage in visits at times. While Hartman testified that mother does not fully

understand the children’s needs and blames their issues on that the fact that they are

in foster care, she stated that mother is open to suggestions, excels at listening to the

                                            9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




nurse, and has learned how to use E.Y.C.’s feeding tube. According to Hartman, there

has been no recommendation to lower the level of supervision of mother’s visits with

the children because she has not shown an ability to take care of them on her own

without support.

       {¶25} Mother testified, addressing many of the concerns noted by HCJFS and

addressed in her case plan. With respect to her drug usage, she stated that she has not

used “meth” in over four years, while acknowledging that there was a short period of

time when she abused it. Mother further stated that she has a medical marijuana card

to help her with her PTSD. Mother testified that she has a stable income. As for her

living situation, mother conceded that the “cabin” where she resided for a majority of

the case was not safe for the children and stated that she was looking for alternative

living arrangements. Mother also addressed her mental health, stating that she

engages in therapy at, and receives medication from, the Talbert House, and that the

medication helps her to feel more at peace. She explained that she has consistently

taken her medication, with the exception of a period of time where she was delayed in

getting a refill. Mother testified that she attended parenting classes at Beech Acres and

was told that she had completed the class.

       {¶26} When discussing her visitation, mother first stated that she has not

missed a visit with the children. But she subsequently admitted that she missed a few

visits when she was not feeling well because she did not want to get the children sick.

Mother stated that although others are present during visitation, she was the

predominant caregiver for the children. She acknowledged that it can be difficult to

care for E.Y.C. and A.Y.C. at the same time, and stated that she is working on

multitasking. Mother also testified about her frustration with the transportation set

                                           10
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




up by her caseworker, stating that it did not always arrive when scheduled, causing her

to miss appointments. Mother also missed appointments because they conflicted with

her care of maternal grandmother and admitted to missing some appointments

because she was “slacking.” She explained that she often feels out of place at the

medical appointments.

       {¶27} Mother testified about her knowledge of the children’s special needs.

She explained that A.Y.C. has cerebral palsy and wears leg braces, that he likes to use

sign language but is starting to talk more, that he wears a helmet because he has a

habit of banging his head, and that he attends multiple therapy appointments. Mother

stated that she is able, on her own, to mix the formula for E.Y.C.’s feeding tube. She

also testified that she has five children, but does not have custody of any of them.

       {¶28} Father, who was incarcerated at the time, testified via Zoom. He

acknowledged that he had not complied with a majority of the services requested by

HCJFS. He discussed his long-standing issues with drugs, which resulted in multiple

convictions for drug offenses. Father stated that he was engaged in cognitive therapy,

parenting classes, and substance-abuse classes while incarcerated. He testified that he

could not recall when he had last seen A.Y.C. and that he has never had a visit with

E.Y.C. Father testified that he wanted the children to be placed with mother.

       {¶29} The magistrate issued a decision on May 18, 2023, granting permanent

custody of both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to HCJFS. The magistrate found that the children

had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive

22-month period, that the children cannot and should not be placed with either

parent, and that father had abandoned the children. He additionally found that a grant

of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.

                                           11
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶30} Mother filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision challenging the

weight of the evidence supporting the grant of permanent custody. The trial court

found mother’s objection to be not well-taken and denied it. The trial court approved

and adopted the decision of the magistrate with one modification. It found that only

A.Y.C., and not E.Y.C., had been in the custody of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a

consecutive 22-month period. But the trial court agreed with the magistrate’s findings

that the children cannot and should not be placed with either parent in a reasonable

time and that a grant of permanent custody was in the best interest of the children,

and it committed A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to the permanent custody of HCJFS.

                               II. Permanent Custody

       {¶31} In a single assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court erred

as a matter of law in granting HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody. She challenges

both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s

decision.

       {¶32} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B), “a trial court may grant permanent

custody if it finds that a grant of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and

that one of the conditions in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) applies.” In re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton

Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 

. Here, the trial court found that

A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. cannot and should not be placed in either parent’s care under R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a), and that A.Y.C. had been in HCJFS custody for 12 or more months

of a consecutive 22-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). It further found that

a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.

       {¶33} A juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody must be supported by

clear and convincing evidence. Id. at ¶ 14. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence

                                           12
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




that is sufficient to “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction

as to the facts sought to be established.” Id., quoting In re K.H., 

,

, 

.

           {¶34} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a

grant of permanent custody, this court “must examine the record and determine if the

juvenile court had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the clear-and-convincing

standard.” 

 We must accept any factual determinations made by the trial court if

competent and credible evidence supports them. In re L Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-220601, 

. When reviewing the manifest weight of the

evidence, “we review the record to determine whether the trial court lost its way and

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicts in the evidence

that its judgment must be reversed.” In re B.J. at ¶ 14.

           Cannot and Should not be Placed with Either Parent/Best-Interest
                                   Determination

           {¶35} Mother challenges the trial court’s findings that A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.

cannot and should not be placed in her care within a reasonable time and that a grant

of permanent custody was in their best interest.

           {¶36} “To determine whether a child cannot or should not be placed with

either parent under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), a juvenile court considers the 16 factors set

forth in R.C. 2151.414(E).” In re K.J.M, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230163, 2023-Ohio-

2457, ¶ 9. In determining whether a grant of permanent custody is the best interest of

the children, the court should consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Id.

at ¶ 11.




                                             13
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶37} In support of the finding that the children could not or should not be

placed with either parent, the trial court found that “Mother did not demonstrate the

necessary behavioral changes and did not make satisfactory progress in the case plan

services.” This finding corresponds to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), which provides that:

       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.

The court specifically noted that it was relying on mother’s intellectual delays, her

housing instability, and mother’s inability to competently and independently care for

the children, who have severe medical needs. While the trial court also made findings

that the children cannot or should be placed with father, those findings are not being

challenged on appeal.

       {¶38} The trial court also considered the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to find

that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(a) concerns the relationship of the children with, as relevant to this

                                          14
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




appeal, parents, relatives, and foster caregivers. Under this factor, the court noted that

the children have regular visitation with mother, but that father has not seen A.Y.C. in

months and has never visited with E.Y.C., and that the children are very bonded with

each other and their foster family.

        {¶39} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), which concerns the wishes of the

children as expressed directly or through a guardian ad litem, the court noted that the

guardian ad litem supported a grant of permanent custody.

        {¶40} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) concerns the custodial history of the child. Under

this factor, the court noted that each child had been in agency care since birth, and

that A.Y.C. had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a

consecutive 22-month period.1

        {¶41} Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), which addresses the children’s need for a

legally secure placement, the court found that the children were in need of a legally

secure permanent placement that could not be achieved without a grant of permanent

custody to HCJFS. It noted that no suitable relatives were identified to care for the

children and that the children’s current caregiver had expressed an interest in

adoption.

        {¶42} When considering, as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), whether any

of the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(7) to (11) applied, the court found that father had

abandoned the children.




1 While the magistrate found that both children had been in agency custody for 12 or more months

of a 22-month period, the trial court found that this finding was only applicable to A.Y.C., and that
E.Y.C. had not been in agency care for the requisite amount of time. As explained in the next section
of this opinion, we do not review the merits of the trial court’s 12-of-22 finding.
                                                 15
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶43} The trial court’s findings that the children cannot and should not be

placed with mother within a reasonable time and that a grant of permanent custody is

in the children’s best interest are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In

re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 

. At

no point during the course of the proceedings did mother have suitable housing where

the children could reside. Among other problems, the “cabin” that mother resided at

with maternal grandmother for a period of time had no heat and a basement covered

in black mold. Mother conceded that this home was not safe for the children. At the

close of the hearing, mother herself did not have permanent housing, let alone a place

to bring the children, and was residing with a friend’s mother while looking for

housing. Mother’s visitation had to be conducted at maternal aunt’s home because of

mother’s lack of housing.

       {¶44} The record further demonstrated that mother was unable to care for the

children and their severe medical needs without assistance. Mother never progressed

past the facilitated level of visitation and never visited the children without the

assistance of a family member. Despite mother’s best intentions and clear affection for

the children, she struggled to care for both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. at the same time and

unintentionally took actions that placed the children at risk of harm, requiring

intervention by others. Mother’s failure to attend a majority of the children’s medical

appointments exacerbated her difficulties in caring for them on her own, as she missed

vital opportunities to learn about their conditions and how to properly care for them.

In fact, mother was twice unsuccessfully discharged from parenting classes due to her

inability to understand the children’s needs.



                                          16
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶45} Both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. have severe medical needs requiring numerous

medical appointments, therapy appointments, and constant care and attention. In

addition to attending the necessary appointments, the children’s caregiver must work

with the children on various skills outside of appointments to help them develop. As

such, the children are indisputably in need of a legally secure permanent placement.

The record supports the trial court’s finding that such placement can only be achieved

through a grant of permanent custody. Father has abandoned the children, and despite

her participation in some of the offered services, mother has not demonstrated an

ability to independently care for the children and manage their needs. Maternal aunt

withdrew her petitions for custody, and no other relatives were identified to care for

the children. Further, the children are bonded with their foster family, where they have

both been placed since birth, and are well cared for in that home.

       {¶46} The trial court’s findings concerning the children’s best interest and

whether they cannot or should not be placed with mother were also supported by the

manifest weight of the evidence. The court recognized areas where mother succeeded,

but it also recognized areas where she struggled, and it ultimately determined that

mother was not able to care for the children and that a grant of permanent custody

was in the children’s best interest. In weighing the evidence presented, the trial court

did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice. See In re B.J., 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 

.

                                       12-of-22 Finding

       {¶47} Mother also challenges the trial court’s finding under R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) that A.Y.C. had been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a

consecutive 22-month period.

                                            17
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶48} “A trial court is only required to find the applicability of one factor under

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).” In re J.R., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190342, 

. Because we have determined that the trial court’s finding under R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a)—that the children cannot or should not be placed with mother—was

supported by clear and convincing evidence, we do not address mother’s challenge to

the court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). See 

 at ¶ 26 and 29 (declining to

address a challenge to the trial court’s finding that a child could not or should not be

placed with a parent where the court’s alternate finding that the child had been in

agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period was

supported by clear and convincing evidence).

                            Mother’s Additional Arguments

       {¶49} Mother raises several additional arguments not in an assignment of

error, but in her conclusory paragraph. In her conclusion, she challenges the trial

court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem on her behalf and alleges several

procedural errors in the proceedings below.

       {¶50} We decline to address these arguments, as they were not raised in an

assignment of error for our review. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b) provides that an appellate court

shall “[d]etermine the appeal on its merits on the assignments of error set forth in the

briefs.” This rule establishes that “[t]he role of an appellate court is to ‘rule[] on

assignments of error, not mere arguments.’ ” State v. Lear, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

220485, 

, quoting Mun. Tax Invest. LLC v. Northup Reinhardt

Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19-AP-26, 

, quoting Huntington

Natl. Bank v. Burda, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-658, 

.



                                           18
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS




       {¶51} Mother’s sole assignment of error challenged the sufficiency and the

weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s grant of permanent custody.

Because mother has raised no assignment of error concerning the trial court’s failure

to appoint a guardian ad litem or the alleged procedural errors, we decline to consider

these arguments. See Lear at ¶ 17.

                                     III. Conclusion

       {¶52} Having found that the trial court did not err in granting permanent

custody of A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to HCJFS, we overrule mother’s assignment of error and

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

WINKLER and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.



Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.




                                           19