[Cite as In re B.S., 2016-Ohio-5811.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: B.S. C.A. No. 28198
L.S.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE Nos. DN 14-09-598
DN 14-09-599
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 14, 2016
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Janet M., appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights to her two minor children
and placed them in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services (“CSB”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Janet M. (“Mother”) is the mother of B.S., born February 18, 2001, and L.S., born
June 26, 2004. In 2014, when this case began, Mother was married to David M. (“Stepfather”).
The father of the children, Lonnie S. (“Father”), has not appealed from the judgment of the trial
court.
{¶3} According to the complaint, CSB initially became involved with the family
through an “Alternative Response case” from April to July 2014. At that time, the agency
investigated reports that B.S. had multiple marks on his arms, with a concern that the marks
2
might be cigarette burns. The marks turned out to be eczema and/or bed bug bites that B.S. had
scratched. There were also concerns that B.S. exhibited sexualized behaviors and language at
school. He was referred for a sexual risk evaluation at Ohio Guidestone, which showed that B.S.
was at risk to offend, but Mother did not follow through with the recommended counseling for
him.
{¶4} CSB became involved with the family again when, on September 11, 2014, L.S.
told a teacher that B.S. attempted to hang himself. The school contacted Mother and advised her
to seek medical/mental health assistance for B.S. Mother took him to Child Guidance and
Family Solutions for crisis intervention. At the initial appointment, Mother claimed B.S.’s
attempt to harm himself was an effort to seek attention and she did not believe it was important
that he attend counseling.
{¶5} CSB, police, and paramedics responded to the home later that same day. B.S.
denied being actively suicidal at the time, but admitted that he had tried to harm himself several
times before, had homicidal ideations regarding a school mate, and had sexually abused L.S.
several times, including fondling and penetration, most recently just two days before. Mother
acknowledged that she knew about the inappropriate sexual behavior and stated that she has had
the boys alternate sleeping on the couch because they share a bedroom.
{¶6} CSB took L.S. to Akron Children’s Hospital for evaluation. There, L.S. reported
that he saw B.S. try to hang himself and that B.S. had kissed, fondled, and penetrated him.
Following the evaluation and pursuant to a safety plan, L.S. was placed in the home of his
paternal grandmother. Mother did not agree with that placement and wanted to keep both boys
in her care. Within a week, L.S. was back at Mother’s home where B.S. still resided. Mother
later testified that, upon consultation with a lawyer, she believed she could retrieve L.S. because
3
there was no court order. Mother said she stayed awake all night to ensure that the boys slept in
separate rooms.
{¶7} On September 18, 2014, CSB filed complaints in juvenile court, alleging that B.S.
was neglected and dependent, and that L.S. was abused, neglected, and dependent. The trial
court granted emergency temporary custody of B.S. to CSB, and the agency placed B.S. at
Guidestone for a residential evaluation. L.S. was allowed to remain in Mother’s custody under
an order of protective supervision with CSB. At the adjudicatory hearing, the parents stipulated
to the allegations in the complaint and the trial court entered adjudicatory findings consistent
with the complaint.
{¶8} L.S. was seen at the Care Center of Akron Children’s Hospital to further evaluate
the concerns of sexual abuse. It was difficult to understand the child because of a developmental
delay, but L.S. was able to communicate that something happened with his brother and with his
backside. He also communicated that he “got F’d,” but could not explain what that meant or
provide details. The Care Center recommended continued trauma therapy, believing that would
provide an opportunity for L.S. to build a relationship with a counselor and better explain what
happened. L.S. and Mother met with a trauma therapist eight times, but L.S. made little
progress. According to the therapist, L.S. refused to engage and became destructive with the
materials. The therapist opined that L.S. may have been cognitively unable to benefit from the
type of therapy that she was able to offer in the office and recommended intensive home-based
therapy instead.
{¶9} At the dispositional hearing in December 2014, the parents agreed to maintain the
same custodial arrangements, and the trial court so ordered. The trial court also adopted a case
plan. According to the case plan, B.S. was to complete a residential treatment program, which
4
included individual, group, and family therapy. L.S. was to participate in counseling to address
sexual abuse issues. Adult family members were to provide appropriate supervision of L.S. to
ensure he was no longer victimized. Mother and Stepfather were to participate in parenting
education to learn strategies for parenting both victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse. Mother,
Stepfather, and Father were to participate in family therapy with each child when determined to
be appropriate by their therapists. Stepfather was to complete a substance abuse evaluation to
address concerns of alcohol use. Father was to address anxiety and substance abuse issues
through counseling and random drug screens. Finally, Mother, Father, and Stepfather were
offered weekly visitation with B.S. at Guidestone.
{¶10} Over the course of time, several amendments were made to the case plan.
Father’s requirement for drug screens was removed following several negative test results, but a
similar requirement was added for Mother when concerns arose that Mother was using L.S.’s
prescription medication and marijuana. In addition, upon receiving reports that family members
were having inappropriate discussions with B.S., his visits and telephone calls were required to
be supervised.
{¶11} In April 2015, CSB moved to change the custodial disposition of L.S. from
Mother to CSB, based on L.S.’s poor school attendance and significant behavioral issues,
Mother’s failure to keep appointments for CSB’s home visits and with L.S.’s service providers,
Father’s failure to engage in counseling or parenting classes, and the fact that the family was
about to be evicted from their apartment. Shortly after the motion to change custody was filed,
Mother, Stepfather, and L.S. moved to Sandusky. CSB requested that the trial court refrain from
ruling on the motion to change custody until CSB was able to investigate the new residence of
the family.
5
{¶12} On May 18, 2015, the CSB caseworker and L.S.’s guardian ad litem met with the
family in Sandusky, where they discovered that the family of three was staying at the two-
bedroom apartment of a friend and his adult son. The caseworker was concerned that L.S. was
sharing a bedroom with the 21-year old son, although Mother claimed the 21-year-old was
seldom there. L.S. had been enrolled in a local school, but was removed after half a day for
disruptive and disrespectful behavior. Mother met with school officials the following day, and
arrangements were made for L.S. to work with a volunteer teacher at the local library for an hour
daily for the last few weeks of the school year. It was anticipated that L.S. would return to
regular school in the fall.
{¶13} Mother had not given CSB any advance notice that she was moving out of the
area, but later explained that she and her husband had been unable to find employment in Akron,
and they thought Sandusky would provide them with a fresh start. They did, in fact, find
employment in Sandusky, and they were in the process of buying a car from the friend with
whom they were staying. Mother promised better compliance with the visitation schedule going
forward because of the car and insisted that her employer is a very understanding person who
would accommodate visits.
{¶14} After CSB’s home visit and a hearing on the motion to change custody, CSB was
granted temporary custody of L.S. and the agency placed him in residential treatment at Beech
Brook. The case plan was amended to include parental visitation at Beech Brook, as well as the
attainment of stable housing by both parents.
{¶15} In October 2015, the caseworker was concerned that the case was “going
nowhere” and scheduled a meeting for the parents, their attorneys, the children’s guardians ad
6
litem, the CSB supervisor, and the CSB attorney. The attorneys and guardians ad litem came,
but neither parent attended.
{¶16} On October 19, 2015, CSB filed a motion for permanent custody. Following a
hearing, the trial court granted permanent custody to CSB and terminated the parents’ parental
rights to B.S. and L.S. Mother appeals and assigns one error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE MINOR CHILDREN PURSUANT TO [R.C. 2151.414(D)].
{¶17} Mother contends the trial court erred in finding that permanent custody was in the
best interest of the children, as required for satisfaction of the second prong of the permanent
custody test. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Before a juvenile court may
terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency it
must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test, as
required under R.C. 2151.414(B). The trial court must find: (1) the existence of one of the five
factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e), and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the
agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). See
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99
(1996). Clear and convincing evidence is that which is sufficient to produce in the mind of the
trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶18} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was
satisfied because the children could not be returned to either parent within a reasonable period of
7
time or should not be returned to their care. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Mother has not
challenged the first prong finding by the trial court, but rather only challenges the second prong
best interest finding on appeal.
{¶19} When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the children’s best
interest, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including those enumerated in R.C.
2151.414(D)(1): the interaction and interrelationships of the children, the wishes of the children,
the custodial history of the children, the children’s need for permanence and whether that can be
achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and whether any of the factors outlined in R.C.
2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). “Although the trial court is not
precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to
consider all of the enumerated factors.” In re Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20711, 2002 WL
5178, *3, (Jan. 2, 2002); see also In re Palladino, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2002-G-2445, 2002-
Ohio-5606, ¶ 24.
1. Interactions and interrelationships of the children
B.S.
{¶20} This court case began with concerns that thirteen-year-old B.S. had sexually
abused his ten-year-old brother. B.S. admitted offending against his brother and having an
attraction to younger children. He also disclosed that he had been a victim of sexual abuse
himself - by an unknown perpetrator. Although Mother admitted she was aware of the problem
with her sons, she did not seek outside help until authorities became involved. Instead, she
sought to deal with the situation herself and denied the need for counseling. The caseworker
testified that Mother has acknowledged that B.S. offended against L.S., while Father has
continued to deny it.
8
{¶21} At Guidestone, B.S. was enrolled in individual, family, and group counseling as
well as medication management with a psychiatrist. The case manager from Guidestone
explained that over the course of 16 months B.S. had made “some progress. It kind of was back
and forth, up and down,” but he was thought to be ready to step down to a group home on
February 1, 2016. She said B.S. was attending school and taking his medication regularly. He
was learning to interact with children his own age and developing friendships. The case manager
said that B.S. was exhibiting less physical aggression, but could still be disrespectful and refuse
to follow staff directions. He did not like to do chores and needed a lot of prompts to engage in
personal hygiene matters. He did not typically talk much about his family.
{¶22} Upon receiving reports that family members shared inappropriate information
with B.S., CSB required future visits at Guidestone to be supervised. Family members allegedly
told B.S. that he did nothing wrong, did not need to be at Guidestone, and did not have any
behavior problems. There was no evidence that the information came from Mother. According
to his guardian ad litem, such information was having a negative impact on B.S.’s behavior and
was slowing his progress. The CSB caseworker believes that B.S. now accepts what he needs to
work on, especially since Father had ceased contact. Services providers stated that B.S. will
require caregivers that are patient and understanding going forward.
L.S.
{¶23} While L.S. was still residing in Mother’s home, the CSB caseworker became
concerned with the excessive amount of school he was missing and with Mother’s failure to keep
service appointments for him. These failings had an impact on L.S. During the last year L.S.
resided with Mother, he was enrolled in at least four different schools and was removed from
three of them for behavioral problems. At the fourth school, the Findley Community Learning
9
Center, L.S. attended only 18 days of school over the course of two months before Mother
withdrew him to move to Sandusky. The principal of that school testified at the permanent
custody hearing and explained that L.S. has “pretty intensive needs for education.” She
explained that every time L.S. returned to school after missing a day, he had to retransition,
requiring him to spend time in the office conference room with the principal and assistants to
socialize him back to classroom behavior. Sometimes this took several hours. The principal said
that there was good communication between the school and Mother, and she has always been
receptive. Nevertheless, despite frequent efforts by the school to emphasize the importance of
consistency in attendance, L.S.’s attendance was very poor. For her part, Mother insisted that
L.S.’s attendance was excellent until CSB became involved with the family.
{¶24} Additionally, Mother’s failure to keep a follow-up appointment with the pediatric
psychiatrist who managed L.S.’s medications resulted in an inability to obtain a refill on a 30-
day prescription for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) medication. Mother
claimed she obtained two seven-day refills from hospital emergency rooms, but the caseworker
nevertheless asserted that L.S. was without prescribed medication for a period of time.
{¶25} Upon entering residential treatment at Beech Brook, L.S. presented as very angry
and depressed. His cognitive disability inhibited his ability to verbalize and caused him to act
out in a negative way. It also meant that talk therapy did not work well with him, so therapists
utilized play, sand tray, art, and music therapy. During his first four months at Beech Brook,
L.S. made moderate progress, described as a decrease in defiant oppositional behavior and an
improved ability to participate in a classroom setting. During this period, Father visited him six
times and Mother visited him twice. At that point, Beech Brook recommended that L.S. be given
a community placement and CSB located a foster home for him. It did not go well, however.
10
L.S. struggled with following directions from the foster mother, isolated himself, and repeatedly
ran away. After two weeks, he was returned to Beech Brook.
{¶26} During L.S.’s second admission at Beech Brook, therapists worked on processing
his trauma. During those five months, L.S. had no visits from either parent. L.S. spoke of
feelings of sadness and expressed hopelessness about his inability to control his environment and
still being in Beech Brook. He interacted pretty well with children his own age, but tended to
isolate himself. The agency was working on a plan to move him to an open unit, with more
exposure off-grounds, as a means to keep him motivated and not feeling as hopeless.
{¶27} Upon being asked by L.S.’s attorney to describe some of the positive things L.S.
has done, the Beech Brook case manager described L.S. as being creative, having a great sense
of humor, doing much better in school, and being very interested in electronics and game
systems. She stressed that consistency in attending school was very important to L.S. as with all
of their children. Beech Brook’s policy is that “you can’t just bounce out of school. If you take
a break, we encourage you and we have things put in place that help you get back in the
classroom. So there is not really an option of whether or not you go to school, you have to go to
school.” She explained that L.S. now also comes to therapy willingly, and is “kind of vested” in
the process so that she believes he will be able to continue on an outpatient basis. She
emphasized that it is important that his environment is extremely structured. His future caregiver
must understand his mental health needs and have tools and techniques to assist him. The case
manager testified that with structure, L.S. has “come out of his shell” and feels safer and more
secure.
11
{¶28} Along the way, L.S. has received diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder,
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, mood disorder NOS, ADHD, and mild mental retardation.1 He
was determined to be eligible for services from the Board of Developmental Disabilities. His
guardian ad litem observed that he had difficulty telling time, counting money, reading, spelling
and writing.
{¶29} Early on, L.C.’s therapist believed that Mother and L.S. were bonded. She said
that Mother loved L.S., and that she was very important to L.S. The Beech Brook case manager
said that L.S. used to say that he was going to run away to his Father and seemed to indicate that
he missed having contact with Father, but he has not said that in a long time.
Parents
{¶30} The record demonstrates a lack of effort by both parents to comply with their case
plan obligations. Neither parent has demonstrated that he or she can provide appropriate care for
the children. Father has not obtained housing, failed to engage in any individual counseling
services, and did not even attend the permanent custody hearing. For her part, Mother did not
attend any parenting classes, did no drug tests, and has not established stable housing.
Throughout the case, Mother failed to take responsibility for the fact that she had failed to
consistently maintain L.S. in school, in counseling, or provide him with his medication.
{¶31} The parents had an opportunity to learn how to parent these children through
participation in family therapy sessions while they were in residential treatment. Father attended
1
Because the record uses the term “mentally retarded,” the Court includes it here. We note,
however, that the Ohio General Assembly has recently determined to substitute the term
“intellectual disability” for references to “mental retardation” in the Ohio Revised Code,
effective October 12, 2016. See Sub. H.B. 158, 2016 Ohio Laws File 122. See also Hall v.
Florida, –––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 1990 (2014) in which the United States Supreme Court
has chosen to make a similar substitution.
12
five sessions with B.S. Mother attended none with B.S. There is no evidence that either parent
attended any therapy sessions with L.S.
{¶32} Significantly, the parents did not maintain regular contact with the children
through visitations. Mother visited B.S. 12 times, and only once in the last seven months. Father
visited him 24 times in total, and only once in the last six months. Mother visited L.S. twice and
Father visited him six times overall. Neither parent visited L.S. during the last five months. Nor
have the parents maintained telephone contact with the boys. Mother claimed that she could not
negotiate the evening voice mail directions at the facilities, and was not able to call during
business hours. She claimed that she had to do laundry and grocery shopping during the window
of daytime hours when she was not working. As found by the trial court: “These excuses ring
hollow and weak.” At the permanent custody hearing, Mother angrily asserted that she had done
nothing wrong and that the boys should be returned to her.
{¶33} Mother has failed to recognize the need for services for her children and the
importance of her own participation in those services. Her failure to engage in those services
and her lack of contact with her children has resulted in a lack of insight into the conditions and
the very significant needs of the children. Furthermore, she has not taken responsibility for her
failure to participate in services or for her lack of contact with the children.
Brothers
{¶34} There is no evidence of a positive relationship between the brothers. They have
had no contact with each other since they were separated at the beginning of the case. Neither of
the boys has anyone else in their lives that has nurtured a positive bond and maintained a
relationship with them.
2. Wishes of the children
13
{¶35} B.S.’s guardian ad litem reported that B.S. loves both of his parents, but has a big
problem in terms of Mother being with Stepfather. According to B.S., Stepfather has been very
aggressive with both boys. B.S. understands that Mother loves her husband, and he did not want
to interfere with that, but Mother was not his first choice for where to live. He also loves Father
and respects him, but understands Father would need to have a house before he could live with
him. According to the guardian ad litem, B.S. is, therefore, aware of shortcomings by both of his
parents in terms of parenting ability.
{¶36} B.S.’s guardian ad litem reported that neither parent has visited B.S. recently.
The guardian believed that Father became upset when his visits were required to be supervised
and began visiting less. The lack of visits, in turn, upset B.S. The guardian did not know why
Mother stopped visiting, and his attempts to contact her through her attorney went unanswered.
The guardian ad litem said that Mother’s last visit ended in a “row” between her and the Shelter
Care staff because she wanted to take pictures and that was not permitted as it would violate the
privacy of other clients. After that visit, B.S. reported that he did not want to see Mother any
more.
{¶37} Finally, B.S.’s guardian ad litem observed that B.S. has thrived at Shelter Care,
and he is very happy there. He indicated that any future environment for B.S. will have to take
into account his potential for sexual behavior and his developmental disabilities. Any home will
have to offer consistency, stability, love, and a steady guiding hand. He believed that neither
Mother nor Father is able to provide that type of environment to B.S. B.S. has indicated that he
is prepared to wait until he is 18 to live with Father. The guardian ad litem recommended that
B.S. be placed in the permanent custody of the agency and that a foster family for adoption be
found if possible. At the request of B.S., and without objection by the guardian ad item, the
14
guardian requested that occasional visits by Father be allowed because when B.S. is 18, he will
“need that connection.”
{¶38} When L.S.’s guardian ad litem was first assigned to the case, he detected a bond
between L.S. and Mother. He said L.S. liked to spend time with Mother, walking, talking, or
playing games together. Since he has been at Beech Brook, however, he has had very few visits
from his parents. More recently, L.S. said: “I miss my family, but I am cool.” His guardian ad
litem believes that the absence of his family is affecting him more than what he says, but
reintroducing the parents now could be difficult for L.S. because they have not been around
while he has been addressing his trauma. The guardian ad litem believes that the absence of
visitation by his parents has, in fact, created another trauma for L.S.
{¶39} The guardian ad litem reported that L.S. has said he would like to live with
Father, but Father told the guardian ad litem that he would like to obtain custody of B.S. and the
boys cannot be placed together. L.S. has also said that he would not want to live with Mother
and Stepfather because Stepfather drinks too much and is mean.
{¶40} The guardian ad litem described L.S. as a loner, withdrawn, and not bonded with
any particular relative. He is often sad, and he has anger and self-esteem issues. He has a long
way to go academically to catch up. The guardian ad litem explained that the parents’ progress
on their case plan objectives was very limited. Stepfather has not engaged in his case plan
requirements. The guardian believed that if the parents had engaged in family therapy, parenting
classes, and regular visits, they would have better understood L.S., his state of mind, and his
current needs. The guardian ad litem concluded by saying that L.S. is going to need a family that
will remain committed to him and meet all of his needs. He will require someone willing to put
15
a lot of time and effort into his care. He recommended that L.S. be placed in the permanent
custody of CSB and that the agency identify a foster-to-adopt home for him.
{¶41} L.S.’s attorney also addressed the court. At the beginning of the permanent
custody hearing, the attorney reported that L.S. was very conflicted, scared, and confused. At
the midway point, when removal from Mother’s home was being considered, L.S. did not want
to leave. At the close of the permanent custody hearing, the attorney expressed great sympathy
for L.S. He felt that L.S. deserved “to go to school on a regular basis [and] to thrive there [and]
to get the counseling that he desperately needs to move on past this trauma.” He reported that
L.S. does not have a strong stance as to where he wants to go. He said L.S. wants stability, to
feel loved, to feel welcomed, and asked the court to find that for him.
3. Custodial history of the children
{¶42} Both children resided with Mother until this case began in September 2014. At
that time, B.S. was placed in residential treatment at Guidestone and remained there for 16
months. He was in the sexual aggression unit throughout his stay. He was recently accepted into
a less restrictive placement in a group home at Shelter Care and had been there for two months at
the time of the permanent custody hearing.
{¶43} L.S. remained in the custody of Mother under the protective supervision of CSB
for nine months. Based on concerns of poor school attendance and a lack of follow through by
Mother on counseling, psychiatric services, and housing, the trial court granted temporary
custody of L.S. to CSB. At that time, the agency placed L.S. in Beech Brook. Except for an
unsuccessful two-week placement in a foster home, L.S. resided at Beech Brook for about nine
months.
16
4. The children’s need for a legally secure permanent placement
{¶44} The CSB caseworker testified that the agency explored family members on both
sides of the family, but none were willing and able to care for the boys. The paternal
grandmother expressed some interest, but eventually concluded that she could not assume care.
The maternal grandfather called about visits, but was firm that he was not able to provide long-
term care for the boys.
{¶45} B.S. has been in agency custody for 18 months and L.S. for nine months. During
that time, both boys have been in residential treatment facilities. Neither parent has been
consistent in maintaining contact with the children or in attempting compliance with the case
plan. Stepfather showed little interest or effort in working on his case plan.
{¶46} At the permanent custody hearing, the caseworker explained that Mother had
become very angry when L.S. was removed from her home and would call her names and make
threats when she called her on the telephone. The caseworker emphasized that the parents do not
have an understanding of L.S.’s needs since they have been away from him for so long. She
expressed great frustration that the parents have not even called to ask about their children or to
request visits for quite a while. She repeatedly sent them letters and asked them to schedule
visits. She stated with frustration that she had “begged the parents to be involved, to visit their
children, and neither of them will do anything that we have recommended, anything that we have
asked them to do.” The caseworker concluded by stating that both boys deserve consistency,
stability, and support from people that love and care about them. She asserted that both boys
deserve better than what they have experienced and have a right to permanency. She believes
permanent custody is in the best interests of both boys.
17
{¶47} Mother has failed to demonstrate that the evidence does not clearly and
convincingly establish that permanent custody was in the best interests of the children.
Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not err in terminating the parents’ parental
rights and in placing B.S. and L.S. in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother’s assignment of
error is overruled.
III.
{¶48} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
18
MOORE, J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
LINDA BENNETT, Guardian ad Litem.
BRIAN ASHTON, Attorney at Law, for child.
In re B.S.
Combined Opinion