OPINION

I. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE MINOR CHILD CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE APPELLANT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

(1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents;

(2) The child is abandoned and the parents cannot be located;

(3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody.

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the twelve listed factors exist as to each parent before an award of permanent custody can be made. In its nunc pro tunc findings of fact and conclusions of law filed April 12, 1999, the trial court found four of the listed factors to exist:

1. Following the placement of Justice Cundiff outside his parent's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by SCDHS to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parents have failed repeatedly and continually for a period of six months to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home.

2. The parents have demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing regularly to support, visit, and communicate with him when able to do so.

3. The parent is unwilling or unable to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for this child.

4. The child cannot and/or should not be placed with the parents at this time or in the foreseeable future.

Appellee has been involved with appellant since 1991 and has removed two other children. Appellee took custody of the child sub judice after appellant gave birth to him while in prison. T. at 11-12. Appellant completed a case plan involving this child and the child had been returned to her on September 27, 1997. T. at 13. Appellant's prior case plans centered around her drug abuse. Appellant was unable to provide a residence in Canton so she and the child went to West Virginia to stay with her grandmother and then her aunt. T. at 14. In November of 1998, appellant moved into a homeless shelter. T. at 15. Although appellant did not have any problems per se at the shelter, she was terminated for noncompliance with the rules regarding employment and drinking at the shelter. T. at 63-64. In December of 1998, appellant was charged with disorderly conduct and child endangering because of her disruptive and combative conduct with police while they were trying to give her a ride to wherever she wanted to go. T. at 25-27, 31-32. The police were responding to a call concerning a fight involving appellant. T. at 22. Appellant was holding her child and was acting in a belligerent manner. T. at 25-26. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, there was a warrant out for appellant's arrest. T. at 43. During the course of her present involvement with appellee, appellant did not drop the requested urines or seek evaluation at Quest Recovery services, has missed visitations with the child, has no independent living arrangements and has had five different residences in the past year. T. at 42, 48-49, 72. Admittedly, the case plan sub judice did not focus on reunification because of appellant's failure in previous case plans involving this child and her two other children that had been removed. Based upon appellant's failure to complete the case plan, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the child to appellee. The sole assignment of error is denied. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Family Court Division is hereby affirmed.

By FARMER, J. HOFFMAN, P.J. and EDWARDS, J. concur.

I concur with the decision of the majority in this case but I would find that the following finding made by the trial court was not supported by the evidence: "Following the placement of Justice Cundiff outside his parent's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by SCDHS to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parents have failed repeatedly and continually for a period of six months to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home."

Since the case sub judice was filed approximately two months prior to the permanent custody hearing, and since the child was removed from appellant's care approximately two months prior to the permanent custody hearing, appellant has not had six months to remedy parenting problems. Therefore, she could not have failed for six months to remedy those parenting problems which caused the child's removal in the case sub judice. I am aware that the "six month" language was removed from 2151.414 in September of 1996, but the trial court found that the evidence supported said finding. I do not find that the evidence supported that finding. However, the evidence is sufficient to support the other findings made by the trial court and those findings are sufficient to support the granting of permanent custody to the SCDHS.