[Cite as In re U.B., 

.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA


IN RE U.B.                                    :
                                                            No. 114341
A Minor Child                                 :

[Appeal by J.W., Mother]                      :


                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 10, 2025


            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                   Juvenile Division
                                Case No. AD-23-900061


                                        Appearances:

                 Edward F. Borkowski, Jr., for appellant.

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Michele L. Wessel, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.


MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

                 Appellant-mother, J.W. (“Mother”), appeals the juvenile court’s

decision terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody of her minor

child, U.B., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services

(“CCDCFS” or “the agency”). Mother claims that the juvenile court’s decision to
grant permanent custody to the agency was against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Our review of the record reflects that the juvenile court’s findings and

order granting permanent custody are supported by competent, credible evidence,

and we affirm the juvenile court’s decision.

I. Procedural History and Relevant Facts

      A.     Initial Removal

             In May 2021, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and temporary

custody of four of Mother’s children, including U.B. The complaint alleged that

Mother lacked stable and appropriate housing, had a substance-abuse problem, and

had untreated mental-health problems, all of which prevented her from providing

appropriate care for the children. Predispositional temporary custody was initially

granted to the father of one of the children. In June 2021, the agency was granted

predispositional temporary custody of the children. The complaint was ultimately

dismissed since the matter could not be resolved within the statutory time frame.

      B.     Case at Issue

             On January 5, 2023, the agency filed a complaint with juvenile court for

dependency and temporary custody of U.B.1 The complaint alleged that Mother

lacked appropriate housing and had mental-health and long-standing-substance-

abuse issues. The juvenile court granted predispositional temporary custody to the

agency the same day.


1 The remaining three children in the initial complaint were adjudicated neglected in a

separate case. Two were in the temporary custody of the agency at the time of the filing
of this complaint, and the third had been recently emancipated.
             An adjudicatory hearing was held on March 28, 2023. U.B. was

adjudicated to be dependent and placed in the temporary custody of the agency.

             On May 10, 2023, the agency filed a motion to modify temporary

custody to permanent custody. A hearing was held on this motion on August 5,

2024.

        C. Permanent Custody Hearing and Appeal

             Mother was represented by counsel at the permanent-custody hearing.

U.B.’s guardian ad litem, Cynthia Morgan (“GAL”), was also present. The agency’s

social worker, Chaquelya Patterson, testified on behalf of the agency. Mother and

Mother’s chemical dependency counselor, Christine Ferguson, testified on behalf of

mother. The GAL also testified to her report and recommendation.

        1. Chaquelya Patterson

            Chaquelya Patterson (“Patterson”) is a case manager at CCDCFS. She

had been assigned to this case since July 2023. She testified that Mother had been

involved with the agency since 2002 and that Mother had previously lost permanent

custody of four of her children to the agency. At the time of trial, Mother also had

three additional children that had been adjudicated neglected, one of whom was

ultimately emancipated.

             Patterson testified that in this case, the agency was initially granted

temporary custody of U.B. due to Mother’s failure to provide adequate housing,

Mother’s substance-abuse issues, and Mother’s mental-health issues. A case plan
was filed in 2021 with the goal of reunification. Mother was required to obtain

suitable housing and to receive substance-abuse and mental-health services.

             Patterson testified that Mother told her that she had been diagnosed

with bipolar disorder, depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Mother was referred to a

mental-health counselor through OhioGuidestone and with Care Alliance.

However, Mother was inconsistent with her appointments with Care Alliance and

went to OhioGuidestone only once in 2021 or 2022. Patterson stated that it was not

until late 2023 that Mother started to consistently see a therapist2 with Key

Counseling. She further testified that Mother had informed her that she stopped

taking her mental-health medication in January 2024.

              With respect to Mother’s substance-abuse issues, Patterson testified

that Mother had been diagnosed with cannabis disorder. Patterson stated that

Mother had not made any progress with respect to this part of her case plan. She

testified that Mother had been testing positive for over a year.3 Patterson testified

that Mother refused to submit to a drug test in July 2024.

             Patterson stated that Mother obtained housing in June 2024, two

months prior to the trial. She testified that Mother had been without adequate



2 Mother treated with Christine Ferguson at Key Counseling Services. Ferguson is a

licensed clinical social worker and licensed clinical independent chemical dependency
counselor. However, some witnesses referred to her as a “therapist.”

3 Mother had tested positive for cocaine and marijuana in September 2023; for marijuana

in December 2023; twice for marijuana in January 2024; for marijuana in March 2024;
twice for marijuana in April 2024; twice for marijuana in May 2024; and twice for
marijuana in June 2024.
housing for over three years. Patterson stated that she had been unable to verify if

the home was appropriate. She testified that she had a visit scheduled with Mother

to view the house but Mother did not show up. She attempted to reschedule with

Mother but was unsuccessful.

              Patterson testified that while U.B. has been in the agency’s custody,

Mother has had weekly supervised visits with U.B. Patterson believed that U.B. and

Mother bonded at these visits; however, sometimes she would have to redirect

Mother on certain things “that’s not in the best interest of the child.” She explained,

for example, Mother would continue to bring candy to the visits even though she

had told Mother that candy is not appropriate due to U.B.’s oral health.

              Patterson also testified that U.B. has bonded with her foster parents.

U.B. has told Patterson that she would like to stay with her foster parents.

      2. Christine Ferguson

              Christine Ferguson (“Ferguson”) is a licensed clinical social worker

and chemical dependency counselor with Key Counseling Services. She testified

that Mother became her client in 2022. She met with Mother three to four times a

week to begin with, ultimately settling on a biweekly schedule. There was eventually

a gap in Mother’s treatment, but in November 2023, they began meeting

consistently again.

              Ferguson testified that Mother’s treatment plan was for her to address

her substance-use disorder with marijuana. She stated that Mother has been

diagnosed with PTSD, general anxiety disorder, and major depression. Mother told
Ferguson that she smokes marijuana to address the symptoms associated with these

disorders and that the medications prescribed to Mother were having a negative

effect on her.   Ferguson testified that she advised Mother “that there was a

reasonable way for her to therapeutically use her marijuana and to watch out, so-to-

speak, for issues concerning abuse or over use.” Ferguson testified that Mother did

not have a legal medical marijuana card.

             Ferguson also testified that she did not believe that Mother was a

danger to herself or U.B. She had witnessed Mother with U.B. and stated that

Mother is very strongly bonded with U.B. and that U.B. should be returned to

Mother.

      3. Mother

             Mother also testified at trial.    She admitted that she had been

diagnosed with cannabis disorder and tobacco addiction. She testified that she was

consistent with her mental-health medications but that there were side effects, such

as paranoia, agitation, and teeth grinding. She stated that she spoke to the agency

and they told her she did not need the medications.

             Mother stated that she has been smoking marijuana for over 20 years.

She testified that she smoked marijuana therapeutically to treat her mental-health

issues because she did not like the way her mental-health medications made her feel.

She also acknowledged that she has been consistently testing positive for marijuana.

             With respect to her housing situation, Mother testified that she had

signed up for housing three years earlier but only obtained housing on June 3, 2024.
She testified that she had been approved for housing in 2021 but nobody told her

she had been approved.

      4. The GAL

              At the conclusion of testimony, the GAL presented her report and

recommendation. The GAL noted that the case plan was initially started in June

2021, yet Mother did not obtain housing until June 2024 and continued to use

marijuana. She also noted the extensive dental work U.B. required as well as her

limited learning and educational skills when the agency was first granted temporary

custody. Specifically, when U.B. entered kindergarten, she could only recite her first

and last name, identify come colors, and hold a pencil. U.B. did not have any other

readiness skills. The GAL stated that the skills U.B. possessed today were all learned

during the school year of 2023-2024. The GAL recommended that permanent

custody of U.B. be awarded to the agency.

      D. Order and Appeal

              On August 20, 2024, the juvenile court issued an order granting

permanent custody to the agency. It is from this order that Mother appeals, raising

the following assignment of error:

      The trial court abused its discretion by granting permanent custody of
      Appellant’s child to CCDCFS against the manifest weight of the
      evidence.

II. Law and Argument

              We begin our analysis with the recognition that “‘[a]ll children have

the right, if possible, to parenting from either biological or adoptive parents which
provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.’” In re L.W., 2017-

Ohio-657, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting In re J.B., 

 (8th Dist.).

Similarly, a “‘parent’s right to raise a child is an essential basic civil right.’” In re

N.B., 

 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hayes, 

(1997). By terminating a person’s parental rights, the goal “is to make a more stable

life for the dependent children and to facilitate adoption to foster permanency for

children.” N.B. at 67, citing In re Howard, 

, *5 (5th

Dist. Aug. 1, 1986).

      A. Standard of Review

               Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414, a juvenile court’s judgment granting

permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and

convincing evidence has been defined as “‘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.’” In re K.H., 

, ¶ 42, quoting Cross v.

Ledford, 

 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. “We will not

reverse a juvenile court’s termination of parental rights and award of permanent

custody to an agency unless the judgment is not supported by clear and convincing

evidence.” In re L.A., 

 (8th Dist.), citing N.B. at ¶ 48.

               Here, Mother argues that the award of permanent custody was against

the manifest weight of the evidence. When reviewing for manifest weight in
permanent custody cases, we “must weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in

resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created

such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new

trial ordered.” In re Z.C., 

. As such, the “juvenile court’s

decision to grant permanent custody will not be reversed as being against the

manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains some competent, credible

evidence from which the court could have found that the essential statutory

elements for permanent custody had been established by clear and convincing

evidence.’” In re A.S., 

, ¶ 39 (8th Dist.), quoting In re A.P., 2016-

Ohio-5849, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).

      B. Analysis

              “R.C. 2151.414 sets out specific findings a juvenile court must make

before granting an agency’s motion for permanent custody of a child.” In re A.M.,

, ¶ 18, citing In re C.F., 

, ¶ 22. In order to grant

permanent custody, the juvenile court is required to engage in a two-prong

approach. The juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) one

or more of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) exist and (2) a grant

of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

      1. First Prong – R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)

              Here, the juvenile court found, under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), that the

child had been in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services
agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-

month period. Mother does not dispute this finding. As such, our analysis is focused

only on the second prong: the juvenile court’s determination that a grant of

permanent custody was in U.B.’s best interest.

      2. Second Prong – Best Interest of the Child – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)
         and/or (D)(2)

              In determining whether permanent custody is in the best interest of

the child, the juvenile must court consider the relevant factors set forth in either

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or (D)(2).      Here, the juvenile court found “by clear and

convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the

permanent custody of the CCDCFS [Cuyahoga County Division of Children and

Family Services.]” The court made this determination under both subsections

(D)(1) and (D)(2).

                 Mother disputes the juvenile court’s determination that granting

permanent custody of U.B. was in the child’s best interest. Mother only challenges

the findings the juvenile court made with respect to subsection (D)(1) of

R.C. 2151.414.     Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s findings under

subsection (D)(2). We do not need to address the juvenile court’s findings under

(D)(1) if the court also determined that it was in the child’s best interest to be placed

into permanent custody under subsection (D)(2). See A.S., 

, at ¶ 42

(8th Dist.) (noting that “[w]e do not need to determine if the trial court correctly

applied the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors, however, because the trial court also found
that it was in [the child’s] best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the

agency under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2).”). Rather, “[a] finding under section (D)(2) of

R.C. 2151.414 mandates that the trial court find it is in a child’s best interest to be

placed in the agency’s permanent custody.” 

 citing In re G.A., 

,

¶ 59 (8th Dist.).

               We begin our analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) that provides:

      If all of the following apply, permanent custody is in the best interest of
      the child, and the court shall commit the child to the permanent
      custody of a public children services agency or private child placing
      agency:

      (a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or
      more of the factors in division (E) of this section exist and the child
      cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable
      time or should not be placed with either parent.

      (b) The child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer,
      and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D)
      of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code.

      (c) The child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent
      living arrangement pursuant to division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of
      the Revised Code.

      (d) Prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested
      person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of
      the child.

               If the juvenile court makes the four enumerated findings set forth in

subsection (D)(2), “permanent custody is per se in the child’s best interest and the

court ‘shall’ commit the child to the permanent custody of the agency.” A.S. at ¶ 44,

citing G.A. at ¶ 61. The juvenile court found each of the above factors were satisfied.
      a. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a)

              To satisfy the (D)(2)(a) factor, the juvenile court must find that “one

or more of the factors in division (E) of this section exist and the child cannot be

placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be

placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a). This factor is satisfied if the

juvenile court finds that at least one of the factors in division (E) exists. Here, the

court found several of the statutory factors exist, including R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2),

(4), (11), and (16). The juvenile court found “the child cannot be placed with one of

the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either

parent.” We will address each of the factors found by the juvenile court.

                      R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) Factors

              With respect to subsection (E)(1), the court found “the parent has

failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing

the child to be placed outside the child’s home.” With respect to (E)(2), the court

found, “[t]he chronic chemical dependency of the parent . . . is so severe that it makes

the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the

present time and, as anticipated, within one year.” There is competent and credible

evidence in the record that Mother failed to remedy the conditions that caused U.B.

to be removed from the home and that Mother’s chronic chemical dependency is so

severe that she is unable to provide a permanent home for U.B.

              In May 2021, U.B. was initially removed from Mother’s custody due

to inadequate housing, substance abuse, and mental health of Mother. Mother was
diagnosed with PTSD, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. She was prescribed

medications to address these issues but had stopped taking the medications as of

January 2024.

              Mother testified that she has been smoking marijuana for 20 years,

and despite receiving treatment for her mental health and substance abuse as part

of her case plan, she continues to test positive for marijuana. She had also tested

positive for cocaine within a year prior to the trial. Mother and her chemical

dependency counselor each testified that Mother continues to use marijuana for

therapeutic purposes.   Mother does not have a medical marijuana card, and her

chemical dependency counselor testified that Mother has not been prescribed

marijuana. The GAL also testified that Mother was never advised to get a medical

marijuana card.

              With respect to Mother’s lack of adequate housing, the evidence

demonstrates that Mother eventually obtained housing in June 2024. However,

Patterson testified that she was unable to visit the apartment to determine if it is

appropriate. Patterson stated that Mother did not show up to the scheduled

appointment and she had been unable to schedule a follow-up appointment with

Mother. Prior to obtaining housing, Mother did not have adequate housing for over

three years. For these reasons, there exists competent and credible evidence in the

record to support the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) that

Mother failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal of U.B. and that Mother

continues to have a chronic chemical dependency.
                           R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) Factor

              With respect to subsection (E)(4), the juvenile court found that “[t]he

parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to

regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or provide

an adequate permanent home for the child.” With respect to U.B.’s father, Patterson

testified that he was on the case plan but has not made any progress. Patterson had

not made contact with him, nor had he had any involvement in case-plan services.

With respect to Mother, as addressed above, the testimony revealed that after three

years of U.B. being placed in the agency’s custody, Mother has failed to remedy the

conditions that caused U.B.’s removal. There is competent and credible evidence in

the record that after three years, Mother has failed to provide an adequate

permanent home for U.B.

                          R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) Factor

              With respect to subsection (E)(11), the juvenile court found that

      [t]he parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with
      respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or section
      2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Ohio Revised Code . . . and the parent has
      failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that,
      notwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can provide a legally
      secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare,
      and safety of the child.

              CCDCFS presented journal entries that Mother had four of her

children previously committed to the permanent custody of the agency. Under this

factor, the burden thus shifts to Mother. See R.C. 2151.141(E)(11). As discussed

above, the record indicates that Mother cannot demonstrate that she can provide a
legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and

safety of U.B. As such, there is competent and credible evidence in the record to

support the juvenile court’s finding.

                          R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) Factor

               With respect to subsection (E)(16), the juvenile court found that

“Mother has shown a pattern of not putting child’s best interest first.” Specifically,

the juvenile court noted Mother brought other individuals to visitations, even after

being instructed not to due to U.B.’s anxiety; Mother would bring sweets to U.B.

after being instructed not to due to U.B.’s dental health; and Mother failed to address

U.B.’s educational needs prior to removal. These facts were presented through the

testimony of the case worker and are supported by the record.

              In order to satisfy the first enumerated factor R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a),

only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) need be met. Here, the juvenile

court found multiple applicable factors under subsection (E) are satisfied. Each of

these findings are supported by credible and competent evidence. Therefore, the

juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(a) is satisfied.

      b. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(b)

              To satisfy the R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(b) factor, the juvenile court must

find that “[t]he child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and no

longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415

of the Revised Code.” Here, it is undisputed that U.B. had been in CCDCFS’s custody

since 2021. At the time of trial, U.B. had been in the uninterrupted custody of the
agency for three years and no longer qualifies for temporary custody under

R.C. 2151.415.

                 R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall not

order an existing temporary custody order to continue beyond two years after the

date on which the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care,

whichever date is earlier, regardless of whether any extensions have been previously

ordered pursuant to division (D) of this section.” At the time of trial, U.B. no longer

qualified for temporary custody. As such, this finding is satisfied.

      c. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c)

                 The R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c) factor is satisfied if “[t]he child does not

meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to

division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code.” The juvenile court found

that U.B. did not meet these requirements.

                 R.C. 2151.353 provides if a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected,

or dependent child, the court may

      [p]lace the child in a planned permanent living arrangement with a
      public children services agency or private child placing agency, if a
      public children services agency or private child placing agency requests
      the court to place the child in a planned permanent living arrangement
      and if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that a planned
      permanent living arrangement is in the best interest of the child, that
      the child is sixteen years of age or older, and that one of the following
      exists:

      The child, because of physical, mental, or psychological problems or
      needs, is unable to function in a family-like setting and must remain in
      residential or institutional care now and for the foreseeable future
      beyond the date of the dispositional hearing held pursuant to section
      2151.35 of the Revised Code.

      The parents of the child have significant physical, mental, or
      psychological problems and are unable to care for the child because of
      those problems, adoption is not in the best interest of the child, as
      determined in accordance with division (D)(1) of section 2151.414 of the
      Revised Code, and the child retains a significant and positive
      relationship with a parent or relative.

      The child has been counseled on the permanent placement options
      available to the child, and is unwilling to accept or unable to adapt to a
      permanent placement.

              There is no evidence presented to satisfy any of the requirements to

place U.B. into a planned permanent living arrangement. Rather, the record

demonstrates that U.B. has been placed in a family-like setting with foster parents.

Patterson testified that U.B. has bonded with her foster parents and U.B. has advised

Patterson that she would like to stay with her foster parents. There was also no

testimony that U.B. was unable to function in a family-like setting. There is nothing

in the record that supports any of the requirements under this section. As a result,

the record supports the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(c).

      d. R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d)

              Under the final factor, R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d), the juvenile court

found that “[p]rior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested

person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal Custody.” Here, there

is nothing in the record concerning a relative or other interested person filing a

motion for legal custody of U.B. The juvenile court’s findings under this factor are

supported by the record.
              The juvenile court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) are supported

by competent and credible evidence in the record. Since all of the factors under

R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) apply, “permanent custody was necessarily in the best interest

of the child and the juvenile court was required to grant permanent custody to

CCDCFS.” In re P.J., 

, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). “A finding under section

(D)(2) of R.C. 2151.414 mandates the trial court find it is in a child’s best interest to

be placed in the agency’s permanent custody.” A.S., 

, at ¶ 42 (8th

Dist.), citing In re G.A., 

, at ¶ 59 (8th Dist.).

               Since the juvenile court’s determination under (D)(2) is supported by

competent and credible evidence, we do not need to determine if the juvenile court

correctly applied the factors set forth under (D)(1). 

 Accordingly, Mother’s sole

assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

               For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court’s

findings are supported by competent and credible evidence within the record.

Therefore, the juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

               Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.


_________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR