In re C.C.

[Cite as In re C.C., 2026-Ohio-1617.]




                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               PAULDING COUNTY




IN RE:                                               CASE NO. 11-25-07

       C.C.,

ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT CHILD.
                                                     OPINION AND
[AMANDA E. - APPELLANT]                              JUDGMENT ENTRY




                Appeal from Paulding County Common Pleas Court
                                Juvenile Division
                           Trial Court No. 202333007

                                        Judgment Affirmed

                               Date of Decision: May 4, 2026



APPEARANCES:

        Jeffrey J. Horvath for Appellant

        Joseph R. Burkard for Appellee
Case No. 11-25-07




ZIMMERMAN, P.J.

       {¶1} Mother-appellant, Amanda E. (“Amanda”), appeals the July 21, 2025

judgment of the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,

granting permanent custody of her minor child, C.C., to the Defiance-Paulding

Consolidated Department of Job and Family Services (the “agency”). For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

       {¶2} Amanda and Christopher C. (“Christopher”) are the biological parents

of C.C. At the time of C.C.’s birth, Amanda was in prison in Ohio and Christopher

was incarcerated in Indiana.

       {¶3} On June 28, 2023, the agency filed a complaint in the trial court alleging

that C.C. is a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C). Specifically, the complaint

alleged that Amanda is incarcerated and does not qualify for the prison’s nursery

program so that she may keep the newborn with her while serving her sentence. The

complaint further alleged that Amanda has given birth to seven children and does

not have legal custody of any of them. That same day, the trial court issued an ex

parte emergency order placing C.C. in the temporary custody of the agency.

       {¶4} Following a shelter-care hearing on June 29, 2023, the trial court found

probable cause to believe that C.C. is a dependent child. The trial court further

found that it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the temporary custody of the



                                         -2-
Case No. 11-25-07


agency. The trial court also appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) to represent

C.C.

       {¶5} An adjudicatory hearing was held on August 11, 2023 wherein Amanda

and Christopher admitted to the allegations contained in the complaint. The trial

court adjudicated C.C. a dependent child and found that it is in the child’s best

interest to remain in the temporary custody of the agency. Following a dispositional

hearing on August 22, 2023, the trial court approved the agency’s case plan and

found that it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the temporary custody of the

agency. Pertinent to this appeal, the case plan provided that

       Amanda will have to complete her sentence and any conditions such
       as probation/parole upon her release. Amanda will need to work with
       the agency and complete mental health/substance abuse assessment
       and follow recommendations of provider. Amanda will need to get
       herself established after her release such as finding appropriate
       housing and employment to provide for the needs of her child.

(Emphasis added.) (Doc. No. 13).

       {¶6} The trial court held its first review hearing on November 2, 2023. The

trial court found that C.C. is doing well in the foster family placement. The trial

court further found that Amanda is living in a halfway house and visiting with the

child twice a month. The trial court found that “[i]t would be contrary to the welfare

and best interest of the child for the child to return to [Amanda’s] care at this time.

Return to [Amanda’s] care would create a danger to the health and welfare of the




                                          -3-
Case No. 11-25-07


child.” (Doc. No. 24). The trial court ordered the agency to facilitate more visitation

once Amanda is able to secure housing.

       {¶7} On February 15, 2024, Amanda filed a motion in the trial court setting

forth her intent “to relocate to Indiana, where she will be closer to her support system

and explore further employment options.”             (Doc. No. 30).       The motion

acknowledged Amanda’s awareness that a move to Indiana “could create potential

issues with her case plan and reunification.” (Id.).

       {¶8} The trial court held its second review hearing on March 14, 2024. At

the time of the second review hearing, Amanda was residing in Indiana. The trial

court found that it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the temporary custody

of the agency.         The trial court further found that “neither [Amanda] nor

[Christopher] have been able to actively and consistently participate in and follow

the Agency’s case-planning efforts. [Amanda] has only recently obtained housing

independent of ODRC and transitional housing.” (Doc. No. 36). The trial court

ordered the agency to facilitate supervised visitation for Amanda. The trial court

further ordered Amanda to sign a release of information so that the agency may

verify her sobriety.

       {¶9} The trial court held its third review hearing on June 17, 2024. The trial

court found that C.C. is doing well in the foster home placement and that it is in the

child’s best interest to remain in the temporary custody of the agency.



                                          -4-
Case No. 11-25-07


           {¶10} The trial court held its fourth review hearing on August 26, 2024.

Amanda did not attend the hearing. After receiving updates from the agency and

the GAL, the trial court ordered that “[t]he Agency shall continue to have temporary

custody of the minor child.” (Doc. No. 40).

           {¶11} On September 25, 2024, Amanda filed a motion requesting that the

case be closed because the agency failed to request a six-month extension prior to

the “sunset date” of one year from the initial grant of temporary custody as required

by R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). Based on the agency’s failure to request a six-month

extension on or before June 28, 2024, Amanda argued that the case should be closed

and custody of C.C. should be returned to her.

           {¶12} On September 26, 2024, the agency filed an opposition to Amanda’s

motion. The agency argued, in part, that the case should not be closed since the

goals of the case plan have not been met.

           {¶13} The matter came before the trial court on October 21, 2024.1 On

November 21, 2024, the trial court denied Amanda’s motion to close the case.

           {¶14} The trial court held its fifth review hearing on December 4, 2024. In

its December 5, 2024 judgment entry, the trial court noted that Amanda is residing

in an extended-stay hotel in Indiana. The trial court further noted that the agency




1
    A transcript of proceedings held on October 21, 2024 is not included in the record on appeal.

                                                      -5-
Case No. 11-25-07


arranged supervised visitation for Amanda through Adriel, with transportation

assistance. The trial court continued the agency’s temporary custody of C.C.

       {¶15} On December 6, 2024, the agency filed a motion requesting a six-

month extension of the agency’s temporary custody of C.C “to allow the biological

parents additional time to complete their case plan goals.” (Doc. No. 52). On

December 9, 2024, the trial court granted a six-month extension of the agency’s

temporary custody of C.C.

       {¶16} The trial court held its sixth review hearing on February 26, 2025. In

its March 5, 2025 judgment entry, the trial court noted that Amanda has a case open

in Indiana involving another child. The trial court further noted that Amanda is still

residing in a hotel in Indiana and continues to struggle with transportation issues.

The trial court stated that Amanda “has been testing positive for THC” and “she

mentioned to the Court that she does not believe that she has to work, as she receives

social security income.” (Doc. No. 64). The trial court continued the agency’s

temporary custody of C.C.

       {¶17} The trial court held its seventh review hearing on April 30, 2025.

Amanda did not attend the hearing. In its May 2, 2025 judgment entry, the trial

court noted that Amanda is still residing in a hotel in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The trial

court further noted that Amanda has not been attending supervised visitation and

has tested positive for THC and methamphetamines. The trial court continued the

agency’s temporary custody of C.C.

                                         -6-
Case No. 11-25-07


       {¶18} On May 13, 2025, the agency filed a motion for permanent custody

alleging that C.C. has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more

months of a consecutive 22-month period. Specifically, the motion states that C.C.

has continuously been in the temporary custody of the agency since on or about June

28, 2023, and that an order for permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. The

motion further states that the agency has provided the services to the parents as set

forth in the case plan to attempt to ensure the child’s safe return to them, and has

made reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the parents. Despite the agency’s

efforts, the parents have failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused

the child to be removed from their care.

       {¶19} On June 9, 2025, the GAL filed his report regarding the agency’s

motion for permanent custody. In his report, the GAL states that C.C. has been in

the same foster home for nearly two years and “is well bonded with the foster

parents, is hitting appropriate milestones based on [the child’s] age, and appears

well cared for and adjusted.” (Doc. No. 72). As to Amanda’s relationship with

C.C., the GAL notes that Amanda resides in a hotel in Fort Wayne, Indiana and has

struggled with transportation issues. Amanda has cancelled a number of visits with

the child and “visits have not taken place for the last several months.” (Id.). With

respect to Amanda’s sobriety, the GAL states that Amanda tested positive for

methamphetamines on April 29, 2025. The GAL further states that Amanda tested

positive for THC on April 16, 2025. Due to Amanda’s positive drug screens,

                                           -7-
Case No. 11-25-07


housing concerns, employment concerns, and drug and mental health service

concerns, the GAL recommends that the agency’s motion for permanent custody be

granted.

         {¶20} A hearing on the permanent-custody motion was held on July 14,

2025.2 Amanda testified at the hearing that she has been living in a hotel room in

Fort Wayne for approximately one year and that she “started a job a couple weeks

ago at Applebee’s.” (July 14, 2025 Tr. at 39). Amanda further testified that she has

given birth to seven children and that they all have been removed from her custody.

Amanda denied ever having her parental rights involuntarily terminated. “I signed

off on the paperwork for the adoptions to go through. They have not been forcefully

removed.” (Id. at 40-41). As to her visitation with C.C., Amanda acknowledged

that she has missed scheduled visits and that her last visit with the child took place

on February 28, 2025.

         {¶21} Amanda’s visitation with C.C. was scheduled through Adriel. An

Adriel employee testified at the permanent-custody hearing that Amanda attended

only 26 out of 54 scheduled visits from May 2024 to March 2025. The employee

further testified that Amanda’s visitation was suspended in March 2025 due to

excessive missed visits.


2
  We note that the record on appeal includes a transcript of proceedings held on July 14, 2025. The transcript
reflects that the trial court recorded the permanent-custody hearing. However, shortly after the first witness
was sworn in (being Christina Crossgrove, the agency’s caseworker), the transcript indicates “(Recording
stops)” without further explanation. (Emphasis in original.) (July 14, 2025 Tr. at 11). Other than a few lines
of testimony regarding background information, the remainder of Ms. Crossgrove’s testimony is missing
from the transcript.

                                                     -8-
Case No. 11-25-07


           {¶22} Starr Herndon also testified at the permanent-custody hearing. Ms.

Herndon testified that she is the case manager for Amanda’s case in Indiana

involving another child. Ms. Herndon further testified that Amanda is screened

once a week in Indiana and consistently tests positive for THC and prescribed

suboxone. Ms. Herndon confirmed that Amanda tested positive for illegal narcotics

in April 2025.

           {¶23} On July 21, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the

agency’s motion for permanent custody of C.C. The trial court found that the

agency established by clear and convincing evidence that C.C. has been in the

temporary custody of the agency for more than 12 of the previous 22 months. The

trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that granting permanent

custody of C.C. to the agency is in the child’s best interest.

           {¶24} On July 25, 2025, Amanda filed her notice of appeal.3 She raises two

assignments of error for our review. For ease of discussion, we will consider the

assignments of error out of order.

                                      Second Assignment of Error

           The Trial Court’s Decision To Award Permanent Custody To The
           Agency Was Against The Manifest Weight Of The Evidence

           {¶25} In her second assignment of error, Amanda argues that the trial court

erred by granting permanent custody of C.C. to the agency. In particular, Amanda



3
    Christopher did not file a notice of appeal.

                                                   -9-
Case No. 11-25-07


contends that the problems that led to C.C’s removal “had been resolved or

mitigated” such that the trial court’s decision is not supported by clear and

convincing evidence. (Appellant’s Brief at 13).

                                  Standard of Review

       {¶26} The right to raise one’s child is a basic and essential right. In re

Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990). “Parents have a ‘fundamental liberty

interest’ in the care, custody, and management of the child.” Id., quoting Santosky

v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). The rights and interests of a natural parent,

however, are not absolute. In re Thomas, 2003-Ohio-5885, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.). These

rights may be terminated under appropriate circumstances and when the trial court

has met all due process requirements. In re Leveck, 2003-Ohio-1269, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.).

       {¶27} When considering a motion for permanent custody of a child, the trial

court must comply with the statutory requirements set forth in R.C. 2151.414. In

particular, R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when

determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody. First, the trial court

must find that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) applies.

Second, the trial court must find that permanent custody is in the best interest of the

child under the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D). In re K.S., 2021-Ohio-

3786, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.).

       {¶28} As to the first part of the permanent-custody test, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)

provides, in relevant part, that a trial court

                                           -10-
Case No. 11-25-07


       may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court
       determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section,
       by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the
       child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed
       the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply:

       (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the
       temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies
       . . . for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month
       period . . . 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.

           ...

       (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
       children services agencies . . . for twelve or more months of a
       consecutive twenty-two-month period . . . .

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), (d). See In re A.W., 2017-Ohio-7786,

¶ 17 (9th Dist.) (noting “that the five factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) are

alternative findings, and that the agency need only prove one in order to satisfy the

first prong of the permanent custody test”).

       {¶29} “If the trial court determines that any provision enumerated in R.C.

2151.414(B)(1) applies, the trial court must determine, by clear and convincing

evidence, whether granting the agency permanent custody of the child is in the

child’s best interest.” (Emphasis in original.) In re A.F., 2012-Ohio-1137, ¶ 55 (3d

Dist.). Thus, the second part of the permanent-custody test mandates that the trial

court consider the following factors to determine the child’s best interest:

       (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s
       parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home

                                         -11-
Case No. 11-25-07


       providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the
       child;

       (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or
       through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity
       of the child;

       (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
       been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services
       agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months
       of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has been in
       the temporary custody of one or more public children services
       agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months
       of a consecutive twenty-two-month period . . . ;

       (d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and
       whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of
       permanent custody to the agency;

       (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
       apply in relation to the parents and child.

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). Under the second part of the permanent-custody test,

“the trial court considers the totality of the circumstances when making its best

interest determinations. No single factor is given more weight than others.” In re

N.R.S., 2018-Ohio-125, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.).

       {¶30} If the trial court makes these statutorily required determinations, a

reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s decision unless it is not supported by

clear and convincing evidence. In re A.E., 2014-Ohio-4540, ¶ 28 (3d Dist.) (“A

court’s decision to terminate parental rights will not be overturned as against the

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



                                          -12-
Case No. 11-25-07


by which a court can determine by clear and convincing evidence that the essential

statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been established.”).

       {¶31} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof

which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of

such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and

which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to

the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954),

paragraph three of the syllabus.

                                      Analysis

       {¶32} In this case, the trial court determined that C.C. has been in the

agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month

period as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). The trial court also determined that

C.C. cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should

not be placed with either parent under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Specifically, the

trial court found as follows:

       The Agency has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing
       evidence that the child cannot be returned to [the] parents within a
       reasonable time or should not be returned to [the] parents and that the
       child has been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than
       12 of the previous 22 months. During that time, [the child] has
       integrated into the [foster] family, and none present at the hearing had
       any concerns about the care [the child] has received while in the foster
       placement. [Amanda] has demonstrated a lack of stability, willingness
       or ability to follow and complete case plan goals, including
       maintaining sobriety, has missed over half of her supervised
       scheduled visits with [the child] in the two years this case has been

                                        -13-
Case No. 11-25-07


       pending, and has failed to show that she can and will provide a stable
       home for [the child]. [The child’s father] is incarcerated and continues
       his own struggles with drug addiction.

(Doc. No. 80). The trial court further found that it is in the child’s best interest to

grant the agency’s motion for permanent custody.

       {¶33} In her second assignment of error, Amanda argues that the trial court’s

decision to award permanent custody to the agency is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. As to the first part of the permanent-custody test, Amanda does not

challenge the trial court’s determination under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) that C.C. has

been in the agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-

month period. Thus, with respect to the second part of the permanent-custody test,

we must review the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to determine if clear

and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s best-interest determination.

       {¶34} Regarding the best-interest factor under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a), the

trial court considered the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the

parents, siblings, relatives, and the foster family. The trial court found that Amanda

has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward C.C. by failing to regularly visit

with the child when able to do so. The record supports this finding in that Amanda

attended only 26 out of 54 scheduled visits with the child. Amanda’s last visit with

the child took place several months prior to the permanent-custody hearing.

Moreover, even though Amanda has given birth to seven children, she does not have

legal custody of any of them. The trial court further considered that C.C. has been

                                         -14-
Case No. 11-25-07


in the home of the foster family since shortly after birth and has been doing well in

their care.

       {¶35} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b)—the child’s wishes—the trial

court considered C.C.’s young age and appointed a GAL to represent the child. In

his report, the GAL noted that the child is well bonded with the foster parents and

appears to be well cared for and adjusted. The GAL further noted that Amanda

tested positive for methamphetamines in April 2025 and has not visited the child in

the last several months. Based on Amanda’s inability to meet case plan goals,

positive drug screens, housing concerns, employment concerns, and mental health

concerns, the GAL recommended granting the agency’s motion for permanent

custody as being in the best interest of the child.

       {¶36} Concerning R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c)—the child’s custodial history—

the trial court found that the child has been in the agency’s temporary custody since

shortly after the child’s birth in 2023. The trial court further found that, during this

almost two-year period, Amanda demonstrated a lack of commitment toward C.C.

by failing to regularly visit with the child and by failing to provide an adequate

permanent home for the child.

       {¶37} As to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)—the child’s need for a legally secure

permanent placement—the trial court found that C.C. cannot and should not be

placed with either parent within a reasonable time. The trial court considered

Amanda’s lack of stability and her unwillingness to follow and complete the case

                                         -15-
Case No. 11-25-07


plan goals.    The trial court further considered Amanda’s inability to maintain

sobriety and to provide a stable home for the child. The record supports the trial

court’s findings and that permanent custody is the only available means of providing

permanency and stability to the child.

       {¶38} For these reasons, based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude

that the trial court’s best-interest determination is supported by clear and convincing

evidence. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to grant the agency’s motion for

permanent custody is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶39} Amanda’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                            First Assignment of Error

       The Trial Court Erred By Not Holding Further Disposition
       Hearings To Extend The Agency’s Temporary Custody From
       June 28, 2024 To December 28, 2024 And From December 28,
       2024 To June 28, 2025

       {¶40} In her first assignment of error, Amanda argues that the trial court

erred by not holding dispositional hearings prior to extending the agency’s

temporary custody of C.C. In particular, Amanda contends that she was prejudiced

by the “procedural drift” because C.C. remained in the agency’s temporary custody

for 12 out of a 22-month period. (Appellant’s Brief at 12).

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶41} If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child, R.C.

2151.353(A) provides that the trial court may “[c]ommit the child to the temporary


                                         -16-
Case No. 11-25-07


custody of . . . [a] public children services agency.” R.C. 2151.353(A)(2)(a).

Moreover, R.C. 2151.353(G) provides that any temporary custody order issued

pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A) shall terminate one year after the earlier of the date

on which the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care. This

is known as the “sunset date.”

       {¶42} The Ohio Supreme Court held in In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d

632, 637 (1996), that the passing of the sunset date does not divest juvenile courts

of jurisdiction to enter dispositional orders. “[W]hen the sunset date has passed

without a filing pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 and the problems that led to the original

grant of temporary custody have not been resolved or sufficiently mitigated, courts

have the discretion to make a dispositional order in the best interests of the child.”

Id. at 638.

       {¶43} An abuse of discretion suggests the trial court’s decision is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d

217, 219 (1983).

                                       Analysis

       {¶44} In this case, it is undisputed that the agency did not file a motion for

the extension of temporary custody until December 6, 2024—being several months

after the passing of the sunset date on June 28, 2024. It is further undisputed that

the trial court did not hold a dispositional hearing prior to ordering the extension of

temporary custody.

                                         -17-
Case No. 11-25-07


         {¶45} On appeal, Amanda argues that “[t]hese procedural breakdowns

allowed the Agency to drift into the minimum requirement of having C.C. in its

temporary custody for 12 out of a 22-month period, which became the basis in this

case for permanent custody.” (Appellant’s Brief at 11-12). We disagree.

         {¶46} The record shows that this case did not “drift” in the trial court after

the passing of the sunset date. Beginning in June 2024, the trial court held hearings

every other month to review the status of the case. Following the hearings, the trial

court issued judgment entries continuing the agency’s temporary custody of the

child.

         {¶47} The record further shows that the problems that led to the original

grant of temporary custody to the agency have not been resolved. After Amanda

completed her prison sentence in or around March 2024, she moved to Indiana. At

the time of the permanent-custody hearing on July 14, 2025, Amanda had been

residing in a hotel room in Fort Wayne, Indiana for approximately one year. She

failed to attend more than half of the scheduled visits with the child, consistently

tested positive for THC, and tested positive for methamphetamines in April 2025.

In its July 21, 2025 judgment entry, the trial court found that permanent custody is

in the child’s best interest because, “in the two years this case has been pending,”

Amanda “has failed to show that she can and will provide a stable home for [the

child].” (Doc. No. 80). Consequently, the trial court ordered the termination of



                                          -18-
Case No. 11-25-07


Amanda’s parental rights. See R.C. 2151.415(A)(4) (providing that a dispositional

order includes an order permanently terminating parental rights).

       {¶48} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err by

continuing the agency’s temporary custody beyond the passing of the sunset date.

We further conclude that, since the problems that led to the original grant of

temporary custody to the agency have not been resolved, the trial court did not abuse

its discretion when it made a dispositional order in the best interest of the child.

       {¶49} Amanda’s first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶50} Having found no error prejudicial in the particulars assigned and

argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                  Judgment Affirmed

MILLER and WALDICK, J.J., concur.




                                         -19-
Case No. 11-25-07


                            JUDGMENT ENTRY

       For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error

are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

       It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.




                                            William R. Zimmerman, Judge



                                            Mark C. Miller, Judge



                                            Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

DATED:
/hls




                                         -20-