In re C.P.

[Cite as In re C.P., 2026-Ohio-1477.]


                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 IN RE: C.P., M.R., C.R.                             :
                                                     :   C.A. No. 30705
                                                     :
                                                     :   Trial Court Case Nos. G-2023-001635-
                                                     :   0H; G-2023-001636-0I; G-2023-
                                                     :   001634-0G
                                                     :
                                                     :   (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
                                                     :   Juvenile Division)
                                                     :
                                                       FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
                                                       OPINION
                                               ...........

        Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on April 24, 2026, the judgments of the

trial court are affirmed.

        Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

        Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.


                                        For the court,




                                        RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
                                     OPINION
                              MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30705


GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Attorney for Appellant
MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee


LEWIS, P.J.

         {¶ 1} K.H. (“Mother”) appeals from judgments of the Juvenile Division of the

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court that granted permanent custody of three of her

children to the Montgomery County Department of Jobs and Family Services – Children

Services Division (“MCCS”). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial

court.

    I.      Facts and Course of Proceedings

         {¶ 2} On April 3, 2023, MCCS filed a complaint alleging that three of Mother’s

children, C.P., M.R., and C.R., were neglected and dependent.         The complaint raised

concerns about the condition of Mother’s home and the fact the children were left

unsupervised. According to the complaint, (1) on April 1, 2023, MCCS received concerns

that Mother’s children were running in a street wearing only diapers; (2) Mother’s paramour

lived in the home and was arrested due to an outstanding felony warrant; (3) MCCS

observed toys, trash, water, and food all over the floor; and (4) the children were extremely

dirty.

         {¶ 3} On July 5, 2023, the three children were adjudicated neglected and dependent,

and MCCS was granted temporary custody of the children.           On September 17, 2024,

following the grant of a first extension of temporary custody, MCCS filed a motion for

permanent custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. On March 10, 2025, Mother filed a motion for

legal custody.


                                              2
          a. March 12, 2025 Hearing

       {¶ 4} On March 12, 2025, the magistrate held a permanent custody hearing involving

C.P. and C.R. D.M. testified that she had been the foster mother of C.P. and C.R. since

February 2024. At the time of the hearing, C.P. was seven years old and C.R. was almost

four years old. When D.M. first became their foster mother, both children had behavioral

issues. C.R. was very active and defiant, but his behavioral problems were improving.

D.M. explained that C.R. got “stuck” and was not able to get out of a negative attitude.

When he first began living with D.M., C.R. got bruises from intentionally falling to the floor.

By the time of the hearing, he no longer did that. C.R. received instruction at school about

how to calm his body. D.M. noticed that during visitation with their mother, the children

jumped on furniture and were mean to each other. She noted that the behaviors of C.R.

and C.P. seemed to worsen immediately before and after visitation with Mother.

       {¶ 5} Kristin Onkst, who had been the ongoing case manager at MCCS for C.R. and

C.P. since May 2023, testified that MCCS received a referral involving Mother on April 1,

2023, upon a report that two of her children, M.R. and C.R., were running down a street in

their diapers without any adult supervision.      When the police investigated, they found

Mother’s residence in poor condition. C.P., M.R., and C.R. had been in foster care since

they were removed from Mother’s care. M.R. was placed with a different foster parent than

his siblings to help address his behaviors, while C.P. and C.R. were allowed to stay together.

       {¶ 6} MCCS created a case plan with a goal to reunite C.P. and C.R. with Mother.

The case plan included the following objectives: complete a mental health assessment,

take parenting classes, obtain appropriate housing, achieve a stable income, and sign

necessary releases. Visitation was also encouraged. Mother completed a dual mental

health assessment in April 2024.      Onkst had concerns that Mother had not attended


                                              3
counseling regularly since January 2025 and that Mother continued to use marijuana.

Mother had a positive test for marijuana in December 2024.

       {¶ 7} Mother had independent housing, but Onkst opined that it likely was not big

enough to reunify her with C.P., M.R., and C.R. Onkst also did not believe the bunk beds

in the house were appropriate for the children. Onkst had concerns that Mother did not

have the financial ability to maintain her housing. Mother previously lived in a homeless

shelter from April 2024 to July 2024. After she left the homeless shelter, Mother received

assistance in paying for her housing, but she became solely responsible for her housing

payments in January 2025. Mother was employed at Rally’s and earned about $1,200 per

month after taxes. At the time of the March 12, 2025 hearing, Mother’s rent was $894 per

month. Onkst noted that Mother’s phone number often changed and that her phone had

been shut off sometimes for nonpayment.

       {¶ 8} Mother completed a parenting class but struggled to follow through and

maintain structure during her visits with her children. Onkst noted that some visits were

good while others were chaotic.       Onkst testified that Mother got overwhelmed during

visitation with her children. She described visitation as follows:

       [Mother] starts off good. And she’s brought in toys. She’s -- her most current

       thing that is actually a hit is Play-Doh. But she would just bring in toys for the

       kids to play with. There was no structure to the visits, so they would then start

       to get very animated, and they’d be loud. [C.R.]’s a screamer and screams

       inside. There is no inside voices and outside voices when it comes to [C.R.].

              [M.R.] is kind of the same way. I’ve witnessed [M.R.] jumping from

       chair, climbing on top of the -- the bookcase, getting in the bookcase, climbing

       on the backsides of the -- the couch and holding on to the wall like where the


                                               4
       window is and kind of -- I don’t know what -- how you want to call that. I kind

       of want to call it monkeying across just because that’s all he is, just climbing

       all over everything. Then he’d jump over to the other loveseat. They’d fight

       between themselves.

              I’ve seen a time where [Mother] would be addressing something with

       [C.P.] and being upset with and talking to him. She would have them in time

       out almost in separate places. And while she’s dealing with one -- [C.R.] was

       the one that jumped across the -- the couch and jumped onto the loveseat

       where [M.R.] was sitting and put [M.R.] in a headlock. Then they both ended

       up on the floor, and they were kind of screwing around, playing with something

       or wrestling. It was hard to tell based on my perch watching the monitor of

       exactly what. And then eventually [Mother] would try to address that, and

       then [C.P.] would go off, do something.

March 12, 2025 Tr. 54-55. Onkst stated that it was very difficult for Mother to manage the

behaviors of the three children during visitations.       According to Onkst, Mother “[didn’t]

always address the behaviors when [they were] happening, or she [waited] until [it had]

gotten way out of control before she trie[d] to address it and then the kids just [didn’t] listen.”

Id. at 55.

       {¶ 9} Onkst testified that she witnessed Mother get overwhelmed several different

times during visitation. Onkst stated, “When that happens, [Mother] kind of shuts down

where she will just sit on the couch. The kids will be doing whatever the heck they’re doing.

And she’s just -- I don’t know if she’s zoning out. She’s trying to catch her breath. You

know, I try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but it is very hard to -- to witness that kind of

thing.” Id. Onkst explained that visitation was especially difficult during the winter months


                                                5
when Mother could not take the children outside during visitation. Onkst agreed on cross-

examination, however, that any parent would struggle to demonstrate proper parenting skills

in dealing with the behaviors of C.P., M.R., and C.R. She noted that Mother had improved

over time with structuring her visits with her children, but she still did not maintain the

structure for the entire visit.

        {¶ 10} From December 2023 until June 2024, Mother only visited her children once.

Mother told Onkst that she had transportation issues and medical issues during this time.

At the time of the hearing, Mother did not have her own mode of transportation. While

Mother had only shown up for visits 54% of the time since the children were removed, she

had been more consistent in her visitation after June 2024.

        {¶ 11} When asked what MCCS’s ongoing concerns with Mother were, Onkst

testified:

               Her stability and her ability to maintain and even react to any additional

        situations. And what I mean by that is she’s maintaining an existence right

        now. She’s working her butt off, and I will give her credit for that. But it’s not

        enough to maintain, which is just getting by. She’s -- but if anything is to

        happen, if she -- if the kids went home, if she gets a call because of behaviors,

        you know, there’s issues where they’ve been kicked out of daycare or

        behaviors at school.      If she has to leave work, that’s going to affect her

        income. That’s going to affect her job.

               She did send me a letter from her employer that they would be willing

        to work with her for appointments and such, which is fine, but also the letter

        states that she wants to be able to have a week’s notice, you know, of

        appointments, which I get, but it’s the when there is no week notice how that


                                                6
      will affect her employment? And because she’s on such a tight budget, if that

      gets affected, then that will affect her ability to keep her home. And then her

      overall mental health in dealing with the behaviors of the three boys just based

      on the examples that it doesn’t go well even for the two hours.

March 12, 2025 Tr. 59-60.

      {¶ 12} Onkst noted that Mother had not completed her AOD program or adequately

addressed the reason for her marijuana use.        Onkst also had concerns that Mother

continued to have a relationship with her youngest child’s father, who was a known

methadone user. She explained that it was MCCS’s position that reunification with Mother

in the foreseeable future was unlikely because Mother was barely able to meet her own

needs and it was uncertain whether she could address her children’s needs.

      {¶ 13} Onkst testified that C.R. and C.P. live with five other children at their foster

mother’s house.    There were five bedrooms there, and the housing was safe and

appropriate. C.P. had resided there since February 14, 2024. This was his third foster

placement. All his needs were being met. C.P. had a lot of anger issues and had become

more aggressive. His behavioral issues were being addressed in therapy. Onkst stated

that C.R.’s needs were being met by his foster mother, and his behavioral needs were being

addressed in therapy.

      {¶ 14} Mother testified last at the March 2025 hearing. At that time, Mother was

current on her rent payments. While she conceded that her phone sometimes got shut off,

she explained that she quickly got the phone turned back on as soon as she received her

next paycheck. She had worked about 35 hours per week at Rally’s since September 2024.

      {¶ 15} Mother stated that she attended mental health counseling remotely

approximately every other week. When Mother had additional stress going on in her life,


                                             7
she participated in the telehealth sessions on a weekly basis. She testified that she used

THC by choice but was not addicted to it. Mother also addressed Onkst’s concerns with

her continued relationship with the father of her youngest child. According to Mother, she

was not currently in a relationship with him and did not do any drugs with him.

      {¶ 16} Mother stated that C.P. was very well behaved with her. He was very helpful

and wanted to come live with her. Mother testified that Onkst had told her that the children

may be acting out during visitation because they craved Mother’s attention.                Mother

disagreed with the characterization of her “zoning” out during visits. Mother explained:

               I feel that any parent, when things are getting too hard, any parent has

      to step away, back off for a moment and breathe because it’s just so much

      going on at one time. So I can’t do a lot. I know I’m obviously under camera.

      I don’t want to do anything wrong. I don’t want to hurt my kids’ feelings, and

      I don’t want to take their behaviors personal because I understand that they’re

      children.     They’re traumatized.      They’re upset.     They don’t understand

      what’s going on.

               So I back off to regroup myself, and I tell myself, it’s not you that they’re

      doing this for. It’s not your fault. Just breathe, give them a moment, and

      everything will be okay. Because I don’t feel like they do it to be mean. I just

      feel like there’s a lot not being understood going on, so I try not to take those

      things personal.

March 12, 2025 Tr. 90. After speaking with Onkst, Mother brought in Play-Doh rather than

toys, which helped to prevent overstimulation and allowed the kids to make something with

their hands.




                                                 8
       {¶ 17} Mother believed that reunifying her with the three children was in her children’s

best interest. She noted that the children had been through multiple foster homes and

would be better off reuniting with her. Mother stated that she was able to support them and

meet all their needs.

          b. May 28, 2025 Hearing

       {¶ 18} On May 28, 2025, the magistrate held a permanent custody hearing and heard

testimony focused on M.R. S.F., who had been M.R.’s foster mother for two years and two

months immediately preceding the hearing, testified that M.R. had bonded with her and the

other children in her home. S.F. wanted to adopt M.R., and if she did, she would allow

Mother to have a relationship with M.R. because Mother had “a great bond” with him.

       {¶ 19} M.R. had behavioral concerns when he first began living with S.F. According

to S.F., M.R. “would have meltdowns, screaming, hollering, throwing objects. In public, he’ll

run away from you if you don’t -- having -- holding his hand at all times.” May 28, 2025

Tr. 6. M.R. was kicked out of a head start program due to his behavior. S.F. described

M.R.’s typical behavior at the time of the hearing as follows: “[W]hen he first gets up in the

morning, he’s the real sweetest person there is, but as the day go on, if things are not going

his way, it’s meltdown time, and throwing objects. At one time, he was getting better at

doing it, but now he’s regressing.” Id. at 7. Previously M.R. saw a therapist once per

month, but at the time of the hearing, he was not seeing a therapist. S.F. was waiting to

hear back from a facility that was trying to match M.R. up with a new therapist.

       {¶ 20} Onkst, who had been M.R.’s case manager for two years, also testified at the

May 28, 2025 hearing. Onkst set up a case plan with the goal of reuniting M.R. with Mother.

Onkst explained that the case plan included the following elements:             mental health

assessment, parenting, housing, employment, visitation, sign releases, and “maybe a drug


                                              9
screen here or there if I wished.” May 28, 2025 Tr. 15. Onkst stated that Mother did not

consistently engage in her mental health treatment and missed four of her last six scheduled

appointments. Mother took a parenting class but did not demonstrate behaviors learned

from that class. According to Onkst, Mother got “easily overwhelmed” during visitations and

resorted to screaming at the children. In her most recent visit with the children prior to the

May 2025 hearing, Mother strapped the two youngest children into highchairs when she got

overwhelmed. Onkst explained that many of the visits were chaotic because Mother did

not pay attention to the whole room, and “[i]t . . . [was] just a lot for anyone to handle.” Id.

at 18. Onkst noted that Mother did have some good visits with the children during which

she provided structure. Onkst said that “if [Mother had] . . . a plan, they [did] all right.” Id.

at 19.

         {¶ 21} At the end of April 2025, Mother moved into a four-bedroom house through the

Section 8 housing program. Mother’s share of the monthly rent at her new house was $216.

Onkst verified that Mother’s net income from her employment at Rally’s was approximately

$600 to $700 every two weeks. Onkst attempted to visit the house before the hearing, but

Mother was not home. Onkst still had some concerns about housing based on Mother’s

history of having deplorable conditions inside her home.

         {¶ 22} At the time of the May 2025 hearing, Mother had obtained her own vehicle, but

she did not have a driver’s license. Onkst testified that the father of Mother’s youngest child

drove Mother’s car, and the children knew him as “Daddy.” Onkst was concerned that he

was around the children given his history of drug abuse.

         {¶ 23} Onkst stated that M.R. has been in the same foster home for two years, his

needs were being met, and he was on target for his age. His foster mother wanted to adopt

him but was not currently licensed to adopt him. MCCS planned to transfer M.R. to the


                                               10
adoption unit if it obtained permanent custody. Onkst identified the following reasons why

the children could not be reunified with Mother in the foreseeable future: “Because she

can’t handle the ongoing needs of all of the children, and be able to maintain for herself.

She’s still trying to show stability. She’s making improvements, but kind of run out of time.”

May 28, 2025 Tr. 34. M.R. could not be placed with his father because his father did not

have his own housing, his employment was relatively new, and he had had no contact with

M.R. Onkst opined that permanent custody with MCCS was in M.R.’s best interest “[j]ust

so that he has a stable place to go. He can get his needs met, and have some consistency

continued, and just keep moving forward.” Id. at 34-35. Onkst also stated that due to the

fact M.R. had the most behavioral issues of the three children at issue in the custody

proceedings, she did not believe it was likely that Mother could meet his needs even if C.P.

and C.R. were placed permanently with MCCS. Onkst noted that M.R.’s foster mother was

better able to focus on M.R. and help redirect him when he acted up because his foster

mother’s other children did not have the behavioral issues that Mother’s children had.

       {¶ 24} Mother testified last at the May 28, 2025 hearing. She admitted that lately

she had not been consistent in her mental health treatment but blamed that on the fact that

her counselor had been changed and the treatment provider had not done a good job of

contacting her to set up appointments. Mother also conceded that her recent visits with

C.P., M.R., and C.R. had been a struggle, but she blamed that on the fact that the weather

had been bad, which caused them to be stuck in a small room that contained many things

on which to climb. Mother noted that her visits with only M.R. had been good and that he

wanted to go home with her. According to Mother, M.R. needed more attention and his

brothers stressed him out. Mother noted that M.R.’s behavior had not changed with his




                                             11
foster mother, and he currently was not in counseling. She believed M.R. was better off

with her because she had a plan to get him into counseling.

       {¶ 25} Mother believed she had appropriate transportation and housing. She did not

have her driver’s license at the time of the May 2025 hearing but planned to get it within one

week of the May hearing.      She was able to pay all her bills, and her house had four

bedrooms and two bathrooms.

       {¶ 26} Mother testified that she remained friends with the father of her youngest child.

She stated that he did not get to see C.P., M.R., and C.R. but that she let him speak on the

phone with them. Mother explained, “They never seen him because there’s no point in him

seeing them until he’s fully where he needs to be.” May 28, 2025 Tr. 64.

          c. Guardian Ad Litem Reports and Recommendations

       {¶ 27} In her September 23, 2024 report, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) stated that

C.P., M.R., and C.R. needed stability and recommended that MCCS be granted permanent

custody of them. The GAL explained her recommendation as follows:

       [Mother] has made progress on her case plan, but she has not always visited

       regularly with her children. She has gone months between visits. Two of her

       children do not know that she is their mother. Mother has not been able to

       demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during visits at the agency. There

       are concerns that she is living with [her youngest child’s father] who has a

       history of substance abuse and is not in treatment. She has not made enough

       progress to demonstrate stability to reunify with her children.

       {¶ 28} The GAL identified the following concerns that led to her recommendation:

(1) Mother’s children had a history of serious behavioral issues; (2) C.R. and C.P.’s

behaviors had noticeably improved under foster care; (3) M.R. was doing well at his foster


                                              12
home and was doing well in preschool; (4) C.P. and C.R. did not seem to know that Mother

was their biological mother due to long gaps in Mother’s visitations with them; (5) Mother’s

youngest child, who was born in August 2024, had special needs; and (6) the father of the

youngest child, who has a history of substance abuse, was reportedly living with Mother.

       {¶ 29} The GAL subsequently authored a May 22, 2025 report in which she repeated

her recommendation that MCCS be granted permanent custody of the three children. The

GAL explained her recommendation as follows:

       [Mother] has made progress on her case plan. Unfortunately, the boys have

       significant behavioral issues. The mother has not been able to demonstrate

       appropriate parenting skills for these special needs boys during visits at the

       agency.   There are concerns that she is living with [her youngest child’s

       father] who has a history of substance abuse and is not in treatment. Even if

       the father does not reside with the mother, it does not appear that the mother

       will keep the children from [him].

       {¶ 30} The GAL identified the following concerns that led to her recommendation:

(1) Mother had not always visited regularly with her children; (2) while visiting with the

children, Mother failed to notice C.P. was overwhelmed; (3) during visitation, Mother could

not maintain control over the boys for more than 45 minutes; (4) Mother had not been able

to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during recent visits with the three children; and

(5) the father of Mother’s youngest child had a history of drug abuse and stated that he lived

with Mother. The GAL noted that M.R. “has historically said he wanted to live with his

mother” and that all three boys seemed to be bonded with Mother.

          d. Magistrate Decisions and Trial Court Judgments

       {¶ 31} On June 3, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision granting MCCS’s motion


                                             13
for permanent custody with respect to C.P. and C.R. and denying Mother’s motion for legal

custody. On June 12, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision granting MCCS’s motion for

permanent custody with respect to M.R. and denying Mother’s motion for legal custody.

Mother filed objections and supplemental objections to both decisions.

         {¶ 32} On November 12, 2025, the trial court issued judgments in which it overruled

all of Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decisions and granted MCCS’s motion for

permanent custody. The trial court found that it was in the best interest of C.P., M.R., and

C.R. to grant permanent custody to MCCS. Mother timely appealed from the trial court’s

judgments.

   II.      The Trial Court’s Judgments Are Not Against the Manifest Weight of the

            Evidence

         {¶ 33} Mother’s sole assignment of error states:

         THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT PERMANENT

         CUSTODY [TO] CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND DENY MOTHER’S MOTION

         FOR LEGAL CUSTODY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT

         OF THE EVIDENCE.

         {¶ 34} “[T]he proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a

juvenile court’s decision under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody of a child and to

terminate parental rights are the sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-

evidence standards, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that are

presented by the parties.” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. “When reviewing for manifest

weight, the appellate court 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


                                              14
the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing Eastley v.

Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. “‘In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must

always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.’” Id., quoting Eastley at

¶ 21.

        {¶ 35} “A public or private child-placement agency may file a motion under

R.C. 2151.413(A) to request permanent custody of a child after a court has committed the

child to the temporary custody of the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2).” In re C.F.,

2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 22. “R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the procedures a juvenile court must

follow and the findings it must make before granting a motion filed pursuant to

R.C. 2151.413.” In re C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411, ¶ 9. A trial court may grant permanent

custody of a child to the agency if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that:

(1) it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to the agency; and (2) any one

of the five factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

        {¶ 36} Mother does not contest that MCCS satisfied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) by

showing that the children had “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.” Accordingly, we will not consider that aspect of the

trial court’s judgments.

        {¶ 37} Once R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is met, “[t]he agency still must prove by clear and

convincing evidence, that it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to the

agency.”    In re N.M.P., 2020-Ohio-1458, ¶ 26, citing R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).          Clear and

convincing evidence is 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


                                              15
‘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. It is this aspect of the trial court’s

decision that Mother disputes. Mother argues that the trial court’s decision was against the

manifest weight of the evidence because it was not in the best interest of C.P., C.R., and

M.R. to grant permanent custody to the agency.

       {¶ 38} “R.C. 2151.414(D) sets forth the factors a court must consider in determining

the best interests of the child.”            In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513, at ¶ 49.

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that in determining the best interest of a child, the court shall

consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

              (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s

       parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home 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 . . . ;

              (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.

“Not every statutory condition must be met before a determination regarding best interest

may be made.” In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). Additionally, “[n]o one element




                                                16
is given greater weight or heightened significance.” C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, at ¶ 57, citing

Schaefer at ¶ 56.

       {¶ 39} Mother argues that the trial court “failed to conduct a sufficient analysis of the

best interest factors.”   Appellant’s Brief, p. 7.    According to Mother, “[t]he finding that

mother was not able to adequately care for the children was not supported by the evidence.”

Id.   Rather, “Mother had stable housing, was employed, was consistently visiting after

certain impediments were resolved, got a mental health assessment, got involved in

treatment, completed a parenting class, signed releases, and cooperated with the case

worker.” Id. In arguing that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of

the evidence, Mother focuses predominantly on her progress toward the completion of her

case plan objectives at the time of the final hearing. As Mother points out, she had made

progress on finding appropriate housing and was working toward obtaining her driver’s

license so that she could legally drive the automobile she recently purchased. She also

had completed a parenting class. But she struggled to apply learned behavior from her

parenting class to her visits with M.R., C.P., and C.R. She also struggled to consistently

participate in mental health counseling.       As a reminder, “[w]hile a parent’s case plan

compliance is a relevant consideration in the best interest determination, it is not dispositive.”

In re X.F., 2025-Ohio-562, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing In re A.K., 2017-Ohio-8100, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).

       {¶ 40} The trial court considered all the relevant statutory factors and summarized

much of the evidence that was relevant to each statutory factor. The trial court concluded

that awarding permanent custody of all three children to MCCS was in the best interests of

the children. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s judgments

are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.




                                               17
      {¶ 41} The foster mothers testified that C.P., M.R. and C.R. had improved under their

care, and the children’s needs were being met. The children were bonded with their foster

mothers. The GAL noted that the three children were also bonded with Mother. The trial

court took into account that M.R. had expressed a desire to live with Mother. Onkst testified

at length about the difficulties Mother had with structuring her two-hour weekly visits with

C.P., M.R., and C.R. Mother often appeared overwhelmed and struggled with maintaining

awareness of what the other two children were doing when she was interacting with the third

child. Onkst highlighted her concern that Mother was not close to being ready to handle

custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. Both the GAL and Onkst also expressed concerns that

Mother was exposing the three children to a known drug user, the father of Mother’s

youngest child. In addition, it is undisputed that Mother abandoned her children by failing

to visit or maintain contact with the children for more than 90 days between December 2023

and June 2024. R.C. 2151.414(E)(10). While she had been more consistent in attending

the two-hour weekly visitation since June 2024, she still missed sessions. The clear and

convincing evidence showed that there was not a viable legally secure permanent placement

other than with MCCS.

      {¶ 42} The trial court considered all the factors identified in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).

There was clear and convincing evidence presented at the two hearings that supported the

trial court’s determination that granting permanent custody to MCCS was in the children’s

best interest. Upon this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly lost its way

and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding permanent custody of C.P., M.R.,

and C.R. to MCCS.

      {¶ 43} Finally, Mother argues that we must reverse the trial court’s decision because

“[t]he Magistrate made no analysis of mother’s Motion for Legal Custody, simply denying it


                                             18
in a single sentence.” Appellant’s Brief, p. 7. MCCS responds that no additional analysis

on Mother’s motion for legal custody was required because the trial court correctly ruled that

it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody of them to MCCS.

According to MCCS, “‘[b]ecause the evidence supports the trial court’s best interest finding,

it also necessarily supports the court’s decision to overrule Appellants’ motion for legal

custody.’” Appellee’s Brief, p. 10, quoting In re T.G., 2015-Ohio-5330, ¶ 31 (4th Dist.).

          {¶ 44} The trial court considered the relevant best interest factors when it granted

MCCS’s motions for permanent custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. By granting MCCS’s

motions for permanent custody, the trial court implicitly overruled Mother’s motion for legal

custody. The trial court was not required to make separate best interest findings relating to

Mother’s motion for legal custody when it had already considered the best interest factors in

relation to MCCS’s motions for permanent custody.            In re K.M., 2014-Ohio-4268, ¶ 9

(9th Dist.) (“The appropriateness of a legal custody award to relatives invokes consideration

of the same factors as a determination of the best interest of a child for purposes of a

permanent custody decision. . . . If permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, legal

custody or placement with relatives necessarily is not.”).

          {¶ 45} The assignment of error is overruled.

   III.      Conclusion

          {¶ 46} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm the judgments of the trial

court.

                                         .............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.




                                               19