2007 Ohio 722 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2007
{¶ 2} In May 2004, a CCCSB caseworker filed a complaint alleging that appellant's child was dependent. The child's maternal grandmother had been caring for the child until *2 the grandmother was incarcerated for committing a drug offense. At that time, appellant indicated that she could not care for the child. The juvenile court soon granted emergency temporary custody to CCCSB. After a hearing in July 2004, the court adjudicated the child dependent, and ordered that temporary custody remain with CCCSB. CCCSB subsequently developed a case plan for appellant and the grandmother.1
{¶ 3} In November 2005, CCCSB filed a motion for permanent custody of the child. In its motion, CCCSB asserted that appellant had not completed numerous elements of her case plan, and had not visited the child in the previous five months. The grandmother, then no longer in prison, moved for legal custody of the child. After a hearing in July 2006, the juvenile court denied the grandmother's custody motion, and granted CCCSB's motion for permanent custody. Appellant now appeals, assigning one error as follows:
{¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY TERMINATING APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE RELATIVES WERE AVAILABLE FOR PLACEMENT."
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, appellant argues that granting permanent custody to CCCSB was not in the child's best interest because the child's maternal grandparents were suitable relatives with whom the juvenile court should have placed the child. Appellant does not challenge any other aspect of the juvenile court's decision.
{¶ 6} Under R.C.
{¶ 7} Before a juvenile court grants permanent custody to a public children services agency, R.C.
{¶ 8} (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and has not been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent;
{¶ 9} (b) the child is abandoned;
{¶ 10} (c) the child is orphaned; or
{¶ 11} (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
{¶ 12} An appellate court's review of a trial court's decision finding clear and convincing evidence is limited to whether there is sufficient, credible evidence in the record supporting the court's decision. In reJ.S., Butler App. No. CA2005-12-502,
{¶ 13} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} As stated above, appellant only disputes the court's best interest determination. R.C.
{¶ 15} "(1) 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;
{¶ 16} "(2) 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;
{¶ 17} "(3) 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 ending on or after March 18, 1999;
{¶ 18} "(4) 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;
{¶ 19} "(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child."
{¶ 20} The juvenile court analyzed the above factors and other relevant factors, in determining, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody with CCCSB was in the child's best interest. With regard to R.C.
{¶ 21} With regard to R.C.
{¶ 22} As to R.C.
{¶ 23} The court also discussed additional factors that it found relevant. The court discussed the diligent efforts by CCCSB to assist appellant, but that appellant had not completed her case plan. The court specifically mentioned that appellant never completed drug and alcohol counseling, and that she continued to use drugs. The court further noted that appellant failed to maintain stable housing and employment, complete parenting classes, or maintain regular visitation.
{¶ 24} As to the grandmother, the court stated that she had completed the required elements of her case plan, including the drug and alcohol component. The court also noted that she had maintained stable housing for more than one year. However, the court noted that her visitation with the child was sporadic.
{¶ 25} The court also discussed the dishonesty of the grandparents in providing information for CCCSB's home study. The court cited testimony indicating that the grandparents failed to disclose a total of 15 times that they were involved with children *6 services agencies in Clark, Greene, and Clinton counties. As the court noted, only one of those incidents, a 1996 child endangering charge against the grandmother, was substantiated.
{¶ 26} The court also discussed the grandparents' failure to disclose a case of domestic violence involving them in Clark County. The grandparents also failed to disclose that they each had a DU I conviction.
{¶ 27} Of great significance to the court was the grandmother's failure to abide by the court order prohibiting contact between appellant and the child. The grandmother conceded at the hearing that she violated the order on one occasion. According to the grandmother, she unintentionally brought the child to a place where appellant was present. The court noted the testimony of multiple witnesses indicating that appellant was present during the grandmother's unsupervised visits. While the grandmother denied that appellant was present during visitations, the court doubted the veracity of her testimony.
{¶ 28} After hearing all of the testimony at the permanent custody hearing, the court concluded that the grandmother had permitted "significant unauthorized contact" by appellant with the child. According to the court, the grandmother is "either unwilling or unable to protect the child from the emotional anguish which * * * [appellant] has created and likely will continue to create for the child if given an opportunity." Because of appellant's "history of destabilizing the child's environment," the court concluded that it was not in the child's best interest to be placed with the grandmother. Rather, the court concluded that permanent custody with CCCSB was in the child's best interest.
{¶ 29} After reviewing the entire record, we find sufficient, credible evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody to CCCSB. The juvenile court made the required findings in R.C.
{¶ 30} We find no merit in appellant's argument, and therefore overrule her sole assignment of error. The record does not show, as appellant contends, that the juvenile court erred in making its best interest determination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court granting permanent custody to CCCSB.
YOUNG, P.J. and WALSH, J., concur.
