IN RE: A.C.
APPEAL NO. C-140273
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
January 21, 2014
[Cite as In re A.C., 2015-Ohio-153.]
TRIAL NO. F03-669Z
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 21, 2014
Teresa L. Stansel, for Appellant Mother,
ProKids, Inc., and Paul Hunt, Guardian ad Litem and Court Appointed Special Advocate for A.C.,
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth Sundermann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Depаrtment of Job and Family Services.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
{¶1} Mоther has appealed from the judgment of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting legal custody of her son A.C. to Charles Pelcha. Becаuse the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that an award of custody to Pelcha was in the best interest of A.C., we affirm that court‘s judgmеnt.
Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Immediately following his birth in January of 2008, A.C. was placed in the temporary custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“JFS“) until his father was granted legal custody of him in August of 2008. A.C. resided with his father until September of 2010, when he was removed from his father‘s home and placed in the care of his paternal grandmother following an incident of domestic violence between father and father‘s girlfriend. Mother filed a motion seeking custody of A.C. around this same time. In February of 2011, JFS moved for an interim order of custody of A.C. Both mother and father were in agreement with an interim grant of custody to JFS. In June of 2011, A.C. was adjudicated abused and dependent. JFS‘s interim order of custody was terminated, and A.C. was committed to the temporary custody of the agency. On January 27, 2012, A.C. was placed with family friend Charles Pelcha. JFS was granted two extensions of temporary custody, and, in January of 2013, the agency filed a motion seeking to terminate the temporary custody and have legal custody of A.C. awarded to Pelcha.
{¶3} A juvenile court magistrate conducted a hearing on both mother‘s motion for custody and JFS‘s motion to have legal custody awarded to Pelcha. In
{¶4} Mother now appeals, raising two assignmеnts of error for our review. In her first assignment of error, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting JFS‘s motion to award legal custody to a nonrelative. In her second assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate‘s decision where there was insufficient evidence presented to show that an award of custody to a nonrelative was in the best interest of the child. Because these arguments are related, we address them together.
Best-Interest Analysis
{¶5} Pursuant to
{¶6} In determining the best interest of the child, the best-interest factors delineated in
{¶7} Following our review of the record, we find that it contains ample evidence to support the trial court‘s determination that it was in A.C.‘s best interest to be placed in the legal custody of Pelcha. At the time of the hearing, Pelcha had been caring for A.C. for over a year in a safe and secure home. The record demonstrates that A.C. and Pelcha have a very close relationshiр, and that A.C. often preferred spending time with Pelcha to attending visitation with his mother. Although Pelcha had a preexisting relationship with father, he willingly facilitated visitation between mother and A.C. A.C. had been in the custody of JFS for two years at the time that the custody hearing began, and both prior to and during that period he had been placed in the care of various providers. He clearly had the need fоr a legally secure placement.
{¶8} Mother asserts that a grant of legal custody to Pelcha was not in A.C.‘s best interest because Pelcha would not be able to effectively protect A.C. from father. The record belies mother‘s argument. Pelcha testified at the custody hearing that,
{¶9} Mother contends that it was in A.C.‘s best interest to be placed in her custody, and she cites to her compliance with the case plan implemented by JFS to support her argument. The record contains evidence that mother had completed parenting classes, had followed through with her mental-health treatment, and had maintained a stable income and housing. But the record further demonstrates that, despite mother‘s compliance with her case plan, two JFS caseworkers testified that they had concerns that mother could not take care of A.C. on a daily basis. Further, Mother‘s ability to effectively parent A.C. is not conclusive to the trial court‘s determination that a grant of legal custody to Pelcha was in the bеst interest of A.C. Once a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, a trial court need not first find that a nonсustodial parent is unsuitable before placing a child with a nonparent or nonrelative. See In re C.R., 108 Ohio St. 3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, ¶ 24.
{¶10} The trial court‘s decision that а grant of legal custody to Pelcha was in A.C.‘s best interest was supported by competent, credible evidence, and was in no mannеr arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Mother‘s first and second assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., concur.
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.