In re B.J.
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 10, 2021
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa M. Miller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Kathleen Kenney, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem,
Jeffrey J. Cutcher, for Appellant Mother,
Barr, Jones & Associates and Christopher Sawyer, for Appellant Maternal Grandfather.
{¶1} Both mother and maternal grandfather have appealed the trial court‘s entry granting permanent custody of B.J. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS“). Because we find that the trial court‘s determination that a grant of permanent custody was in B.J.‘s best interest was not supported by sufficient evidence, we reverse the trial court‘s judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶2} HCJFS filed a complaint seeking temporary custody of B.J. on June 11, 2018, several days after B.J.‘s birth. The agency was awarded an interim order of temporary custody pending a full hearing on the complaint, and B.J. was placed in a foster home. An amended complaint for temporary custody was filed on June 22, 2018, alleging that B.J. was abused and dependent and that mother had severe mental-health issues and posed a threat to B.J.
{¶3} On July 10, 2018, a juvenile court magistrate issued an order directing that a home study be completed on maternal grandfather, who resided in Nebraska, pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC“). The initial case plan for B.J. filed by HCJFS indicated that maternal grandfather had been in contact with the agency and was willing to work with ICPC to take placement of B.J.
{¶4} Following an adjudication and disposition hearing, B.J. was adjudicated dependent and HCJFS‘s motion for temporary custody was granted. The magistrate dismissed the allegation of abuse.
{¶6} On March 19, 2019, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody, alleging that B.J. could not or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that a grant of permanent custody was in B.J.‘s best interest. Maternal grandfather subsequently filed a petition for custody of B.J. and a motion to remand B.J. into his custody. And both maternal grandfather and mother filed motions to extend temporary custody. B.J.‘s guardian ad litem filed a report recommending that permanent custody be granted to HCJFS.
{¶7} A hearing was held before a juvenile court magistrate on these competing motions. HCJFS caseworker Amber Mingo-Foggie testified that mother was listed as an absent parent in B.J.‘s case plan due to consistent noncontact with the agency. HCJFS had requested that mother undergo mental-health services and engage with the agency, but she failed to do so. Mother told Mingo-Foggie that she had moved to Nebraska and was engaged in mental-health services there, but she failed to sign a release of information so that HCJFS could obtain documentation of these services. L.E. was established as the legal father of B.J., but he did not participate in the proceedings and never visited with B.J. or provided child support.
{¶8} Mingo-Foggie testified that B.J. has been in the same foster home since birth, that B.J. was bonded with her foster family, and that it was a foster-to-adopt placement. Mingo-Foggie further testified that she believed a grant of permanent custody was in B.J.‘s best interest, and that HCJFS was not in support of
{¶9} Maternal grandfather testified that he lived in Omaha, Nebraska. He was currently unemployed after losing his job due to his travel to Ohio for the custody proceedings, but he had a job waiting for him upon his return to Nebraska. Maternal grandfather indicated that mother had lived with him for several weeks when she first moved back to Nebraska. He explained that he was mother‘s legal guardian, and that he had allowed mother to live with him while he obtained medication and alternate housing for her. He introduced into evidence a lease documenting mother‘s residence in Salvation Army housing. Maternal grandfather addressed HCJFS‘s concerns that he would be unable to protect B.J. from mother, testifying that if mother attempted to see B.J. without court approval he would call 911 or the Board of Mental Health for assistance. He explained that he had a room for B.J. set up in his home.
{¶10} Darryl Summers, brother of maternal grandfather, testified that he had no concerns with maternal grandfather‘s ability to provide a safe and loving home for
{¶11} During closing arguments, counsel for mother stated that mother was in favor of B.J. being placed with maternal grandfather. The magistrate issued a decision finding that neither parent was appropriate to care for B.J., and that an extension of temporary custody to HCJFS and placement with maternal grandfather was in B.J.‘s best interest. The magistrate accordingly granted the motions for extensions of temporary custody and denied HCJFS‘s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody.
{¶12} Both HCJFS and B.J.‘s guardian ad litem filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court issued an entry granting the objections and rejecting the magistrate‘s decision after finding that it was not supported by the evidence. The court held that it was undisputed that B.J. could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and that a grant of permanent custody was in B.J.‘s best interest. The trial court granted HCJFS‘s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody and denied the competing motions filed by mother and maternal grandfather.
Best-Interest Analysis
{¶13} Both mother and maternal grandfather have appealed. Each raises a single assignment of error challenging the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting the trial court‘s determination that a grant of permanent custody was in B.J.‘s best interest.
{¶14} A juvenile court‘s determination on a motion for permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re W Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180620, 2019-Ohio-690,
{¶15} Under
{¶16} In determining whether permanent custody is in a child‘s best interest, the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including: (a) the child‘s interaction with parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home
{¶17} With respect to the factor in
{¶18} As to the factor in
{¶19} With respect to the factor in
{¶20} The trial court‘s findings under the best-interest factors set forth in
{¶21} While, under the factor set forth in
{¶22} Maternal grandfather has expressed an interest in caring for B.J. since her birth. He traveled to Ohio from Nebraska multiple times for the court
[Maternal grandparents] appear to be caring, kind, and compassionate people. They have a safe, stable home and a steady source of income. They have a good support network of family and church members. [Grandmother] is unemployed, which allows her time to care for the needs of an infant. [Grandparents] have a good understanding of their daughter‘s mental health needs and are able to establish strong boundaries with her, in order to maintain [B.J.‘s] safety and well-being.
{¶23} The record demonstrates that a legally secure placement for B.J. could be obtained with maternal grandfather. We therefore find that the trial court‘s determination that a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS was in B.J.‘s best interest was not supported by sufficient evidence. Mother‘s and maternal grandfather‘s assignments of error are sustained.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.