IN RE: B/K CHILDREN.
APPEAL NO. C-190269
TRIAL NO. F16-1937x
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
August 9, 2019
[Cite as In re B/K Children, 2019-Ohio-5503.]
WINKLER, Judge.
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 9, 2019
Cynthia S. Daugherty, for Appellant Mother,
Jоseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan Halvonik, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
ProKids, Inc., and Paul Hunt, Attorney for Guardian ad Litem Morgan Zak.
O P I N I O N.
{¶1} Mother appeals a decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of her children, P.B. and L.K., to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS“). We find merit in one of mother‘s arguments. Therefore, we reverse the juvenile court‘s decision and remand the cause to the juvenile court.
{¶2} The record shows that P.B., mother‘s oldest child, was born on May 7, 2016. P.B.‘s father was incarcerated and had no contact with his child. Mother, who was a minor, lived with her maternal grandmother. In August 2016, mother had an altercation with maternal grandmother, during which mother pushed in a door and attempted to open it with a butter knife. Maternal grandmother told police that mother could no longer reside in her house due to mother‘s out-of-control behavior. HCJFS filed a motion for emergency custody of P.B., which the juvenile court granted. The juvenile court later adjudicated P.B. dependent and adopted a case plan with a goal of reunification with mоther.
{¶3} In April 2017, P.B. was returned to mother‘s custody with protective supervision. Subsequently, HCJFS moved to terminate protective supervision due to mother‘s compliance with the case-plan requirements
{¶4} On August 4, 2017, mother‘s second child, L.K., was born. L.K.‘s father (“father“) had a history of domestic violence with mother. In the hospital, mother and father had an аrgument, and father became disruptive. Mother called the police, and father was asked to leave.
{¶5} In September 2017, a caseworker visited mother at thе maternal grandmother‘s home, where mother was living with the children. Father appeared at the
{¶6} The caseworker talked with father on the porch. She told father that mother had reported that he had previously kicked in а door, broken a window, broken a television, and stolen clothes out of the home. Father eventually agreed to leave. The caseworker told mother nоt to have any contact with father, and mother agreed.
{¶7} On October 1, 2017, HCJFS filed a motion for emergency custody of P.B. and L.K. after it had received reports that fathеr had broken into the home of the maternal grandmother and assaulted mother while the children were in the home. Both children were adjudicated abused and depеndent, and temporary custody was awarded to HCJFS, with a goal of reunification with mother. Mother continued receiving services under the case plan.
{¶8} In April 2018, the caseworker confronted mother about a police report she had viewed about an incident at the address where mother lived. Father had been charged with domestic violence as a result of the incident, but the victim listed had a different name than mother. Although mother initially denied any knowledge of this incident, she later admitted that father had entered her home and assaulted her. She contacted the police, but gave them a false name because she was afraid of losing her сhildren.
{¶9} Mother was charged with falsification, but ultimately pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Mother testified against father regarding the incident, and he was convicted of dоmestic violence. He went to prison and was due to be released in April 2019.
{¶11} Mother objected to the magistrate‘s decision. The juvenile court overruled mother‘s objections, approved the magistrate‘s decision, and awarded permanent custody of P.B. and L.K. to HCJFS. This appeal followed.
{¶12} In her sole assignment of error, mother contends that the juvenile court erred by granting HCJFS‘s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. Among other things, she argues that the court erred by concluding it was in the children‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to HCJFS when it failed to consider the mandatory best-interest factors in
{¶13}
{¶14}
{¶15} The factors listed in
{¶16} In In re K.T.1, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170667, C-170687, C-170701, C-170702 and C-170707, 2018-Ohio-1381, ¶ 14 (“In re K.T.1 I“), this court held that while a trial court need not specifically enumerate the
{¶17} On remand, the juvenile court held a hearing relating to other issues in the permanent-custody proceeding, heard new evidence, and again ruled on HCJFS‘s motion for permanent custody. In re K.T.1, 2018-Ohio-4312, 121 N.E.3d 847, ¶ 3 (1st Dist.) (“In re K.T.1 II“). It further stated in a judgment entry that it hаd considered all of the statutory best-interest factors, and it set forth findings that were relevant to its analysis. Id. at ¶ 47. In affirming that part of the juvenile court‘s decision, we stated that “[w]e strongly encourage the juvenile court‘s discussion of each factor, but we cannot find error in the juvenile court‘s failure to discuss each factor if the record otherwise indicates that all of the necessary factors were considered.” Id. at ¶ 46.
{¶18} In the present case, the magistrate‘s decision only referenced the
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.