In re B.L.D.
Susan R. Wollscheid, P.O. Box 176, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for appellant, T.D.
David B. Bender, Fayеtte County Prosecuting Attorney, James Roach, 110 East Court Street, 1st Floor, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for appellee, Fayette County Children‘s Services
L. D., 2528 Jade Court, Grovе City, Ohio 43123, appellee, pro se
O P I N I O N
POWELL, P.J.
{¶1} A mother and her 13-year-old child both appeal a decision by the Fayette County Juvenile Court to placе the child in the legal custody of her father. We affirm the judgment, finding mother‘s due process rights were not violated and the legal custody award was in the child‘s best interest.
{¶3} At the same hearing, the court made findings related to thе child‘s condition and environment and found her a dependent child. Specifically, the court noted that the father, L.D., had not been involved in the child‘s life and had a criminal history that included domestic violence and illegal drugs. The court found that the mother, T.D., the custodial parent, was on probation and hаd a “lengthy criminal history” that included a number of theft offenses. The court noted that mother and child were not cooperating with the court‘s diversion program, and it was reported that numerous individuals with criminal backgrounds, including a sex offender, were spending time at mother‘s residence. Father was given visitation and Fayette County Children‘s Services was ordered to provide protective supervision of the child in mother‘s home.
{¶4} At a subsequent hearing, the juvenile court found that the child‘s mother made some progress on the case plan, but “much remains undone.” The court was told that mother had been arrested for thеft in another county and the impact of that arrest on her current probation was not known. The court indicated that it had concerns that mother was continuing to associate with individuals who were not a “positive influence” on both mother and daughter. Children‘s services was granted temporary custody аnd the agency placed the child with her father. At a review hearing in August 2010, the juvenile court gave father legal custody of the child.
{¶5} Both the child and mother nоw appeal; we have consolidated their appeals. While mother did not list assignments of error, the arguments presented by both parties are the same and will be addressed together.
{¶6} The gist of the appeal in this case is that the juvenile court erred in granting legal custody without providing mother nоtice of the possibility of such determination and
{¶7} Turning first to the arguments regarding due process and the lack of a legal custody motion, we are mindful that thе right to procedural due process is required by the
{¶8} According to the record, the award of legal custody occurred at a review hearing of B.L.D.‘s case. We note that
{¶9}
{¶10} This court stated in In re Motter (June 15, 1998), Butler App. No. CA96-12-269, 1998 WL 314362, that, given the case law establishing a parent‘s inherent right to custody, the parent was not required under
{¶11} The record indicates that no objections were voiced at the hearing regarding notice or an opportunity to be heard. Either mother or child could have requested a continuance to bring additional witnesses before the court, but they did not.
{¶12} Therefore, we find that it was not necessary for father to move for legal custody before the hearing, that mother was afforded her due process rights as she was on notice that custody of the child was at issue in this case and father, as a parent, was a potential custodian, and mother was given an opportunity tо be heard.
{¶14} The juvenile court indicated that children‘s services requestеd that its custody be terminated. The court found that: father‘s home is appropriate and the child has been living with father since earlier in the summer; the child is hаving daily phone contact, weekly visitation, and some internet communication with mother; the child has consistently expressed the desire to live with mothеr, the child has reportedly “befriended adult males” on the internet while in the custody of either parent; mother obtained a job at a fast-food restaurant, but didn‘t know how many hours she would work. The court found that mother is attending counseling and parenting classes; mother had her benefits from the Department of Job and Family Services “sanctioned.” The court stated that children‘s services and a diversion officer have “observed improvements with the minor child” since the child has been residing with father.
{¶15} We have reviewed the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court and the concerns noted in this consolidated aрpeal and cannot say the court abused its discretion when it found the award of legal custody to father to be in the child‘s best interest. In custody matters, a juvenile court‘s discretion will be accorded wide deference, because the court is best suited to determine the credibility of the testimony and the integrity of the evidence. In re A.L.H., Preble App. No. CA2010-02-004, 2010-Ohio-5425, ¶10; see, also, Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997-Ohio-260;
{¶16} The assignments of error of mother and B.L.D. are not well-taken and are overruled.
{¶17} Judgment affirmed.