IN RE: B.P., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal by C.P. and L.P.]
Nos. 107732 and 107735
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 18, 2019
[Cite as In re B.P., 2019-Ohio-2919.]
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD17906533 and AD17906950
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 18, 2019
Appearances:
Michael E. Stinn, for appellant C.P.
Gregory T. Stralka, for appellant L.P.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Michael F. Kulcsar, Michelle A. Myers, and Cheryl Rice, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Appellants L.P. (“Mother”) and C.P. (“Father”) each have appealed the separate judgments of the Juvenile Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that terminated their parental rights and granted permanent custody of each of the children B.P. and R.P. to the Cuyahoga County Division of
Background
{¶ 2} B.P. (d.o.b. 6/2/16) and R.P. (d.o.b. 5/1/17) are children of Mother and Father. On October 15 2016, B.P. was removed from his parents’ care after a fire was intentionally set in the family home while B.P. was present. Both parents were criminally charged in connection with the fire incident. Father pled guilty to attempted aggravated arson, vandalism, and child endangering. He was sentenced to a total of 18 months in prison. Mother initially was found incompetent to stand trial; however, after she received treatment to restore competency, she pled guilty to charges of obstruction of justice, vandalism, and child endangering. She was sentenced to two years of community control, and later was incarcerated after violating community control sanctions.
{¶ 3} After the fire incident occurred, CCDCFS filed a complaint for abuse, neglect, and permanent custody of B.P., and the trial court committed B.P. to the emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS on October 17, 2016. The initial complaint was voluntarily dismissed, and a new complaint was filed on April 25, 2017. B.P. was continued in the emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS. Following the birth of R.P., CCDCFS filed a complaint for dependency and permanent custody of R.P. on May 2, 2017, and the trial court committed R.P. to the emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS on May 3, 2017. The complaints were
{¶ 4} An adjudication hearing was held on December 4, 2017. Both Mother and Father entered an admission to the amended complaints. B.P. was found to be abused and neglected, and R.P. was found to be dependent. A subsequent hearing was held on December 13, 2017, at which a stipulation was made that reasonable efforts had been made by CCDCFS and the services that had been provided to Mother and Father were set forth.
{¶ 5} A dispositional hearing was held on March 7, 2018, at which the trial court heard testimony and received evidence. On August 27, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment in the case of each child. The trial court made the requisite determinations upon a number of findings that were supported by the record. The trial court granted permanent custody of each child to CCDCFS and terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father.
{¶ 6} Mother and Father separately appealed. This court consolidated the appeals for hearing and disposition.
{¶ 7} Under her first assignment of error, Mother claims the trial court erred by accepting her admission to the amended complaint without first determining the extent of her psychiatric disorder and the effect it had on her ability to understand the consequences of her admission. She argues the same competency standard applied in criminal cases should be applied to an admission in abuse, neglect, and dependency cases. She advocates for application of
{¶ 8} Initially, we recognize that
“An adjudication by a juvenile court that a child is ‘neglected’ or ‘dependent’ * * * followed by a disposition awarding temporary custody to a public children services agency * * * constitutes a ‘final order’ within the meaning of
R.C. 2505.02 and is appealable to the court of appeals * * *.” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), syllabus. Furthermore, “an appeal of an adjudication order of abuse, dependency, or neglect of a child and the award of temporary custody to a children services agency pursuant toR.C. 2151.353(A)(2) must be filed within 30 days of the judgment entry pursuant toApp.R. 4(A) .” In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-6810, 900 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 18. Although the parent still retains the right to appeal any award of permanent custody to a children services agency, that appeal is limited to issues that arose after the adjudication order. Id.
In re S.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102611, 2015-Ohio-4766, ¶ 14; see also In re A.N.F., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-905, 2018-Ohio-3689, ¶ 26. Accordingly, Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 10} Under her second assignment of error, Mother claims CCDCFS failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that she had a chronic mental illness of such severity to support a decision granting permanent custody. Her argument relates to the trial court’s determination in each case that “the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent” upon finding several factors under
{¶ 12} CCDCFS moved for permanent custody pursuant to
The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * * and the child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} Mother takes issue with the finding of a chronic mental illness that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year from the time the court holds the hearing. Mother argues that no expert testimony was offered regarding the extent of her mental health condition and that CCDCFS did not establish that she suffered from a chronic mental illness of such severity that she could not parent a child or provide an adequate home to her children. However, we are unable to conclude that expert testimony is required for a finding under
{¶ 15} Our review of the record reflects that Mother was diagnosed with a number of mental health conditions that were listed in the trial court’s decision. Mother’s psychiatric evaluation was introduced. The trial court heard from several witnesses concerning Mother’s ongoing mental health issues, which impacted her daily decision-making and contributed to her failure to obtain housing. The trial court found that Mother was not always compliant with her medications, that she had engaged in concerning behavior, that she had been aggressive and resistant to treatment in December 2017, and that she had expressed an inability to function
{¶ 16} Even if we were to accept Mother’s argument and find this factor was not satisfied, the trial court found a number of other factors listed in
{¶ 17} The trial court also found that
{¶ 18} We need not address any further factors under
Father’s Appeal
{¶ 19} Under his first assignment of error, Father claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance. He argues that he completed the case plan services that were available to him during his incarceration but was not given an opportunity to participate in and complete services that were not available to him during his incarceration. He asserts that he would have been able to complete the services on his case plan before the expiration of the period available for temporary custody.
{¶ 20} We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re J.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106272, 2018-Ohio-2234, ¶ 10. Pursuant to
{¶ 22} Under his second assignment of error, Father claims the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS is against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence as long as the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have found that the essential statutory elements for an award of permanent custody have been established. In re K.Z., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107269, 2019-Ohio-707, ¶ 82.
{¶ 23} Father challenges the trial court’s reliance on
{¶ 24} Among others, the trial court found to exist the factors set forth in
{¶ 25} In determining the best interest of a child,
{¶ 26} The trial court stated in each decision that it considered the above factors in making its determination, and the record reflects that the trial court considered all relevant factors for the best-interest determination. The testimony and evidence show that Father had not visited with the children because of his incarceration. B.P. had spent the majority of his life in the temporary custody of CCDCFS; R.P. had been in the temporary custody of CCDCFS since shortly after birth; and both children were in need of a legally secure placement. The children were in the same adoptive foster home, were receiving appropriate care, and were bonded with the foster mother. The CCDCFS social worker testified to a number of concerns with Mother and Father. Upon investigation, she found no appropriate relatives available to provide care for the children. The social worker opined that an award of permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interest. The guardian ad litem for the children discussed the children’s needs, her concern with Father’s history of fire-setting, and her concerns with regard to Mother. She
{¶ 27} The trial court made a number of factual findings pertaining to both Mother and Father that were supported by the record. Although Father claims the trial court should have continued temporary custody to allow him the opportunity to engage in and complete case plan services, the best-interest determination focuses upon the child, not the parent. “[A] juvenile court is not required to extend temporary custody if it finds that a child’s best interest would not be served by an extension[.]” In re Da.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105886, 2018-Ohio-689, ¶ 17. There is competent, credible evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s best-interest determination.
{¶ 28} Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 29} Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court’s decision in each child’s case was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm the trial court’s decisions awarding permanent custody of each child to CCDCFS and terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father.
{¶ 30} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
________________________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR