IN THE MATTER OF: C.B.
CASE NO. CA2015-04-033
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
9/14/2015
[Cite as In re C.B., 2015-Ohio-3709.]
HENDRICKSON, J.
APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 2012 JC 4409
Suellen Brafford, 285 East Main Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellant, A.L.
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee, Clermont County Children Services
Jeffrey and Debra Williams, 1309 High Street, Bellaire, Ohio 43906, pro se
Corky Barre, Jr., Roederer Correctional Complex, P.O. Box 69, LaGrange, KY 40031
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the mother of C.B., appeals a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of C.B. to a children‘s
{¶ 2} In May 2012, C.B. was admitted to Cincinnati Children‘s Hospital and diagnosed with Stage IV Neuroblastoma, a form of cancer. At the time, C.B. was three years old. On June 5, 2012, C.B. was discharged from the hospital in the custody of mother and father. Though C.B. was discharged, he remained critically ill and mother and father were given strict instructions regarding his care. The next day C.B. was readmitted to the hospital after a home health care worker had trouble contacting mother and father. Once the home health care worker made contact with mother and father, she discovered C.B. was running a fever and his feeding tube was lost. The following week father was found passed out and unresponsive in C.B.‘s hospital room due to a heroin overdose. Father was banned from the hospital and was subsequently charged with criminal trespassing when he attempted to sneak into the hospital.
{¶ 3} On June 15, 2012, the Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services (agency) filed a complaint alleging C.B. was a neglected child. On the same day, C.B. was placed in the emergency custody of the agency. Thereafter, C.B. was adjudicated a neglected child and remained in the agency‘s temporary custody. During this time, C.B. continued to receive cancer treatment and remain in the hospital.
{¶ 4} In November 2012, mother and father were arrested and incarcerated based on allegations that they were involved in a robbery and both father and mother were subsequently convicted of this offense. Father was sentenced to a 15-year prison term and mother was sentenced to a ten-year term. While father and mother were incarcerated, C.B.‘s maternal grandparents moved for legal custody. The maternal grandparents’ motion was denied by the juvenile court.1 In June 2013, C.B. was placed with foster parents and began
{¶ 5} On September 15, 2014, the agency moved for permanent custody of C.B. A hearing regarding the motion was held before a magistrate on January 16, 2015. The magistrate heard testimony from several witnesses, including mother, who explained that she was granted early release from her ten-year prison sentence. Mother stated she has completed drug treatment and life skills programs, obtained her GED, and is currently staying at a residential treatment facility in northern Kentucky while she is on probation. Mother requested that C.B. be returned to her custody. After the presentation of the evidence, the magistrate issued its decision finding it was in C.B.‘s best interest to grant the agency permanent custody. Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which the juvenile court subsequently denied, thereby affirming and adopting the magistrate‘s decision in full.
{¶ 6} Mother now appeals, asserting a sole assignment of error:
{¶ 7} IN A CHILD CUSTODY CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE AGENCY DESPITE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 8} Mother argues the juvenile court‘s finding that it was in C.B.‘s best interest to grant the agency permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence.2 Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate court‘s review of a juvenile
{¶ 9} Even if a trial court‘s judgment is sustained by sufficient evidence, an appellate court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 9. In determining whether a decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. The presumption in weighing the evidence is in favor of the finder of fact, which we are especially mindful of in custody cases. In re C.Y., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-11-231 and CA2014-11-236 thru CA2014-11-238, 2015-Ohio-1343, ¶ 25. “If the evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
{¶ 11} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that C.B. had been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period preceding the filing of the agency‘s motion for permanent custody on September 15, 2014. Mother does not dispute this finding. Rather, as noted above, mother merely disputes the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of C.B. to the agency was in his best interest when considering the factors under
{¶ 12}
[T]he court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but
not limited to the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child‘s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child‘s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child;
(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period * * *;
(d) The child‘s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 13} With respect to
{¶ 14} In considering
{¶ 15} As stated previously, the juvenile court found C.B. has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period which satisfies
{¶ 16} Regarding
{¶ 17} Mother argues the juvenile court‘s decision is not in C.B.‘s best interest. Mother maintains her relationship with C.B. suffered because the agency restricted her visits at the
{¶ 18} Mother also challenges the juvenile court‘s reliance on C.B.‘s desire to remain with his foster family in its decision. Mother asserts that due to C.B.‘s young age, the juvenile court gave too much weight to C.B.‘s wishes. While the juvenile court did consider C.B.‘s wishes, this was one factor among a number of best interest factors in the juvenile court‘s decision. Additionally, the GAL recommended that permanent custody be granted to the agency and C.B. remain with his foster family.
{¶ 19} Lastly, mother maintains that the juvenile court‘s decision diminished the substantial gains she has made in her life. Mother points to the fact that she was granted early release from her ten-year prison sentence because she completed several job and life skill programs, received her GED, and became a GED tutor for other inmates. Mother also testified that she no longer uses heroin, attends AA, and receives drug treatment and other life skill lessons at the residential treatment facility where she resides. While we commend mother for the progress she has made in her life, at the time of the permanent custody hearing, mother did not have a permanent home or a job and would not be able to obtain a job or live outside the residential treatment facility for several months. In light of C.B.‘s
{¶ 20} In light of the forgoing, and after carefully reviewing the record, the juvenile court‘s findings are supported by sufficient, credible evidence and are otherwise not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence established that C.B.‘s well-being depends on being in a loving stable home with caregivers who vigilantly monitor his health and that C.B.‘s foster family provides C.B. with this environment. The juvenile court properly considered the appropriate factors under
{¶ 21} Accordingly, the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of C.B. to the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient, credible evidence. Mother‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.