In re C.E.
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 3, 2021
OPINION.
Christopher P. Kapsal, for Appellant Mother,
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Robert Adam Hardin, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem.
{1} Mother appeals the Hamilton County Juvenile Court‘s judgment granting permanent custody of her child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). The child‘s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and HCJFS ask this court to affirm the juvenile court‘s judgment.
I. Background and Procedural History
{2} HCJFS became involved with mother‘s children in 2013, but mother had previous involvement with child protective services in two different states. In May 2000, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services became involved with mother after her three-week-old child died as a result of cosleeping with mother. The death was ruled an accident, and the case was closed after mother refused services offered to her by the agency.
{3} In 2008, an Iowa court terminated mother‘s parental rights to three of her children due to mother‘s history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental-health issues and her resistance to services. In 2009, mother gave birth to I.E.-J., and in 2010, the Iowa Department of Children Services temporarily removed the child from mother‘s care because of drugs found in the home. I.E.-J. was returned to mother with orders of protective supervision. The case was closed, and mother and I.E.-J. moved to Ohio.
{4} Mother gave birth to C.E., the subject of this appeal, in July 2016. When C.E. was three months old, HCJFS obtained interim custody of him and I.E.-J., after C.E. was found unresponsive in mother‘s home. Mother reported that she had swaddled C.E. and left him on his back on a bed. When she returned to the room, she said C.E. was face down on the bed with a bloody nose. C.E. was taken by ambulance to Cincinnati Children‘s Hospital Medical Center (“CCHMC”), where he
{5} In April 2017, the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent. Although the court remanded custody to mother with orders of protective supervision, C.E. remained in CCHMC. Under the protective orders, mother was to provide HCJFS and the children‘s GAL access to her home and to C.E.‘s medical information, and was to comply with random drug screens.
{6} In October 2017, HCJFS filed a complaint requesting permanent custody of both children. With respect to C.E., HCJFS alleged that mother failed to allow access to his medical records and refused to allow him to be released to a long-term care facility, even though he had been ready for discharge from a hospital setting for several months. In November 2017, the agency amended its complaint to include an allegation that mother had been arrested for driving under the influence. I.E.-J. was placed in the interim custody of HCJFS, and C.E. remained at CCHMC in mother‘s legal custody.
{7} In February 2018, interim custody of C.E. was awarded to HCJFS. The magistrate found that, although C.E. had been prepared for discharge from CCHMC since July 2017, he still needed significant medical care that mother was not able to provide. The magistrate found that mother had not completed the necessary medical training and that the hospital had not been able to arrange back-up nursing care for mother‘s residence due to safety concerns.
{8} In March 2018, HCJFS sought an emergency amendment to C.E.‘s case plan because mother refused to consent to a surgery deemed medically necessary by C.E.‘s medical team. In a letter to the court, one of C.E.‘s doctors described C.E. as “neurologically devastated,” noting that the child is ventilator
{9} In September 2018, the magistrate denied HCJFS‘s motion for permanent custody of the children. With respect to C.E., the magistrate noted that C.E. could not be returned to mother because she was unable to provide the significant medical care that he required. In addition, the magistrate noted that C.E. had been successfully transferred to St. Joseph‘s Infant home, a long-term-care nursing facility. Temporary custody of C.E. was awarded to HCJFS.
{10} In December 2018, the juvenile court sustained HCJFS‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, and awarded permanent custody of I.E.-J. to HCJFS. The court adopted that part of the magistrate‘s decision denying HCJFS‘s motion for permanent custody of C.E., but its entry contained language committing both children to the permanent custody of HCJFS. Mother appealed.
{11} In the appeal numbered C-190007, this court reversed the award of permanent custody of C.E. to HCJFS, and held that, to the extent that the juvenile court‘s award of permanent custody of C.E. was simply a clerical error, the matter was remanded to the juvenile court to correct the error. In re: E.-J. Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190007, 2019-Ohio-1519, ¶ 22. This court affirmed the award of permanent custody of I.E.-J. to HCJFS. Id. at ¶ 36.
{13} HCJFS subsequently filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody as to C.E. At trial, evidence demonstrated that C.E. has complex medical needs due to the extent of his permanent brain damage. He requires gastronomy-tube feeding, numerous medications, and remains on a ventilator. He is nonambulatory, has no more than reflexive movements, and it is difficult for medical staff to recognize if he is awake or asleep. He requires therapy to maintain range of motion, as well as visits from multiple specialty care providers.
{14} The HCJFS caseworker testified that mother refused to engage in substance-abuse and mental-health treatment services, and did not complete the training necessary to provide the medical care that C.E. would need if he were to live in her home. Although mother would be eligible for home health care for C.E., it could not be provided in her home due to safety concerns in her area. The caseworker testified that mother refused to cooperate with agency efforts to relocate her to an area where she could receive assistance in her home.
{15} The caseworker described mother‘s visits with C.E. as “spotty,” noting that she did not visit him between May and December 2019. He said that it was HCJFS‘s position that it was in C.E.‘s best interest to remain at the nursing facility due to the quality of specialized care that he receives there. He testified that if the court granted permanent custody of C.E. to HCJFS, both the agency and the nursing facility would continue to accommodate mother‘s visits with C.E.
{16} Although mother testified that she was willing to relocate to care for C.E. in her own home, she admitted that she had known for several years that she
{17} Mother also testified that she was satisfied with the level of care that C.E. was receiving at the nursing facility. She said that if C.E. were placed in her custody, she would allow him to remain at the nursing facility if C.E.‘s doctors recommended it. She testified that she understood that, even if HCJFS obtained permanent custody, she would be able to continue to have contact with C.E., and said that she would continue to have contact with him.
{18} Following the trial, the magistrate granted HCJFS‘s motion for permanent custody. The juvenile court overruled mother‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision and awarded permanent custody of C.E. to HCJFS. This appeal followed.
II. Due-Process Challenge
{19} In her first assignment of error, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in applying
{20} In her second assignment of error, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that permanent custody was in C.E.‘s best interest because the finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was not supported by sufficient evidence.
{21} A juvenile court‘s determination on a permanent-custody motion must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, ¶ 14. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence sufficient to “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 42. We must examine the record and determine if the juvenile court had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard. In re B.J. at ¶ 14. In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we review the record to determine if the juvenile court lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicts in the evidence that its judgment must be reversed. Id.
{22} A juvenile court may grant permanent custody if it finds that permanent custody is in the child‘s best interest and that one of the conditions in
{23} Pursuant to
{24} With respect to the factor in
{25} Mother does not challenge the court‘s finding that her child is unable to express his wishes, in relation to
{27}
{28}
{29} The juvenile court found that the factor in
{30} The factor in
{31} Following our review of the record, we hold that the juvenile court‘s determination that C.E.‘s best interest is served by a grant of permanent custody is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we overrule mother‘s second assignment of error.
IV. Conclusion
{32} Consequently, we overrule mother‘s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court granting permanent custody of C.E. to HCJFS.
Judgment affirmed.
BERGERON and CROUSE, JJ., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.