IN RE: E.D., A Minor Child [Appeal By V.D., Mother]
No. 96096
Cоurt of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
June 9, 2011
2011-Ohio-2800
Celebrezze, J., Boyle, P.J., and Keough, J.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-09900468
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 9, 2011
R. Brian Moriarty
R. Brian Moriarty, L.L.C.
2000 Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, C.C.D.C.F.S.
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Gina S. Lowe
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
4261 Fulton Parkway
Cleveland, Ohio 44144
GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR CHILD
Daniel Bartos
13363 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MOTHER
Suzanne Piccorelli
255 Falmouth Drive
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant, V.D.,1 appeals from the judgment of the common pleas court, juvenile division, terminating her parental rights and granting
{¶ 2} On January 9, 2009, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that E.D. was a dependent child. In the complaint, CCDCFS gave notice of its intent to take E.D. into custody pursuant to
{¶ 3} CCDCFS developed a case plan designed to reunite appellant with E.D. Under the case plan, appellant was to attend to her mental health issues, complete parenting education classes, obtain safe and aрpropriate
{¶ 4} On August 27, 2009, CCDCFS filed a motion requesting permanent custody of the child. That motion was filed because appellant had stopped visiting the child and had not seen thе child since April 30, 2009. Additionally, appellant was not complying with mental health recommendations, had not taken steps toward completing parenting education classes, and had failed to secure safe and stable housing for the child.
{¶ 5} An evidentiary hеaring on the motion for permanent custody was held October 14, 2010. On that date, the child had been in the custody of CCDCFS for one year, nine months, and five days.
{¶ 6} CCDCFS social worker, Matthew Goodwin, testified at trial and described appellant‘s long history of mental health problems. He also described appellant‘s history with child protective services and her inability to successfully parent her other five children. For those reasons, and because appellant was residing with an individual who had been indicted on 35 counts of sexually oriented crimes against a child, Goodwin stated that he believed permanent custody was in the child‘s best interest.
{¶ 7} At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, appellant announced to the court that she was in agreement with the child being cоmmitted to the permanent custody of CCDCFS. She had previously indicated to Goodwin
{¶ 8} Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court granted permanent custody of the child to CCDCFS. From these findings and order, appellant appeals, raising one assignment of error for review.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 9} In her sole assignment of errоr, appellant argues that the trial court‘s order granting permanent custody to CCDCFS was not based upon sufficient clear and convincing evidence. We disagree.
Standard of Review
{¶ 10} A trial court‘s authority to award permanent custody of a child to the state arises undеr
{¶ 11} Clear and convincing evidence is “that measure or degreе of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence’ but not to the extent of such certainty required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal
{¶ 12} Where clear and convincing proof is required at trial, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite dеgree of proof. In re T.S., Cuyahoga App. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496, ¶24, citing State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54. Judgments supported by competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id.
{¶ 13} Thus, we must look to the entire record to determine whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly find that it was in E.D.‘s best interest to place her in the permanent custody of CCDCFS and that she could not or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable period of time. After a thorough review of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court‘s judgment was based on sufficient evidence.
Best Interest Determination
{¶ 14} In considering an award of permanent custody, the court must first determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody.
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} In light of the interaction and interrelationship the foster parents shared with E.D., coupled with the recommendation of her guardian ad litem, the grant of permanent custody based on the child‘s best interests was supported by clear and convincing evidence under this section.
{¶ 18} Pursuant to
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} In light of appellant‘s continuous and repeated failure to remedy thе conditions causing the child to be placed outside of her home, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have determined that the child could not achieve a legally secure permanent placement without a grant of permanent custody to CCDCFS.
{¶ 21} Upon our review of the record, we find that the trial court weighed all relevant factors enumerated in
Placement with Either Parent
{¶ 22} Next, the trial court was required to determine whether the child could not or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable period of time. This analysis is guided by
{¶ 23} In the instant case, after considering the evidence and the report of the child‘s guardian ad litem, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not and should not be placed with аppellant within a reasonable period of time pursuant to
{¶ 24} After careful review of the record, we find that there was ample evidence to support the trial court‘s finding. As discussed, the testimony presented at trial established that CCDCFS developеd a case plan with appellant with the goal of reuniting her with E.D. upon successful completion of the case plan. Under the case plan, appellant was required to comply with mental health treatment recommendations; attend рarenting education classes; obtain safe and appropriate housing; and demonstrate an ability to provide for the child‘s basic needs. However, appellant failed to show consistency in following treatment and medical recommendations; failed to attend parenting education classes; and, at the time of the permanent custody trial, appellant was residing with an individual who had been indicted on 35 counts of sexually oriented charges against a child. Ultimately, appellant was unable to successfully comply with the standards developed in her case plan.
{¶ 25} Further, the record indicates that appellant has had five other children removed from her care due to her mental health issues and inability
{¶ 26} Collectively, the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing wаs sufficient to support the trial court‘s ruling that the child could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time.
{¶ 27} Finding no error in the trial court‘s grant of permanent custody to CCDCFS, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that аppellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR