IN RE: J.C., A DEPENDENT CHILD. [MICAILA C. - APPELLANT]
CASE NO. 7-20-10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
April 26, 2021
[Cite as In re J.C., 2021-Ohio-1453.]
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 20193013 Judgment Affirmed
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant
Katie L. Nelson for Appellee, Henry County Job and Family Services
{¶1} Respondent-appellant Micaila C. (“Micaila“) brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Henry County, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of J.C. to the paternal aunt, Jennifer N. (“Jennifer“). On appeal, Micaila claims that the trial court erred by failing to extend the temporary custody of the child when the failure was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} J.C. was born to Micaila in July 2018. Doc. 1. On July 30, 2019, the Henry County Department of Job and Family Services (“the Agency“) filed a complaint alleging that J.C. was a dependent child and requesting temporary custody of J.C. Doc. 1. The basis for this claim was that J.C. was homeless and that Micaila allegedly suffered from mental health issues. Doc. 1. An adjudication hearing was held, at which Micaila admitted that J.C. was a dependent child. Doc. 13. At the disposition hearing, the trial court awarded temporary custody of J.C. to the Agency. Doc. 14. The Agency subsequently placed J.C. with Jennifer. November 18, 2019, Case Plan. The Agency also set forth a case plan requiring Micaila to 1) receive a psychological evaluation and comply with any recommendations; 2) submit to random drug and alcohol screens; 3) seek and obtain housing; and 4) maintain stable employment. October 16, 2019, Case Plan.
{¶3} On March 4, 2020, Jennifer filed a motion for legal custody of J.C. Doc. 30. The Agency filed a motion in support of Jennifer‘s motion on August 27, 2020.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion by not extending the period of temporary custody to [the Agency] when [Micaila] made significant progress on case plan services.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court‘s failure to extend the case for six (6) months was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Both assignments of error argue that the trial court erred in granting the Agency‘s motion to award legal custody of the children to Jennifer instead of continuing the temporary custody. Thus, we will address them together.
Legal Standard
{¶4} At the outset, this court notes that this is not a case involving the granting of permanent custody to the Agency, but is instead a grant of legal custody to a third party. Where permanent custody would legally terminate all parental rights, legal custody does not.
Preponderance of the evidence is the greater weight of the evidence; that is, evidence that you believe because it outweighs in your mind the evidence opposed to it. A preponderance means evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value.
2 CR Ohio Jury Instruction 207.21. “In a dispositional hearing involving legal custody, the focus is on the best interest of the child.” In re B.P, supra at ¶ 19.
{¶5}
Evidence Presented
{¶6} A review of the record in this case shows that the following testimony was presented at the hearing. Jennifer testified that the Agency had placed J.C. with her in October of 2019. Tr. 18. Before then Jennifer babysat for J.C. many times at the request of Micaila. Tr. 19-21. Jennifer indicated that J.C. has thrived in her care. Tr. 23. When J.C. first came, he had no regular schedule and appeared to be afraid of men. Tr. 23. J.C. was put on a regular schedule and is no longer afraid of people. Tr. 23. Jennifer also indicated that Micaila had missed many visits with J.C. and she brought strangers with her to J.C.‘s birthday party in August. Tr. 24. According to Jennifer, Micaila has a history of making things up and fails to take responsibility for her actions. Tr. 25-26. Jennifer testified that Micaila refuses to have contact with her, including refusing to visit J.C. at their home rather than at the Agency. Tr. 26-27. Micaila has refused to give her a phone number or address and had blocked Jennifer on Facebook, so Jennifer has no way of sharing J.C.‘s accomplishments with her. Tr. 27-28. Jennifer testified that she was willingly
{¶7} On cross-examination, Jennifer admitted that she had never asked Micaila for her address. Tr. 31. Jennifer also admitted that J.C. had been in other placements before coming to her home, so the lack of schedule may have been a result of that rather than being with Micaila. Tr. 34. The contact that did come from Micaila was addressed to Jennifer‘s fiance. Tr. 36.
{¶8} Randy T. (“Randy“) testified that he is engaged to Jennifer and lives in the same home with her and J.C. Tr. 39. According to Randy, J.C. is doing well but he feels bad restricting Micaila to visits at the Agency only, so he and Jennifer arranged some visits at the park. Tr. 41. Micaila was invited to J.C.‘s birthday party, but she brought some additional people who she claimed were his grandparents even though they were not. Tr. 41-42. When Randy and Jennifer brought J.C. to their home, Randy had a good relationship with Micaila and he was hoping J.C. could be returned. Tr. 42. Over time though, Micaila started sending him threatening text messages. Tr. 43-44. The messages started with her accusing Randy and Jennifer of trying to steal J.C. Tr. 44. In Randy‘s opinion, J.C.‘s best interests would be served by leaving J.C. with Randy and Jennifer. Tr. 48. Up until a week before the hearing, Micaila was able to contact Randy whenever she wanted, but when her messages became harassing and threatening, he blocked her. Tr. 48-49.
{¶10} Bayli Geiser (“Geiser“) is an ongoing caseworker at the Agency. Tr. 74. She took over J.C.‘s case in September of 2019. Tr. 74. According to Geiser, the Agency had temporary custody of J.C. since July of 2019. Tr. 75. Originally, J.C. was placed with his grandparents, but was moved to Jennifer‘s home when his grandfather started having health issues. Tr. 76. A few days before the hearing, Geiser conducted a home visit at Jennifer‘s home and found J.C. to be doing “great“. Tr. 76-77. The home was appropriately baby-proofed. Tr. 77. Geiser testified that Micaila would cancel a few visits, then attend really well for a while, but she generally attended visits. Tr. 78. One issue with Micaila is that she can be nice sometimes, but generally is harassing and threatening. Tr. 79-80. Geiser also testified that Micaila has issues with maintaining employment. Tr. 84-86. At the time of the hearing, Geiser did not know where Micaila was living or if she was
{¶11} On cross-examination, Geiser testified that Micaila did ask for additional visitation, but the Agency did not have the resources to fulfill the request. Tr. 92-94. Then in-person visits were stopped for a couple of months due to COVID restrictions. Geiser admitted that from her observations during visits, she had no concerns about how Micaila treated J.C. and that she acted appropriately with him. Tr. 95-96. Geiser noted that Micaila clearly loved J.C. Tr. 96. Geiser also admitted that Micaila is able to obtain employment, but stated that she does not seem to be able to maintain employment. Tr. 98.
{¶12} Michelle Snyder (“Snyder“) testified that she was the CASA volunteer appointed to this case. Tr. 103. Snyder indicated that she had been having monthly home visits with Jennifer and Randy regarding J.C. via zoom due to COVID. Tr.
{¶13} John B. (“John“) testified that he is J.C.‘s father. Tr. 120. At the time of the hearing, he was an inmate at Richland Correctional Facility. Tr. 120. In John‘s opinion, J.C. was in a “fantastic home” where his needs were met. Tr. 120. John indicated that neither he nor Micaila could provide a suitable home at that time, so he thought it was in J.C.‘s best interest to remain with Jennifer. Tr. 121.
{¶14} Micaila testified that she had lived in her car with J.C. for two days which caused this case to be started. Tr. 124-25. When she needed help, she asked Jennifer to take J.C. for a short time and Jennifer agreed to do so. Tr. 125. At the time of the hearing, Micaila testified that she was employed full-time at “Genacross Lutheran Home“. Tr. 126-27. Micaila also testified that she had been living at her current address for close to two months. Tr. 128. She is living with her boyfriend,
{¶15} Christa Sweeney (“Sweeney“) testified that Micaila was dating her stepson for approximately a year. Tr. 228. Micaila moved in with Sweeney in July of 2020. Tr. 229. Sweeney testified that she and her husband were planning on selling the home to her stepson and Micaila once Sweeney and her husband move to a new home. Tr. 230. Sweeney saw no reasons Micaila could not parent J.C. and that the home was suitable for him. Tr. 231. The home is a three bedroom, two bathroom one with one of the bedrooms being available for J.C. Tr. 231. J.C. would be welcome in the home. Tr. 233.
{¶16} Once the trial was completed, the trial court issued its opinion and noted the following case history and testimony. J.C. had been placed in the temporary custody of the Agency on July 31, 2019. Doc. 58 at 2. Pursuant to the case plan, Micaila was required to maintain employment and housing. Doc. 58 at 3. Micaila was also to obtain a psychological evaluation and follow the recommendations. Doc. 58 at 3. The GAL and the psychologist both filed reports indicating they had concerns with Micaila‘s mental health, her failure to maintain housing and employment, and both recommended that Micaila‘s visits with J.C. continue to be supervised. Doc. 58 at 3-4. At a dispositional review hearing in November 2019, Micaila was ordered to re-enroll in counseling and obtain an evaluation to determine the need for medication. Doc. 58 at 4. Another
{¶17} Based upon this testimony, the trial court made the following findings of fact. During the approximately 14 month pendency of the case, Micaila had six
Analysis
{¶18} In both assignments of error, Micaila argues that the trial court should have granted a six month extension of the case rather than granting legal custody to Jennifer. A temporary custody order terminates one year after the date the child was first placed into shelter care, except if a motion is filed to extend it.
{¶19} Initially, this Court notes that no written motion to extend temporary custody of J.C. was filed by either the Agency or Micaila. Micaila‘s testimony showed that she wanted the trial court to terminate the case, but return J.C. to her custody. A review of the record shows that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court are supported by competent, credible evidence. The trial court specifically pointed to specific testimony to support its findings and conclusions. Additionally, the trial court considered various factors in determining what was in the best interest of the child. Given the record before this court, we do not find that the trial court erred by failing to deny Jenifer‘s motion for legal custody, supported by the Agency, and the Agency‘s motion to terminate the case.
{¶21} Having found no prejudicial error in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Henry County, Juvenile Division is affirmed.
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/hls
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
JUDGE