IN THE MATTER OF: J.G.G., et al.
CASE NO. CA2014-10-215
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
3/9/2015
[Cite as In re J.G.G., 2015-Ohio-822.]
HENDRICKSON, J.
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case Nos. JN2013-0219, JN2012-0030, JN2012-0031, JN2012-0032
Dawn S. Garrett, 9435 Waterstone Blvd., Suite 140, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, for appellant, J.G.G.
Sarah Owens, Legal Aid Society of SW Ohio, LLC, 10 Journal Square, 3rd Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, guardian ad litem
O P I N I O N
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological father of Jn.G.G, Je.G.G, C.G.G, and M.G.G, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the children to appellee, the Butler County Department of Job and Family Services (BCDJFS). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 3} Jn.G.G., Je.G.G. and C.G.G. were removed from their residence after their mother disappeared and the children‘s maternal aunt filed a dependency request, indicating that she could no longer provide for the children. When the children were removed from their residence, the children‘s mother had reportedly left the home to “buy food,” but did not return. Likewise, appellant was reported to be somewhere in Texas.
{¶ 4} At a subsequent hearing, appellant stipulated to the emergency placement of his children in foster care and temporary custody with BCDJFS was continued. A case plan was prepared and adopted by the juvenile court.
{¶ 5} While those proceedings were ongoing, appellant and the children‘s mother had another child together, M.G.G., born on November 12, 2012. After M.G.G. was born, the child remained in the parents’ custody. Both the children‘s mother and appellant initially made some progress in the case plan and were eventually permitted to have unsupervised overnight visitation with the children. However, on April 16, 2013, BCDJFS filed a complaint
{¶ 6} On December 11, 2013, BCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of the children. Thereafter, on May 28, 2014, the juvenile court held the first day of hearings on the permanent custody motion. According to his attorney, appellant was unable to appear at the proceedings because he was “taken by immigration” and was being held on an immigration detainer related to his status in this country. BCDJFS called the foster father of Jn.G.G, Je.G.G, C.G.G, and also called the foster mother of M.G.G.1 Both foster parents testified the children were well-acclimated and bonded in their respective foster families and expressed a willingness to adopt the children if permanent custody was granted. The trial court then continued the proceedings until June 9, 2014.
{¶ 7} At the final hearing, appellant appeared and testified that he is the father of the children and was married to the children‘s mother, but had been separated from her for approximately one year. Appellant further explained that he had been released from incarceration on June 4, 2014 and was currently wearing “a bracelet,” which the juvenile court interpreted as an ankle monitoring bracelet. Appellant also acknowledged the uncertainty in his immigration status and noted that he may be deported. Nevertheless, appellant testified that he should have custody of the children because he has an income and could care for the children.
{¶ 8} On cross-examination, appellant acknowledged that he had not seen his
At that time I had courts, I had court dates with the State. I had been, around that time, assaulted by six (6) black men. They hit me in the head, they knocked out teeth. I had to go to the hospital. I didn‘t realize I had a court date after that happened until later, and then I missed the court date because I didn‘t remember that I had it, and there was an arrest warrant against me by that time.
{¶ 9} On July 2, 2014, a juvenile court magistrate granted the motion for permanent custody. Appellant then filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which were overruled on September 29, 2014. Appellant now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of the children to BCDJFS, raising three assignments of error for review.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 11} THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE HEARSAY AND IMPROPER SUMMARY DOCUMENTS OF THE STATE AS EVIDENCE.
{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the juvenile court erred in admitting social summaries prepared by BCDJFS. Appellant contends these documents contained prejudicial hearsay. However, “[i]t is well-established that as the fact-finder, a trial court is presumed to have considered only properly admissible evidence unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise.” In re A.S., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2009-03-071, CA2009-03-083, and CA2009-03-088, 2009-Ohio-3932, ¶ 53. This court has rejected identical arguments in instances where “the trial court determined that the summaries contained hearsay and specifically stated it would disregard this hearsay.” In re A.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-12-233, 2012-Ohio-2958, ¶ 33; In re K.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-02-042, CA2014-02-043, and CA2014-02-044, 2014-Ohio-3654, ¶ 83. Therefore, in the present case, we find the juvenile court did not err when it admitted the social summaries,
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} THE COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND TERMINATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANT TO BE IN THE CHILD‘S BEST INTERESTS AND TERMINATED THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANT BECAUSE SUCH WAS NOT THE ONLY MEANS OF OBTAINING A LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT FOR THE CHILD AND/OR BECAUSE PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS NOT IN THE CHILD‘S BEST INTEREST.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 16} THE COURT‘S DECISION AND ORDER OF PERMANENT CUSTODY AND DENIAL OF LEGAL CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT‘S FINDING AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FAILED TO MEET THE REQUISITE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD.
{¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody to BCDJFS was not in the children‘s best interest. In his third assignment of error, appellant incorporates the identical argument regarding the children‘s best interest, but alleges the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We will address these assignments of error together.
{¶ 18} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his 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 court‘s decision granting permanent custody is limited to whether sufficient
{¶ 19} Pursuant to
{¶ 20} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Jn.G.G., Je.G.G., and C.G.G. had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period as of the date the agency filed for permanent custody. In addition, the juvenile court found that all four children were abandoned based on the fact that appellant had not contacted the children in over a year. Appellant does not dispute these findings. Rather, appellant raises several issues regarding the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of the children to BCDJFS was in the children‘s best
{¶ 21}
[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.
{¶ 22} In granting the motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court considered each of the best interest factors in light of the evidence presented at the hearings. With respect to
{¶ 23} In its consideration of
{¶ 24} With respect to
{¶ 25} In considering
{¶ 26} Based on these factors, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to BCDJFS. On appeal, appellant disputes the juvenile court‘s findings and argues that he should retain
{¶ 27} We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and find that the juvenile court‘s determination regarding the best interest of the children is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. At the time of the permanent custody hearings, Jn.G.G., Je.G.G., and C.G.G. had been in foster care for more than two years. M.G.G., who was adjudged dependent at the age of five months, had been in foster care for approximately 15 months. While appellant maintained that he held a steady job, he did not have independent housing or transportation. Furthermore, appellant failed to provide any documentation or information related to his immigration issues and testified that he was not sure if he was going to be deported.
{¶ 28} Although appellant began the case plan adopted at the beginning of these proceedings, he never completed it and was absent from the children‘s lives for more than a year. While in foster care, the children‘s respective families have provided stable and loving environments, and both foster families have indicated their desires to adopt the children. In light of the foregoing, we find the juvenile court‘s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and find no error in the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of the children to BCDJFS. Appellant‘s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 29} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.