In re J.R.
Michael J. Short for Appellant
Mariah Cunningham for Appellee
{¶1} Father-appellant, David Reynolds (David), appeals the April 4, 2014 decision of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division granting legal custody of his minor child, J.R., to the child’s paternal grandmother, Eva R. (Eva). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On March 7, 2013, the Allen County Children Services Board (ACCSB) filed a complaint alleging that J.R. was a dependent and neglected child under
{¶3} That same day, the trial court held a shelter-care hearing, placing J.R. in the temporary custody of Eva. (Doc. No. 5). At the time the complaint was filed, J.R.’s mother, Ashley N., was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 2).1 On March 11, 2013, the magistrate appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL). (Doc. No. 9).
{¶4} The ACCSB filed its case plan on April 5, 2013. (Doc. No. 22).
{¶5} After an adjudicatory hearing on April 22, 2013, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that J.R. was a dependent child, but that thе ACCSB failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that J.R. was a neglected child. (Apr.
{¶6} After a dispositional hearing on May 16, 2013, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that J.R. be placed in the ACCSB’s temporary custody to allow J.R. to attend a specific school. (May 20, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 41). The magistrаte further concluded that David required additional time to complete the goals and objectives of the case plan and ordered him to submit to a forensic psychological evaluation to determine his ability to parent J.R. and his level of cognition. (Id.). As a result of the magistrate’s order, the ACCSB filed an amended case plan on June 3, 2013, which included a supervised-visitation plan for David and J.R. (Doc. No. 43). The amended case plan provided that J.R. would continue to reside with Eva because, in part, she agreed to transport J.R. to school. (Id.). The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own on June 18, 2013. (June 18, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 47).
{¶7} After a shelter-care hearing on July 18, 2013, the trial court granted Eva temporary custody of J.R. because better educational opportunities became available for J.R. where Eva resides. (July 19, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 48). As a result
{¶8} On August 26, 2013, the ACCSB filed its semiannual administrative review. (Doc. No. 55). In its review, the ACCSB noted that David comрleted a parenting class and a mental-health assessment and was undergoing the court-ordered psychological evaluation with Frederick Ferri, Ph.D. (Dr. Ferri). (Id.). The review noted that David was meeting with his assigned caseworker, but that he did not meet with the caseworker that month and that he did not respond to any attempts to contact him regarding his failure to meet with the caseworker that month. (Id.). The review observed that David made some progress in addressing his parenting abilities for J.R. (Id.). Also, the review documented that David’s visits with J.R. were relocated to the agency because of David’s inappropriate behavior during his visits with J.R. at Eva’s house. (Id.). In the review’s risk reassessment scale, the ACCSB remarked that David displayed [m]oderate participation in pursuing case plan objectives; occasionally demonstrat[ing] desired behavior. (Id.).
{¶10} On January 31, 2014, the State filed a motion requesting a dispositional hearing to terminate the tеmporary-custody order and grant Eva legal custody of J.R. (Doc. No. 82). That same day, the ACCSB filed an amended case plan. (Doc. No. 83). The amended case plan reflected that David completed his psychological evaluation, which recommended intense therapy, but also reflected that the state timelines do not allow enough time for David to complete the intense counseling that is needed. (Id.).
{¶11} The ACCSB filed its semiannual administrative review on February 12, 2014, which requested that, because David rеquired intense ongoing counseling, Eva be granted legal custody of J.R. (Doc. No. 93). Moreover, the review observed that David was complying with counseling and expressed a willingness to do whatever it takes to regain the care and custody of J.R., but continue[d] to bring up the past a lot. (Id.).
{¶12} After a hearing on February 19, 2014, the magistrate ordered that legal custody of J.R. be granted to Eva. (Mar. 24, 2014 JE, Doc. No. 101).
{¶14} On May 21, 2014, the trial court overruled David’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s March 24, 2014 order as its own. (May 21, 2014 JE, Doc. No. 108).
{¶15} David filed his notice of appeal on June 13, 2014. (Doc. No. 109). He raises two assignments of error for our review. Because David combined his assignments of error in his brief, we will also address them together.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court erred in finding that the Allen County Children Services Board made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the father’s home.
Assignment of Error No. II
The trial court abused its discretion in granting legal custody to the child’s grandmother.
{¶16} In his assignments of error, David argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding legal custody of J.R. to Eva because it was not in J.R.’s best interest and because the ACCSB did not make reasonable efforts to reunite
{¶17} After a child has been adjudicated as dependent, the juvenile court can make an order of disposition as set forth in
{¶19} The trial court made the necessary best-interest finding under
{¶21} Eva related her concerns about David’s ability to care for J.R. by stating that David would not administer J.R.’s medication to her because he thought she was dying, take her leg braces off, and speak inapproрriately to her. (Id. at 11-13). According to Eva, she knew that David was not giving J.R. her medication because of an instance where J.R. was hospitalized and the hospital confirmed that J.R. did not have any medication in her system and because the drug store said [J.R.’s prescriptions] sat there for two months and nobody picked it
{¶22} The trial court also relied on the testimony of Waltmirе who described J.R.’s progress that she observed while J.R. was in Eva’s care. (Id. at 26-27, 29). Waltmire testified that she has been involved in J.R.’s case for approximately one year and expressed J.R.’s improvements that she noted, including that she can now make eye contact and recognize Waltmire, wave, sit up, roll over, and move to music. (Id. at 27-28).
{¶23} In addition to relating J.R.’s progress, Waltmire discussed David’s progress with the case plan that she developed. Waltmire stated that David completed parenting classes and a psychological evaluation. (Id. at 30-31). However, she described that David did not show any improvement toward the case plan’s goals because he continued to not focus[] on the positives with [J.R.] during his parenting time or understand that his mother is not the enemy in this situation, and she indicated that David is not taking medication as recommended by Dr. Ferri. (Id. at 31-33). Likewise, Waltmire testified that she spoke with David’s counselor who conveyed to her that she would not opine whether David was making any progress in counseling, but stated that David remind[s] her every visit that he’s attending, because he has to be there. (Id. at 32).
{¶25} The trial court also heard David’s tеstimony. David repeatedly testified that he loved J.R. and would do whatever it takes to get [her] back home. (See, e.g., id. at 60-61, 63, 65-66). David testified to his strained relationship with Eva and his brother; however, he expressed a willingness to work with Eva if that meant that he could regain custody of J.R. (Id. at 62-63, 65-67, 69). David testified that he always provided J.R. her medication and agreed to leave J.R.’s braces on her legs. (Id. at 62). David denied that he told J.R. during his supervised visits with her that Eva was crazy, that the ACCSB would not care if J.R. died, that these monsters will pay if he did not get J.R. back, аnd that he did not need to take medication. (Id. at 68-71). David further conveyed that he had a hard time understanding the ACCSB’s requirements and that the ACCSB did not indicate to him that he needed to take any medication. (Id. at 60-61, 63). David indicated that, at the time of the hearing, he recently began counseling and attended two sessions, and that his counselor did not indicate to him that he needed to take medication. (Id. at 77, 80-81).
{¶26} The GAL filed reports on December 10, 2013 and February 17, 2014 recommending that Eva be granted legal custody of J.R. (Doc. Nos. 78, 95). However, at the dispositional hearing, the GAL revised her recommendation and
{¶27} There is competent, credible evidence that it is in J.R.’s best interest that Eva be awarded legal custody of J.R. Evidence in the record illustrates that J.R. physically, medically, and developmentally thrived in Eva’s care. In construing the purpose of the statute, we are mindful of the fact that Chapter 2151 of the Revised Code is to be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate * * * the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children. In re R.A., 172 Ohio App.3d 53, 2007-Ohio-2997, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.), citing
{¶28} Although the GAL revoked her prior recommendation that Eva be granted legal custody of J.R., Waltmire and Conrad testified that they believed it was in J.R.’s best interest to be in the legal custody of Eva. Indeed, Waltmire testified regarding the progress that she witnessed J.R. make in Eva’s care, and
{¶29} Moreover, the GAL indicated that she did not think that Eva should be granted legal custоdy because she thought David should be given a little bit more time. Permitting David a little bit more time is not the standard by which a trial court bases its best-interest determination in granting legal custody to a non-parent. See In re A.M.A., 2013-Ohio-3779, at ¶ 26, citing In re N.F., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-1038, 2009-Ohio-2986, ¶ 9. Rather, there is competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s decision that awarding legal custody of J.R. to Eva is in J.R.’s best interest.
{¶30} Second, the trial court made the requisite reasonable-efforts-toward-reunification finding under
{¶32} David argues that the trial court erred in granting legal custody of J.R. to Eva because the record reflects that the ACCSB did not fulfil its duties under the case plan since David attended only two counseling sessions, was not
{¶33} David’s reliance on In re Evans and In re Brown is erroneous because those cases involved permanent-custody determinations. 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-01-75, 2001 WL 1333979 (Oct. 30, 2001); 98 Ohio App.3d 337. Unlike the permanent-custody determinations in In re Evans and In re Brown, David is not foreclosed from petitioning the court for a modification of the custody order due to the impermanent nature of a legal-custody dispositiоn. In re A.M.A. at ¶ 31. If David chooses to take the appropriate steps to demonstrate that he is capable of providing for J.R.’s basic needs, he will increase the chances his petition is successful. Id. Accordingly, In re Evans and In re Brown are inapplicable to this case.
{¶34} Next, David’s argument that the ACCSB did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him with J.R. is meritless because reasonable efforts does not mean all available efforts. Rather, the statute requires a trial court to consider the child’s health and safety when considering whether reasonable efforts were made.
{¶35} In addition, when considering whether reasonable efforts were made, trial courts consider whether a children’s services agency’s efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. In re A.M.A. at ¶ 29. See also In re H.M.K., 2013-Ohio-4317, ¶ 95.
{¶36} After the trial court removed J.R. from David’s care, the ACCSB prepared a case plan with the goal of reunification. (Feb. 19, 2014 Tr. at 29). David signed the case plan on April 3, 2013 along with Waltmire, Conrad, and the GAL. (Doc. No. 22). Notably, the case plan documented two concerns with expected changes—that is, David’s comprehension of J.R.’s special needs and his ability to care for her. (Id.). To address those concerns, the case plan mapped out the necessary steps that David and the ACCSB would jointly take. For instance, the ACCSB was to provide general counseling, case management and referrals for service while maintaining frequent contact with all parties to the case. (Id.). In addition, David was to complete a mental-health screening and follow all
{¶37} The case plan was amended three times and the ACCSB conducted two semiannual administrative reviews of the case plan. (Doc. Nos. 43, 52, 55, 83, 93). After the third amendment and second semiannual administrative review of the case plan, the ACCSB recommended that Eva be granted legal custody of J.R. even though David showed some progress in addressing the two areas of concern. (See Doc. Nos. 83, 93). The ACCSB documented, in part:
David is complying with counseling but continues to bring up the past a lot. He has issues moving past it. He still does not understand [J.R.’s] diagnosis and the life expectancy. David will need continued on-going counseling and due to this the agency is asking for [J.R.] to go to the legal custody of [Eva].
(Doc. No. 93).
{¶38} The record reflects that the ACCSB made reasonable efforts to reunite J.R. with David because it acted diligently and provided services to reunification—namely, it provided David with case management and one-on-one, specialized-parenting classes tailored toward J.R.’s special needs and referred David for counseling services. (Feb. 19, 2014 Tr. at 30). In addition, the ACCSB substituted David’s initial caseworker, Waltmire, with Conrad when David requested that he be assigned a new caseworker. (Id. at 42). When David’s visitation with J.R. beсame strained at Eva’s residence, the ACCSB also agreed to supervise David’s visits with J.R. at its facility. (Id. at 11-12, 43). While it was recommended that David take medication, the ACCSB did not provide David with a referral to a psychiatrist to obtain such medication because David indicated that he would not take medication. (See id. at 31-33, 44).
{¶39} Although not part of the ACCSB’s reasonable-efforts-toward reunification analysis, David’s progress toward meeting the case plan’s objectives
{¶40} Though David testified that he would do whatever it took to regain custody of J.R., including wоrking with Eva, taking his medication, attending counseling, and leaving J.R.’s braces on, the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh their credibility. In re N.L., 2013-Ohio-3983, at ¶ 18, citing In re K.R., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011 CA 39, 2011-Ohio-5694, ¶ 14. [D]eferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is even more crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties’ demeanor
{¶41} Accordingly, we conclude that the ACCSB’s case-planning efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of this case. Thus, the trial court did not err in determining that the ACCSB made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
{¶42} Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody of J.R. to Eva.
{¶43} David’s assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment Affirmed
ROGERS, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr