IN RE J.S., A Minor Child [Appeal by J.S.]
No. 108406
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
October 31, 2019
[Cite as In re J.S., 2019-Ohio-4467.]
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Lower Court Case No. AD-16906632
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 31, 2019
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-16906632
Appearances:
Susan K. Jankite, for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Colleen R. Cassidy Ulrich, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Appеllant J.S., a minor, has appealed the judgment of the Juvenile Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that terminated the parental rights of the parents of J.S. and granted permanent custody of J.S. to the
{¶ 2} J.S. (d.o.b. 12/06/07) is the child of the mother and the father referred to herein. On April 25, 2016, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that J.S. was a neglected and dependent child. On September 23, 2016, J.S. was adjudicated dependent and she was committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS. On March 1, 2018, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody tо permanent custody.
{¶ 3} During the course of proceedings, mother filed a motion seeking legal custody of the child to herself and a motion seeking an award of legal custody to the maternal grandmother. Also, a conflict was identified between the wishes of J.S. and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation of permanent custody to CCDCFS. An attorney was appointed to represent the wishes of J.S., and the attorney for J.S. filed a motion for legal custody to mother or to the maternal grandmother.
{¶ 4} A trial was held on January 14, 2019. The record reflects that fathеr was not actively involved in the case and was not engaged in any services. Testimony was presented showing there was a history of domestic violence issues between father and mother and there were substance abuse issues concerning mother.
{¶ 5} Although mother engaged in case-plan services, there remained substantial concerns that she had not benefitted from the services in which she
{¶ 6} The maternal grandmоther had a number of other children in her care, and she also had children removed from her care in the past. Additionally, there were a number of concerns for placement with the maternal grandmother, including the conditions of the home, safety issues, her ability to provide proper supervision, and her ability to meet the special needs of J.S.
{¶ 7} At the time of trial, J.S. was residing with a paternal relative who was able to meet all of J.S.’s special needs and was willing to adopt J.S. The trial court held an in camera interview with J.S., and her wishes were expressed to the court. The guardian ad litem recommended that it was in the best interest of J.S. that she be committed to the permanent custody of CCDCFS.
{¶ 8} On March 1, 2019, the trial court entered a decision that denied the various motions for legal custody, terminated the parental rights and
{¶ 9} J.S., through her appointed counsel, has appealed the decision of the trial court.2 She raises one assignment of error for our review that challenges the grant of permanent custоdy to CCDCFS and claims the trial court failed to fully consider the best-interest factors set forth in
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Here, the trial court determined the condition under
{¶ 12} In determining the best interest of a child,
{¶ 13} Here, the trial court’s opinion demonstrates that it considered all relevant factors and found by clear and convincing evidence that an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to fully consider the positive interactions and interrelationships J.S. has with both her mother and her mаternal grandmother. The record reflects that testimony was presented to the trial court regarding these relationships. Further, the trial court conducted an in camera interview with J.S. in which her wishes were expressed. It was J.S.’s desire to live with her mother and, if that could not occur, then with her maternal grandmother and, as a final alternative, with her great-grandmother. There is no dоubt that J.S. has a loving relationship and is bonded with both. However, there was other testimony and evidence presented to support the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custоdy to CCDCFS in this case. In
{¶ 14} Every parental-rights termination case involves the difficult balance between maintaining a biological parent-child relationship and protecting the best interest of a child. Although family unity and blood relationship are vitаl factors to carefully and fully consider, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the child. In re J.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 98566 and 98567, 2013-Ohio-1706, ¶ 163. We also must appreciate that a child’s best interests require permanency and a safe and secure environment, and that to protect the child’s interest, neither the existence of a biological relationship or a goоd relationship is controlling in and of itself. Id.
{¶ 15} Appellant also argues that both her mother and maternal grandmother were willing to take legal custody, and therefore she claims that the trial court did not fully consider whether there could be a legally secure placement without granting permanent custody to CCDCFS.3 In considering a permanent custody motion, the trial court hаs discretion to award legal custody to either parent
{¶ 16} Our review reflects that the trial court properly considered all of the relevant statutory factors in determining the best interеst of J.S. pursuant to
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court, juvenile division, 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.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR