IN RE: L.C. and L.C.-B.
C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 90
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO
April 29, 2011
[Cite as In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066.]
FROELICH, J.
T.C. NO. 20081324, 20081325; (Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division)
Rendered on the 29th day of April, 2011.
ANDREW R. PICEK, Atty. Reg. No. 0082121, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. Columbia Street, 4th Floor, P. O. Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
BRANDIN D. MARLOW, Atty. Reg. No. 0076381, 150 N. Limestone Street, Suite 218, Springfield, Ohio 45501
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from judgments of the Clark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile Section, which granted permanent custody of her daughter, L.C.-B., to Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (“CCDJFS”)
{¶ 2} In July 2008, CCDJFS filed complaints for temporary shelter care with respect to L.C.-B., age nine months, and her sister, L.C., age 5, due to “uninhabitable” conditions at their home. The complaints described a “strong stench of ammonia” from cat urine that could be smelled from the street and cat feces “throughout the home imbedded in carpet, on beds, in crib, on cabinets, in bathtub, covering kitchen floor, and overflowing in boxes throughout the attached garage.” L.C. was covered with “mosquito-like bites” and her eyes were swollen shut, a possible allergic reaction to the cats. “10 plus” cats were removed from the house, “with some remaining in the walls and crawl spaces.” The complaints noted that one of the family’s previous residences had also been deemed uninhabitable by the health department. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the children had not been fed for several hours and L.C.-B.’s diaper had not been changed, nor were there any diapers in the house. There were no shoes for the children in the house. L.C.-B. was “behind on shots and ha[d] an ear infection.” L.C. “desperately need[ed] speech evaluation [with] possible therapy and [to] have her ears checked.”
{¶ 3} The trial court found the children to be dependent pursuant to
{¶ 4} While L.C. and L.C.-B. were in the temporary custody of CCDJFS, the
{¶ 5} After a hearing, the trial court denied CCDJFS’s motions regarding custody of the children. The court found that the mother had “substantially completed” her case plan and that CCDJFS had “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother was unable to meet the needs of the children, now or anytime in the future.” The court also denied the paternal grandparents’ motion for custody of L.C. and the maternal grandparents’ motion for custody of both girls. The court put in place a plan and conditions for the transfer of the children to their mother’s custody.
{¶ 6} Two weeks later, CCDJFS filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that new evidence had come to light since the trial court’s judgment which was relevant to its decision to terminate temporary custody and to return the children to their mother’s home. Specifically, the motion claimed that Mother had been terminated from her job for poor performance and had lied to her caseworker about this fact, had been reluctant to exercise visitation with the girls, and had failed to provide a safe home environment in the weeks since the trial court’s order. In response, the trial court amended its previous order and extended CCDJFS’s temporary custody. The court conducted another hearing in August
{¶ 7} After the hearing, the trial court concluded that Mother “struggles mightily to meet her own needs” and “acts childish and depends upon others for her support and care.” It noted the psychologist’s view that she was “poorly equipped” to care for her children or even to identify their needs and showed “clear difficulty with basic judgment and problem solving skills.” The court also concluded that Mother had been untruthful with the service providers and people involved in the lives of her children. In sum, the trial court concluded that, “[i]n spite of her affection for her children and her occasional appropriate interaction with the children, [Mother] has failed to demonstrate that she is able to meet their basic needs for the long term. She has failed to convince the Court that she can meet the financial, emotional, academic, or material needs of the children, now or at any time in the near future.”1 The trial court granted CCDJFS’s motion for permanent custody of L.C.-B. and granted L.C.’s paternal grandparents’ motion for legal custody.
{¶ 8} Mother appeals, raising one assignment of error.
{¶ 9} Mother’s assignment of error states:
{¶ 10} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER L.C.-B.’S AND L.C.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR MATERNAL
{¶ 11} Mother does not challenge the court’s decision that she, herself, could not parent the children. Mother only challenges the court’s judgment to the extent that it did not sufficiently consider the girls’ relationships with their maternal grandparents. In its analysis of the best interest of the children, the trial court listed, as one factor in support of its decision, that L.C. and L.C.-B. “had no meaningful contact with [their] biological family.” Mother claims that this statement was contrary to the evidence.
{¶ 12} The United States Supreme Court has recognized that parents’ interest in the care, custody, and control of their children “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized” by the court. Troxel v. Granville (2000), 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49. Parents who are suitable persons have a “paramount” right to the custody of their minor children. In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 97.
{¶ 13} A juvenile court has broad discretion in the disposition of an abused, neglected, or dependent child. See
{¶ 14} In a proceeding for the termination of parental rights, all the court’s findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} Consideration of placement of a child with a relative is not a statutory requirement. In re F.C., Montgomery App. No. 23803, 2010-Ohio-3113, ¶ 24. “That possibility is a matter that ought to be considered in connection with the child’s interaction and relationship with the child’s parents, relatives, foster caregivers, out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child.” Id., citing
{¶ 17} Mother relies on the following testimony in support of her argument. Her father, Maternal Grandfather, testified that he and his wife had visited with L.C. and L.C.-B. or babysat them almost every day before they were removed from Mother’s custody.3 Maternal Grandmother testified that, after the children had been removed from Mother’s home in July 2008, they saw the children for the first time in March of 2009, for L.C.’s birthday; they eventually got “visitation every other week for two hours” at Gibault Visitation. Maternal Grandmother further testified that, from February to the time of the hearing, they had seen the girls “[w]hen [Mother] gets them, we get to see them between one and two hours on a Saturday.”
{¶ 18} The guardian ad litem’s reports contained additional information about the maternal grandparents, because they expressed an interest in custody of the girls. The guardian ad litem stated that Mother had been living with Maternal Grandmother at the time of the children’s removal and that the cats in the home had belonged to Maternal
{¶ 19} The guardian ad litem also reported that, when a case worker did a surprise home visit to the maternal grandparents’ house one afternoon, Maternal Grandfather was drinking a beer, and there were at least three cats living in the home. Maternal Grandfather had been “involved with Children’s services” regarding a now-adult daughter from a prior marriage. The maternal grandparents had visited L.C. and L.C.-B. at Gibault Visitation, but “had some problems with following the rules” and had not followed through with the psychologist’s recommendations that Maternal Grandmother get outpatient mental health counseling and that Maternal Grandfather “enter a substance abuse treatment.” Maternal Grandfather reported drinking 24 beers per day for several years, but claimed that he had been drinking non-alcoholic beer in the last three years. Maternal Grandfather had been charged with domestic violence in 2002, but had been convicted of disorderly conduct. Maternal Grandmother had a 2003 domestic violence conviction.
{¶ 20} With respect to the girls’ placements through CCDJFS, the guardian ad litem found that L.C.-B. was making “great progress” with her developmental delays while in foster care and that her foster mother was dedicated to her care. The guardian ad litem recommended that the trial court award permanent custody of L.C.-B to CCDJFS.
{¶ 21} The psychologist who evaluated the maternal grandparents found that
{¶ 22} The trial court concluded that L.C.-B. would “benefit greatly from a permanent, secure home,” which neither parent was able to provide; it granted permanent custody of L.C.-B. to CCDJFS.
{¶ 23} As to the parental grandparents, the guardian ad litem stated that L.C.’s paternal grandparents sought custody of her and had been visiting with her regularly, including in home visits, with “no problems with the rules.” L.C.’s paternal grandparents already had custody of two of their other grandchildren. The guardian ad litem recommended that the trial court grant legal custody of L.C. to her paternal grandparents. The court concluded that L.C. was attached to and at ease with her paternal grandparents, who had demonstrated their ability to provide love and appropriate care for her; it granted the motions that legal custody of L.C. be awarded to the paternal grandparents.
{¶ 24} The trial court did not discuss in detail its findings regarding the maternal grandparents, and it was not required to do so. But there was evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that the girls did not have a relationship with them that was entitled to significant weight in the best interest determination and that there was “no safe, appropriate, harmonious and loving relationship” with the maternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents admitted that they had not been the girls’ caregivers when Mother was unable to care for them and that, since the girls had been removed from Mother’s
{¶ 25} The trial court concluded that no one in Mother’s extended family, including the maternal grandparents, had a safe, appropriate, harmonious, and loving relationship with the children and that their best interest would be served by removing them from the “birth” family. The trial court acted within its discretion in reaching this conclusion.
{¶ 26} Even if the evidence had established a strong bond between the girls and their maternal grandparents (which it did not), this factor would have been only one of many factors informing the trial court’s discretion regarding the girls’ best interest. Other factors, including the likelihood of placement in a permanent, secure home, the failure of the mother to remedy the concerns that caused the removal of the children, the child’s wishes, as expressed to the guardian ad litem, and the guardian ad litem’s recommendations, including her significant concerns about placement with the maternal grandparents, weighed heavily in favor of finding that the girls’ best interest would be served by granting permanent custody of L.C.-B. to CCDJFS and legal custody of L.C. to her paternal grandparents.
{¶ 27} The trial court did not give inadequate consideration to the maternal grandparents’ relationship with the children before awarding custody to CCDJFS and the paternal grandparents.
{¶ 28} The assignment of error is overruled.
FAIN, J. and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Andrew R. Picek
Brandin D. Marlow
Hon. Joseph N. Monnin
FROELICH, J.