IN RE: M., R., & H. CHILDREN.
APPEAL NO. C-170008
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
April 19, 2017
[Cite as In re M., 2017-Ohio-1431.]
DETERS, Judge.
TRIAL NO. F09-2583X. Aрpeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lee Slocum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Nicholas Varney, Assistant Public Defender, Guardian Ad Litem.
{1} Mother appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of one of her children to appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS“) and granting legal custody of two of her children to other individuals. We find no merit in her sole assignment of error, and we affirm the juvenile court‘s judgment.
I. Factual Background
{2} The record shows that in 2009, HCJFS sought temporary custody of then two-year-old L.M. and one-year-old R.R. because mother had stated that she was unable to care for the children and because R.R. had been abused while in the care of his father. The juvenile court adjudicated them abused and dependent. On July 19, 2012, the court ordered that custody be returned to mother because she had been “successfully engaging in case plan services” and had obtained housing, and extended visitation with the children had gone well.
{3} On February 20, 2013, the children were removed from mother‘s home after mother had left L.M., then five years old, R.R., then four years old, and two younger siblings home alone. Mother was eventually convicted of two counts of child endаngerment as a result of that incident. The juvenile court granted interim custody of the children to HCJFS. On January 23, 2014, the juvenile court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent and awarded temporary custody to HCJFS. Temporary custody was extended twice with the goal of reunification with mother.
{4} On January 14, 2015, mother gave birth to H.H, who tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. One day later, the court granted interim
{5} R.R. was eventually placed with J.D., his paternal grandmother, in North Carolina. R.R. thrived in that placement. He had had issues with hyperactivity and speech difficulties, both of which improved significantly. J.D. filed a petition for legal custody of R.R. HCJFS also filed a motion asking the court to grant legal custody of R.R. to J.D.
{6} H.H. was placed with T.P., who was the paternal grandmother of two of mother‘s other children. T.P. had legаl custody of those two children, who were H.H.‘s biological siblings. Those siblings were doing well in T.P.‘s care. T.P. filed a petition for legal custody of H.H., and HCJFS filed a motion asking the court to grant legal custody of the child to T.P., even though she was not H.H.‘s biological relative.
{7} On February 10, 2015, HCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of L.M. She had remained in foster care as shе had no biological relatives with whom she could be placed. She had been moved from several foster homes because of severe behavioral problems.
{8} At consolidated hearings, the juvenile court heard evidence on all of the outstanding issues. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that immediately after the сhildren were removed from the home, mother went to Youngstown, Ohio to find work. She did not visit the children for several months. Eventually, she returned to the Hamilton County area. Though HCJFS claimed she was homeless at the time of the hearing, the evidence showed that she was living with her sister in a
{9} Mother‘s visits with the children were still inconsistent after she had returned from Youngstown. Mother contended that inconsistency was due to her work schedule. She did not visit R.R. in North Carolina, although she claimed that she was able to video chat with him through his father, who also lived in North Carolina.
{10} When mother visited with L.M., who had severe behаvioral problems, mother had difficulty setting limits on L.M.‘s behavior. While L.M. seemed to enjoy the visits with her mother, her behavior regressed afterward. L.M. even began urinating on herself after mother told her L.M. would “come home” because L.M. was “getting used to the smell again.” L.M. had issues with explosive behavior and aggressiveness and defiance, and needed permаnence and consistency to address those issues.
{11} Mother did engage in services upon her return to the area, including substance-abuse treatment and parenting classes. Nevertheless, she had several positive urine screens, and she had refused to submit to one screen. Even though she had been attending therapy, she still had problems with regulаting her emotions and impulse control. According to the social workers, she would get upset and “explode verbally, using profanity,” or “had to leave whatever she was doing.”
{12} After hearing the evidence, the magistrate recommended that H.H. be adjudicated a dependent child. He also recommended that legal custody of H.H. be awаrded to T.P. and that legal custody of R.R. be awarded to J.D. Finally, the magistrate recommended that permanent custody of L.M. be granted to HCJFS.
{13} In her sole assignment of error, mother contends that the juvenile court erred in adopting the magistrate‘s decision terminating mother‘s parental rights, because that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. She argues that the court‘s decision granting permanent custody of L.M. to HCJFS and granting legal custody of R.R. and H.H. to other individuals was not supported by competent, сredible evidence. This assignment of error is not well taken.
{14} Because we review the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of L.M. to HCJFS and its decision to grant legal custody of R.R. and H.H. to other individuals under different standards, we discuss them separately. We begin with the permanent-custody decision.
II. Permanent Custody
{15} We first note that
{16} Former
commit the child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency * * * if it determines in accordance with division (E) of section 2151.414 of the Revised Code that the child cannot be placed with one of the child‘s parents within a reasonable time or should not
be placed with eithеr parent and determines in accordance with division (D)(1) of section 2151.414 of the Revised Code that the permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.
{17} Former
{18} The agency proceeded under former
{19} Former
{20} The juvenile court found that following the placement of the child outside the home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist the parents to remedy the problems that had initially caused the сhild to be placed outside the home, the parents had failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home. See former
{21} Those findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. L.M. and her siblings have been in the care of HCJFS on and off since 2009. The juvenile court, under a recommendation from HCJFS, returned custody to mother. HCJFS removed the children from her custody when it found that she had left them alone, and that she had marijuana and opiates in her system. Mother made very little progress on her issues for a long time and failed to visit the children consistently.
{22} Late in the proceedings, mother started using services, but still had not remedied the problems that had caused the children to bе removed from the home. In mother‘s favor, she made some progress and had been able to hold a job. She was not homeless as the agency had contended, and did have a fairly stable living arrangement with her sister. Nevertheless, mother continued to have issues with
{23} The only remaining issue is whether granting the motion for permanent custody was in L.M.‘s best interest. See C.E. 1 at ¶ 11; In re L.W.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-140282 and C-140283, 2014-Ohio-4181, ¶ 26. Former
{24} The factors listed in former
{25} The record demonstrates that the trial court considered all of the relevant factors. The evidence showed that mother could not provide a legally secure permanent placement for L.M. or adequately provide for her health, safety, and welfare.
{26} L.M. had serious special needs. Many of L.M.‘s issues stemmed from L.M. being “parеntified,” because she was left to care for her younger siblings at a young age. L.M. had to be moved several times to different foster homes because of her behavior. She was bonded with her mother, but acted out after visits. L.M. even started urinating on herself because mother stated that L.M. would come home, and L.M. felt that she needed to get used tо the smell. L.M. needed permanence to address her issues. Her father had only been sporadically involved with her, and she had no other relatives who could care for her. L.M.‘s guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to give her the permanence that she needs.
{27} Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of L.M. to HCJFS, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Eastley v Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 12. Therefore, this court will not reverse it.
III. Legal Custody
{28} Mother also argues that the juvenile court should not have granted legal custody of R.R. to J.D. or H.H. to T.P. The clear-and-convincing standard used in cases of permanent custody does not apply in cases where the сourt grants legal custody to a person other than the parents. As we have previously stated,
{29} We note that mother argues that the juvenile court used the analysis under
{30} Under former
{31} The juvenile court must exercise its jurisdiction in child-custody matters in accordance with
{32} In this case, the evidence showed that mothеr was not in a positon to care for any of her children. It also showed that R.R. was thriving in J.D.‘s care. As the guardian ad litem stated, “He was like a different child.” His undesirable behaviors had disappeared. J.D. understood that mother could still have visitation with the child, although mother had not yet been to North Carolina.
{33} As to H.H., she was born with marijuana in her system. As soon as shе was released from the hospital, she was placed with T.P, who already had custody of two of mother‘s other children. Thus, H.H. was placed with her biological siblings. The evidence showed that T.P. diligently cared for her, and that she was thriving. T.P. also indicated that she understood that mother still had visitation rights, and the record showed that mother had visited with H.H.
{34} The record shows that the court considered all relevant factors in determining what award of custody was in the children‘s best interests. The weight to be given to those individual factors was within the court‘s discretion. An appellate court must defer to the trial court‘s findings “regarding the weight to be given to any evidence because the trial court is in the best position to makе that determination.” Linde v. Linde, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-940944, 1996 WL 97563, *4 (Mar. 6, 1996), citing Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).
{35} Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court‘s findings that it was in R.R.‘s best interest to award custody to J.D., and in H.H.‘s best interest to
{36} In sum, we find no error in the juvenile court‘s decisions. Consequently, we overrule mother‘s assignment of error and affirm the juvenile court‘s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and MYERS, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.