In re M.B.
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Emanuella D. Groves, Michelle J. Sheehan, Eileen T. Gallagher
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant-mother (“Mother“) and appellant-father (“Father“)1 appeal the juvenile court‘s decisions adjudicating their twins, M.B. (d.o.b. 11/07/23) and A.B. (d.o.b. 11/07/23) (collectively “the Children“), neglected and dependent and awarding permanent custody to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS“). Upon review, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decisions.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} The Children were first placed in CCDCFS custody on November 13, 2023, after an initial complaint for dependency and permanent custody and motion for predispositional temporary custody were filed. The Children remained in CCDCFS custody without interruption. CCDCFS‘s original case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to resolve the matter in the statutory timeframe.
{¶ 3} CCDCFS refiled complaints for neglect, dependency, and permanent custody of the Children in February 2024 along with a motion for predispositional temporary custody. Mother and Father denied the allegations of the complaint and stipulated to the motion for predispositional temporary custody. Mother and Father advised that the West Side Catholic Center in Cleveland should be used for their mailing address for future court notices. Emergency temporary care custody was
{¶ 4} On April 22, 2024, a hearing was held on CCDCFS‘s refiled complaint and the following evidence was presented. CCDCFS admitted ten certified journal entries, including decisions from prior cases ultimately committing three of the Children‘s siblings to CCDCFS‘s permanent сustody. These entries referenced Father‘s alleged assault of one of the Children‘s siblings, for which he faced criminal charges. These entries also referenced Mother‘s ongoing and unresolved mental-health issues. They further documented Mother‘s and Father‘s history of inconsistent visitation with the Children‘s siblings. Testimony was also offered by Suneaqua Halley (“Halley“), the extended services case worker of record.
{¶ 5} Halley testified that the Children were born at a Cuyahoga County hospital and were confined there after the hospital was alerted that CCDCFS had the Children‘s siblings in its custody. The Children were never in the care and custody of Mother and Father; temporary custody was granted to CCDCFS following their birth, and the Children were in foster care.
{¶ 6} Halley further testified that there were ongoing concerns regarding Mother‘s issues with mental health, domestic violence, and parenting; Mother and Father‘s unstable housing and inconsistent efforts to visit the Children; and Father‘s issues with anger management, domestic violence, parenting, substance abuse, and mental health. Despite efforts to establish Father‘s paternity, he had not done so and claimed he did not need to. Multiple referrals were made to assist Mother and
{¶ 7} Halley explained that at the time of the Children‘s birth and removal, Mother and Father were homeless in the Cleveland area and failed to secure stable housing throughout the pendency of the case. In February 2024, Mother and Father indicated that they were living with Father‘s family in Lorain County during CCDCFS‘s investigation of this matter. Halley testified that since November 2023, when the Children were born, Mother and Father visited them on two occasions. Halley observed those visits and described Mother as “more hands-on” while Father “had some difficulty.” Id. at 69.
{¶ 8} The Children were in foster care. CCDCFS had not been provided with nor identified relatives that could be approved for placement. CCDCFS asserted that the placement was appropriate for the Children. The Children‘s guardian ad litem
{¶ 9} The GAL acknowledged that Mother and Father were “in a way kind of in a bind” due to work and transportation issues but concluded that “they didn‘t put forth the effort early to demonstrate that they were working this case plan.” Id. at 128. The GAL further explained that Mother and Father‘s housing situation “was mysterious,” stating that “[t]hey didn‘t want [CCDCFS] to know where they were living because they didn‘t want [CCDCFS] to be involved.” Id. The GAL concluded that permanent custody was in the Children‘s best interests.
{¶ 10} Mother and Father did not offer any witnesses or exhibits. Both requested that temporary custody be extended. Mother and Father argued that CCDCFS did not make reasonable efforts to provide proper referrals and the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
{¶ 11} On May 2, 2024, the juvenile court issued decisions2 with the following factual findings based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing:
- The refiled complaint was amended to indicate the following:
- Mоther has a history of mental health issues, which affect her ability to appropriately parent Children, and has not addressed them.
- CCDCFS was unable to verify whether Mother and Father have stable and appropriate housing.
- Father has a history of violent tendencies and anger management issues which he has failed to address.
- Mother and Father have mental health concern and lack safe and appropriate housing for Children.
- Father failed to address anger-management concerns.
- Children‘s continued residence in or return to the home of Mother and/or Father would be contrary to the Children‘s best interests.
- Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of Children, facilitate the return of Children, and finalize the permanency plans of reunification.
- Mental health, parenting, domestic violence, and housing services were provided to Mother and mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, anger management, parenting, and housing services were provided to Father.
- Children have little to no bond with Mother and Father as they have only visited the Children twice since birth.
- Children were too young to express their wishes and the Children‘s GAL recommended that permanent custody was in their best interests.
- Children have been in CCDCFS custody since birth.
- Children deserve a safe and stable home environment where their needs can be met and they can thrive. That could not be achieved with Mother and Father because they have not engaged in or completed case plan services and failed to remedy the cause for removal.
- No relatives were identified as willing or appropriate to care for the Children.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) applied to Mother and Father.- Pursuant to
R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) ,(4) ,(11) ,(14) , and(16) , Children could not be placed with one of their parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent. Factors include:Mother and Father continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing Children to be placed outside their home desрite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by CCDCFS to assist them. - Mother and Father demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the Children by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with them, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home.
- Mother and Father had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of Children and failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the prior termination, they could provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety оf Children. Mother has three other children placed in permanent custody while Father has two.
- Mother and Father are unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for Children or to prevent Children from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.
- Children‘s sibling, who is in the permanent custody of CCDCFS, was adjudicated abused and Mother was in agreement with the adjudication. Father was the alleged perpetrator of the abuse of Children‘s sibling.
(Journal Entries – Permanent Custody, 05/02/24.) The juvenile court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent and found by clear аnd convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the Children‘s best interests. The Children were committed to the permanent custody of CCDCFS; the parental rights and responsibilities of Mother, Father, and John Doe were terminated; and permanency plans of adoption were approved.
{¶ 12} Mother and Father separately appealed the juvenile court‘s May 2, 2024 decisions, raising the following assignments of error for review.
Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 1
Cuyahoga County lacked proper venue for the trial court to order [the C]hildren into permanent custody since [the C]hildren did not have a residence or legal settlement in Cuyahoga County.
Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 2
[CCDCFS] failed to establish that permanent custody should be granted under the provisions of [
R.C.] 2151.414(E) .
Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 3
The trial court‘s decision granting permanent custody of [the C]hildren was contrary to the best interests of [the C]hildren.
Father‘s Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and abused its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that it would be in the best interest of [the Children] to permanently terminate the parental rights of Father and place them in the permanent custody of CCDCFS.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Venue
{¶ 13} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues that venue was improper because the Children did not have a residence or legal settlement in Cuyahoga County. Father also claims that geographic burden was placed on him because neither Cuyahoga County nor Lorain County would refer him to service providers to address case plan concerns because of jurisdictional limitations.
{¶ 14} “Venue is a ‘procedural matter,’ and it refers not to the power to hear a case but to the geographic location where a given case should be heard.” In re Z.R., 2015-Ohio-3306, ¶ 16, citing Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87-88 (1972).
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} Our review of the record reveals the uncertain and ever-changing nature of Mother and Father‘s residence. Evidence was offered that Mother and
B. Standard of Review
{¶ 17} Next, we turn to Mother‘s and Father‘s arguments challenging the juvenile court‘s findings and award of permanent custody to CCDCFS. We begin by outlining the applicable standard of review.
{¶ 18} The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified that sufficiency of the evidence and/or manifest weight of the evidence are the proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a juvenile court‘s decision to award permanent custody of a child and terminate parental rights, depending on the nature of the arguments presented by the parties. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18 (holding
{¶ 19} With these concepts in mind, wе address Mother‘s and Father‘s specific arguments.
C. Permanent-Custody Determination
{¶ 20} In her second and third assignments of error, Mother argues that CCDCFS failed to establish that permanent-custody should be granted under
{¶ 21} Both the U.S. and Ohio Supreme Courts recognize that parents have a basic and fundаmental interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990); In re C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 28. Parental “rights, however, are not absolute, and a parent‘s natural rights are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child.” In re K.M., 2015-Ohio-4682, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.), citing In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). Therefore, the “[t]ermination of parental rights is an alternative of last resort but is sanctioned when necessary for the welfare of a child.” In re M.S., 2015-Ohio-1028, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619, 624 (9th Dist. 1994). By terminating parental rights, the goal is to create a more stable life for dependent children and to ‘facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.‘” In re L.W., 2017-Ohio-657, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 22} When a complaint for abuse, neglect, or dependency contains a prayer request for permanent custody, R.C. 25131.353 applies.3
{¶ 23} The juvenile court‘s findings and permanent-custody determination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. “‘Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof, which is more than a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
1. R.C. 2151.414(E) Factors
{¶ 24} After considering all relevant evidence, the court must enter а finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of 16 enumerated factors exist as to each of the child‘s parents.
(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child‘s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child‘s home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.
. . .
(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the
child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child[.] . . .
(11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to this section or section 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code, or under an existing or former law of this state, any other state, or the United States that is substantially equivalent to those sections, and the parent has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that, nоtwithstanding the prior termination, the parent can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child.
. . .
(14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.
. . .
(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶ 25} Mother argues that the juvenile court‘s decision merely repeats the language of
{¶ 26} Father also challenges the juvenile court‘s
{¶ 27} A juvenile court is only required to find that one of the
{¶ 28} Our review of the record reveals that Mother and Father had a history with CCDCFS, which included the prior commitment of three of Children‘s siblings to CCDCFS‘s permanent custody. Testimony was offered that ongoing concerns remained, including Mother‘s mental health, domestic violence, and parenting; Mother and Father‘s unstable housing and inconsistent efforts to visit the Children; and Father‘s anger management, domestic violence, parenting, substance abuse, and mental health. Multiple referrals were made to assist Mother and Father with these ongoing issues, including referrals to a service that could recommend providers based on an out-of-county address. While Mother and Father claimed that they engaged in certain services and screenings, CCDCFS was unable to verify their claims. Nor was any evidence provided by Mother and Father to establish their
2. Best Interest Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)
{¶ 29} In determining the best interest of a child, the juvenile court must 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.
{¶ 30} Although a trial court is required to consider each relevant factor under
{¶ 31} Here, the juvenile court considered the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, as well as the GAL‘s report, and discussed each of the
{¶ 32} Mother argues that the
{¶ 33} Father admits that he visited the Children infrequently, that he needed help with parenting tasks, and that his parental rights were previously terminated with respect to the Children‘s siblings. However, Father argues that he has recently exhibited improvements and made efforts to address the Children‘s case plan. Father claims that “a grant of permanent custody to [CCDCFS] is not in the best interest of [the Children] as he will be in a much better position to care for them at the conclusion of temporary custody.”
{¶ 34} After weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot say that the juvenile court cleаrly lost its way in its resolution of evidentiary conflicts and created a manifest
{¶ 35} Accordingly, we hold that the juvenile court‘s award of permanent custody is supported by sufficient evidence within the record and is not contrary to that evidence‘s manifest weight. Mother‘s second and third assignments of error and Father‘s single assignment of error are overruled.
{¶ 36} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants 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.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR