In re M.E.
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 19, 2021
Jon R. Sinclair, for Appellant Mother,
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Mary M. Salyer, Assistant Public Defender, for Guardian ad Litem for the minor children.
{1} In this parental custody case involving two children, the juvenile court granted permanent custody of one child to Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS) and legal custody of the other to a relative. Mother now appeals, presenting one assignment of error, challenging the court‘s decision as against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence supported the juvenile court‘s decision, and we therefore affirm its judgment.
I.
{2} This case began in October 2016 when HCJFS obtained interim custody of Mother‘s two children: J.M., a three-year-old boy; and C.E., a seven-year-old girl. C.E. had come to school distraught after having an altercation with Mother, and upon further inquiry, reported that Mother instructed her not to come home after school. C.E. also expressed fear of returning home because Mother belittled her with derogatory language and whipped her with a belt. Beyond those concerns, she had anxiety regarding whether Mother would be able to provide adequate food for the family. These fears arose against a backdrop of Mother‘s intermittent homelessness and untreated anger and mental illness challenges, including bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. Violence was also an issue, as Mother previously lost custody of her two children after assaulting police officers. Additionally, neither child‘s father had any contact with them since the outset of this case.
{3} The court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent in January 2017, and HCJFS obtained temporary custody of both children a few
{4} Unfortunately, a series of setbacks punctuated Mother‘s efforts to reunite with her children. She proved unable to maintain consistent housing, cycling in and out of homelessness throughout this case. And her anger and mental illness challenges plagued her visits with her children. For example, St. Joseph banned Mother from visiting J.M. because she threatened another child after the child approached J.M. on the playground. When visiting C.E., Mother would repeatedly bring up C.E.‘s past experiences with sexual abuse, which greatly distressed her daughter. Mother also told C.E. that she had to sell her own blood to be able to visit (needless to say, compounding the anxiety). Additionally, Mother has not been able to identify the services that she would provide for J.M.‘s needs, and she previously indicated her intent to discontinue his medications if she regained custody (posing a severe threat to J.M.‘s health).
{6} Without seeing sufficient progress, HCJFS eventually asked the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of J.M. to the agency, and legal custody of C.E. to her aunt and uncle. On this record, the magistrate granted HCJFS‘s request, and the juvenile court adopted the magistrate‘s decision, determining that it was no longer in the children‘s best interest to be reunited with Mother. The court granted both custody motions, and Mother now appeals.
{7} On appeal, Mother pursues one assignment of error, depicting the juvenile court‘s decision as not supported by sufficient evidence or consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence. Because we review permanent custody under a different legal standard than legal custody, we consider Mother‘s challenge to each child separately.
II.
A.
{8} When reviewing a grant of permanent custody, we address sufficiency challenges by taking a fresh look at the evidence to see whether it clearly and convincingly supports the court‘s decision. See In re C. Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190650 and C-190682, 2020-Ohio-946, ¶ 8 (“When reviewing a juvenile
{9}
{11} That brings us to the second prong: whether permanent custody is in J.M.‘s best interest, considering all relevant factors, including the five factors in
{12} The first factor requires the court to consider “[t]he 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.”
{13} The second factor explores “[t]he 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.”
{14} The third factor implicates the child‘s custodial history.
{16} The final factor addresses “[w]hether any of the [additional] factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.”
{17} Based upon our review of the record and the court‘s analysis, we conclude that the juvenile court‘s conclusions were supported by both the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The record provides clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody to HCJFS was in J.M.‘s best interest. Nor can we say that the court lost its way in resolving evidentiary conflicts. We therefore overrule Mother‘s assignment of error as to J.M.
B.
{18} We measure weight and sufficiency challenges to a legal custody determination differently “[b]ecause an award of legal custody does not divest
{19} Much like permanent custody cases,
{20} Regarding the first factor—C.E.‘s relationship with parents, relatives, and others—the court explained that C.E. had lived with her aunt and uncle for about a year and that she is well-adjusted. The aunt stays at home with her children, providing a secure environment, and C.E. gets along well with the other children. C.E. is also doing well in school and keeping up with therapy. On the other side of the balance, C.E.‘s visits with Mother are anxiety-provoking affairs, which C.E. must often grapple with long after the visits conclude.
{21} For the second factor—C.E.‘s wishes—C.E. asked to remain with her aunt and uncle, and she does not want further visitation with Mother. C.E.‘s guardian ad litem similarly recommended that custody be given to her aunt and uncle for many of the reasons chronicled above. And as to the third factor—C.E.‘s custodial history—the court found that this factor weighed in favor of legal custody in light of C.E.‘s history with HCJFS (since October 2016) and with her aunt and uncle (since March 2019).
{22} Regarding the fourth factor—CE‘s need for a secure placement—the evidence similarly supported the court‘s decision. Mother‘s intermittent homelessness and C.E.‘s previous anxiety over having food and shelter weigh in favor
{23} Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the court‘s determinations were based on competent and credible evidence. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting legal custody of C.E. to her aunt and uncle and we also overrule Mother‘s assignment of error as to C.E.
*
*
*
{24} In light of the foregoing analysis, we overrule Mother‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion