In re T.T.
{¶ 1} Appellant, J.T. (“Father“), appeals the juvenile court‘s decision awarding pеrmanent custody of his child, T.T. (“T.T.” or “the child“), to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency“) and terminating his parental rights. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decision.
{¶ 3} Father timely appealed. He raises three assignments of error for our review.
{¶ 4} Under his first assignment of error, Father claims the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint him counsel pursuant to
{¶ 5}
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that “a parent has the right to counsel at a permanent-custody hearing, including the right to appointed counsel if the parent is indigent.” In re R.K., 2018-Ohio-23, ¶ 5, citing
{¶ 8} In R.K., thе juvenile court granted an attorney‘s oral motion to withdraw at a permanent-custody hearing at which the parent did not appear and then the court proceeded with the hearing without making any inquiry and without giving any consideration to whether the parent had waived the right to counsel. Id. at ¶ 2, 8. The Supreme Court held that “when the state seeks to terminate a parent‘s parental rights, the parent has the right to counsel. The parent cannot be deprived of that right unless the court finds that the parent has knowingly waived the right to counsel.” Id. at ¶ 9. The circumstances of In re R.K. are not what occurred in this matter.
{¶ 9} Here, the record demonstrates that Father initially was represented by counsel through the public defender‘s office and he later retained private counsel, who filed a notice of appearance. At the adjudicatory hearing on the complaint, and
{¶ 10} It is recognized that “[c]ourts may infer a parent waived the right to counsel by considering the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the parent, or if the parent expressly waived the right to counsel.” In re M.M., 2022-Ohio-579, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing In re W.W.E., 2016-Ohio-4552, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.). From the totality of circumstances herein, it can be inferred that the juvenile court ascertained Father knowingly and voluntarily waived
{¶ 11} Additionally, the record shows that after CCDCFS put on its case in chief on the first day of trial, a second day of trial was scheduled that was to include Mother‘s case in chief, Father‘s case in chief, and the recommendation of the child‘s guardian ad litem. Father filed a motion for appointment of counsel, and the juvenile court granted a continuance for the appointment of counsel. After Father was appointed counsel, Father‘s counsel did not make any argument to restart trial, object to the admission of any evidence prеsented on the first day of trial, or raise any challenge in allowing Father to proceed pro se on the first day of trial. Ordinarily, an appellate court in such situations would review only for plain error. See id. Plain error in civil cases is “sharply limited to the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” (Emphasis in original.) Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122 (1997).
{¶ 12} The record in this case shows that Father‘s appointed counsel was afforded the opportunity to review the transcript of the first day of trial and to
{¶ 13} Under his second assignment of error, Father claims the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS is erroneous because CCDCFS had temporary custody of the child for less than 12 months when it filed its motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. Father maintains that the juvenile court lacked authority to proceed on the motion. We do not agree.
{¶ 14} There is no dispute that the juvenile court erroneously found that pursuant to
{¶ 15} The agency did not rely on
[t]he child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the tеmporary 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, . . . and the child cannot be placed with either of the child‘s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child‘s parents.
”
{¶ 16} In its journal entry, the juvenile court found that the motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody was filed on July 11, 2022, which the record demonstrates was before the child had been in the agency‘s temporary custody for 12 months. Consistent with the agency‘s reliance on
{¶ 17} Moreover, the juvenile court had the authority to commit the child to the permanent custody of CCDCFS. See
{¶ 18} Under the third assignment of error, Father claims the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of thе child to CCDCFS is against both the manifest weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶ 19} “Under
{¶ 20} “[T]he proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a juvenile court‘s decision under
{¶ 21} As already discussed above, the juvenile court determined
(1) Following thе 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 оutside the home.
(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.
{¶ 22} The juvenile court also considered all relevant best-interest factors, including the enumerated factors under
{¶ 23} The record herein demonstrates that the parties stipulated to the allegations of an amended complaint, which included allegations that Mother has
{¶ 24} Testimony and evidence presented in the matter show that neither рarent had demonstrated sobriety throughout the proceedings and there continued to be incidents involving conflict between them. Mother did not make significant progress on her case plan. Although Father completed intensive outpatient services, he did not participate in the recommended residential treatment. During the course of the case, he tested рositive five times for alcohol and he did not comply with weekly drug-screening requests by the agency. A family advocate who was assigned to the case testified that Father does not believe he has an alcohol problem and, when she was speaking to Father about an issue, he was loud and belligerent. Father completed a program for domestic violencе, but throughout the case, there were several alleged incidents of domestic violence to which the police were called. In relation to those incidents, Father argues that either there were no signs of violence, Mother was the aggressor, or there were no charges or arrests. However, there was a no-contact order in place betwеen Mother and Father as well as evidence of an ongoing relationship between them. During the approximate two-month window
{¶ 25} The testimony elicited at trial also showed that Father had supervised visitation with the child that was switched from a community setting to the paternal grandmother‘s home and he has a good relationship with the child. However, Father failed to tаke advantage of added opportunities to be more involved in the child‘s life and he failed to provide financial assistance to the relative caregiver. The child had been in the care of the paternal grandmother since a few weeks old. The child is well cared for and is very bonded with his caregiver. Other testimony and evidence were presented in the matter that this court has thoroughly reviewed.
{¶ 26} The record demonstrates that Father has not fully satisfied the objectives of his case plan and has not shown that he can provide a safe, stable, and sober environment for T.T. The ongoing worker assigned to the matter testified to her belief that permanent custody to the agency was in the child‘s best interest. The guardian ad litem also recommended permanent custody to the agency.
{¶ 27} Upon our review, we find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the juvenile court‘s determinations and the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court‘s decision as a matter of law. We also do not find the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS tо be against
{¶ 28} After carefully reviewing the entire recоrd, we overrule Father‘s assignments of error and affirm the juvenile court‘s judgment granting permanent custody of the child to CCDCFS.
{¶ 29} 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, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR