IN RE: Y.V., A Minor Child
No. 96061
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
May 19, 2011
2011-Ohio-2409
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD09902303
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Jones, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 19, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
R. Brian Moriarty, L.L.C.
2000 Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, C.C.D.C.F.S.
Yvonne C. Billingsley
C.C.D.C.F.S.
3955 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Gina S. Lowe
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services
4261 Fulton Parkway
Cleveland, Ohio 44144
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Mark Witt
6209 Barton Road
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
{¶ 1} Appellant F.V.1 appeals from the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Plеas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights and granted permanent custody of the child Y.V. to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (“the agency”).
{¶ 2} Appellаnt presents one assignment of error. He argues the juvenile court‘s order lacks an adequate basis in the evidence. Since this court disagrees, his assignment of error is overruled, and the juvenile court‘s order is affirmed.
{¶ 3} The record reflects the child was born on November 20, 2008. At that time, the child‘s mother was serving a prison sentence for a probation violation; thеrefore, the agency assumed emergency temporary custody of the child. The agency placed the child in a foster home where her two siblings also previously had been placed.
{¶ 4} On July 1, 2009, the juvenile court adjudicated the child as neglected and dependent. On October 6, 2009, after conducting a hearing, the court placed the child into the agеncy‘s full temporary custody.
{¶ 6} However, оn March 31, 2010, the agency filed a motion for permanent custody. The agency alleged Y.V. had been in its temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-twо month period, and that an award of permanent custody to the agency was in Y.V.‘s best interest.
{¶ 7} According to the social worker‘s affidavit attached to the motion, Y.V.‘s natural mother had failed to obtain any of the case plan objectives, had “a severe cocaine problem” that remained unresolved, had never successfully completеd a substance abuse treatment program, and had her parental rights involuntarily terminated as to her two other children based on the same facts.
{¶ 8} The affidavit also stated that аppellant failed to support Y.V. since her birth and failed to establish paternity. Furthermore, the affidavit alleged appellant had completed only that portion of thе case plan that required him to complete a mental health assessment; appellant had obtained
{¶ 9} On September 30, 2010, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on the agency‘s motion. Y.V.‘s natural mother did not attend. The agency presented thе testimony of the social worker assigned to the case, and introduced several exhibits into evidence. Appellant elected to present no evidence.
{¶ 10} Following thе hearing, the juvenile court granted the agency‘s motion for permanent custody.
{¶ 11} Appellant appeals the foregoing judgment, raising one assignment of error for review.
“I. The trial court‘s order granting permanent custody to the [agency] was not based upon sufficient clear and convincing evidence.”
{¶ 12} Appellant argues the juvenile court‘s decisiоn is unsupported by the record. This court disagrees.
{¶ 13} In order to terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to a county agency, the record must demonstrate by cleаr and convincing evidence the following: 1) the existence of one of the conditions set forth in
{¶ 14} The “best interest determination” focuses on the child, not the parent. In re Awkal (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 315, 642 N.E.2d 424. The discretion that the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court‘s determination will have on the lives of the partiеs concerned. Id., at 316.
{¶ 15} In this case, the juvenile court determined, pursuant to
{¶ 16} The juvenile court also was required to determine that permanent custоdy is in the best interest of the child. Pursuant to
{¶ 17} The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing in this case, and considered the testimony and evidence presented. In determining whether a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in Y.V.‘s best interest, the court considered the factors listed in
{¶ 18} The juvenile court recognized that Y.V. had been in the agency‘s custody since November 2008, that no suitable relatives existed with whom Y.V. could be placed, and that the agency had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Appellant did not rebut testimony that indicated that, at the time of the hearing, he lived in a single room with his girlfriend, and that, while he occasionally worked in construction, he lacked permanent employment.
{¶ 19} Thus, even though appellant had completed a part of the case plan, he had obtained neither stable housing nor a verifiable stable income. Moreover, appellant had not established paternity of Y.V. and had not resolved his immigration status in this country, which, at that time, was as an illegal alien.
{¶ 21} The juvenile court considered the social worker‘s testimony that the agency had placed Y.V. in a foster home “with her siblings and she ha[d] a very good relationship with the foster parents and her siblings,” that Y.V. had “really bonded” with her current family, and that Y.V. seemed “happy and healthy” in her current placement. The social worker еxplained that Y.V.‘s foster parents provided for all of her health and physical and speech therapy needs, and that they wished to adopt her as they had adopted her siblings. Based upon the testimony and the recommendation made by Y.V.‘s guardian ad litem, the juvenile court found that permanent custody was in Y.V.‘s best interest.
{¶ 23} A “PPLA” is an order by which the juvenile court grants legal custody of a child to an agency without terminating parental rights.
{¶ 24} The supreme court recognized that a “[PPLA] is to be considered as a last resort for the child,” reflecting “the General Assembly‘s goal is to avoid allowing children to languish indefinitely in foster care.” Id. at ¶ 36. This court also has recognized that “[a] child‘s best interests require permanency and a safe and secure environment.” In re Holyak (July 12, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78890.
{¶ 25} A review of the record shows clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court‘s determination that permanent custody is in the
{¶ 26} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error, accordingly, is overruled.
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 be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified сopy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR