IN RE: Z.D., et al.
CASE NOS. CA2019-06-059, CA2019-06-060
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
1/27/2020
[Cite as In re Z.D., 2020-Ohio-234.]
M. POWELL, J.
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case Nos. 16-D000118 and 17-D000177
Scott A. Hoberg, 9146 Cincinnati-Columbus Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellee, father
A. Aaron Aldridge, 130 East Mulberry Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellant, mother
OPINION
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Z.D. and R.D. are the children of E.E., appellant herein (“Mother“), and A.D. (“Father“) (Z.D. and R.D. shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Children“). Mother appeals from the Warren County Juvenilе Court‘s decision placing the Children into
{¶ 2} Z.D. was born on August 29, 2014. Warren County Children Services (“WCCS“) became involved with Z.D. in 2015 after the agency received a referral concerning domestic violence in the home. On October 16, 2015, WCCS filed a complaint alleging that Z.D. was a dependent child. Pursuant to the motion, the juvenile court placed Z.D. in the shelter care of WCCS. In January 2016, Z.D. was adjudicated a dependent child based upon concerns of domestic violence occurring between Mother and Father in Z.D.‘s presence. As a result, Z.D. was placed in the temporary custody of WCCS and was subsequently placed in foster care. A few months later, at the direction of children services, Mother obtained a domestic violence civil protection order (“DVCPO“) against Father. The DVCPO prohibited Father from having any contact with Mother and was to remain in effect for a period of five years. A cаse plan was then developed for Mother and Father, with a goal of reunification with Mother. We note that Father was ultimately removed from the case plan due to his lack of engagement in the case plan services.
{¶ 3} On August 29, 2016, Mother gave birth to R.D. Shortly after R.D.‘s birth, WCCS filed a complaint alleging she was a dependent child and requested the juvenile court to grant protective supervision to WCCS, which the juvenile court ordered after a hearing. R.D. remained in Mother‘s custody until October 2016, when WCCS discovered Mother had been in contact with Father in violation of the DVCPO. Due to the DVCPO violation, WCCS filed a motion for an emergency order of temporary custody, which the juvenile court granted. As a result, R.D. was placed in the temporary custody of WCCS and was placed in the foster home with Z.D. At that time, Mother‘s visitation with both Children
{¶ 4} On October 27, 2016, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing, during which time the parties stipulated to the dependency of R.D. Thereafter, Mother‘s visitation with the Children gradually increased until late September 2017, when she resumed unsupervised visitation. Due to the looming expiration of the time Z.D. could remain in temporary custody pursuant to Z.D.‘s adjudication on the October 2015 complaint, and to afford Mother additional time to progress with case plan services, WCCS filed a new complaint on October 11, 2017 alleging that Z.D. was a dependent child. Subsequently, Z.D. was adjudicated a dependent child upon this new complaint.
{¶ 5} Between Novembеr 2017 and April 2018, Mother‘s visitation with the Children fluctuated between being supervised and unsupervised. This fluctuation was due to Mother‘s inconsistent participation in case plan services, including testing positive for marijuana in November 2017 and February 2018. In April 2018, Mother resumed unsupervised visitation with the Children, which ultimately developed into an extended visit with Mother for several months.
{¶ 6} On July 27, 2018, Mother moved for legal custody of R.D and Z.D. On August 21, 2018, Father filed motions to amend the case plan and for visitation.
{¶ 7} On December 21, 2018, the Children‘s guardian ad litem (“GAL“) filed a motion for the emergency removal of the Children from their placement with Mother. The motion was filed after the GAL became aware that Mother tested positive for marijuana in November 2018. The juvenile court granted the GAL‘s motion, and the Children were removed from Mother‘s care and returned to the foster home.
{¶ 8} On January 7, 2019, the GAL moved for legal custody of the Children, and requested the juvenile court to place Z.D. and R.D. in the legal custody of the Foster
{¶ 9} The juvenile court held a two-day hearing before a magistrate regarding the parties’ motions. After hearing extensive testimony from Mother, Father, the Foster Parents, the GAL, and the WCCS caseworker assigned to the Children‘s case, the magistrate granted the GAL‘s motion for legal custody, denied Mother‘s motion for legal custody, and granted in part and denied in part Father‘s motion for visitation. Mother and Father filed objections to the magistrаte‘s decision. On May 20, 2019, the juvenile court issued a decision overruling Mother‘s and Father‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, thereby affirming and adopting the magistrate‘s decision in its entirety. Mother now appeals from the juvenile court‘s decision, raising one assignment of error for our review.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT‘S GRANT OF CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO NON-PARENTS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 12} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court‘s decision to grant legal custody of Z.D. and R.D. to the Foster Parents was not supported by a preponderance of thе evidence and not in the best interests of the Children.
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} Once a child has been adjudicated dependent, neglected or abused, a juvenile court “may award legal custody to a nonparent upon a demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that granting legal custody to the nonparent is in the child‘s best interest.” In re C.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-07-165, 2015-Ohio-1410, ¶ 13. In order to determine the best interest of a child,
{¶ 15} The juvenile court enjoys broad discretion in custody proceedings. In re E.L.C., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-177, 2015-Ohio-2220, ¶ 16. As a result, the standard of review in custody decisions is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion. C.D. v. D.L., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2006-09-037, 2007-Ohio-2559, ¶ 14. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court‘s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). The discretion that a trial court enjoys in custody matters 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 parties concerned. In re C.A., 2015-Ohio-1410 at ¶ 15. A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court when applying the abuse of discretion
{¶ 16} At the custody hearing, the juvenile court first heard testimony from Mother, who testified that she could adequately provide for the Children if she was awarded legal custody. Specifically, Mother indicated she maintains housing in Middletown that is adequate for her and Children and that she earns enough through her employment to provide necessities for them. Mother then described her relationship with her Children, and indicated she felt unbonded with R.D., but desired legal custody in order to establish a bond like she has with Z.D. With regard to Z.D., Mother indicated Z.D. has trouble expressing her emotions and engages in in-home therapy to assist with those issues. Mother stated Z.D. would have bursts of emotion when she was upset and would scream for periods of time. When Mother initially began visits with Z.D., the child would “throw things,” say inappropriate words, and would spit at, kick, and hit Mother. Mother responded by spanking Z.D., which resulted in a court order prohibiting Mother from using corporal punishment on the Children. Mother indicated she would continue some type of counseling services with Z.D. if she was awarded legal custody.
{¶ 17} With regard to the Foster Parents, Mother testified she wanted the Children to maintain their relationship with the Foster Parents. According to Mother, she did not want to “completely tear [the Children] away from [the Foster Parents], but she “would like to feel like a mother again.” Mother believed both R.D. and Z.D. werе comfortable with the Foster Parents and she would allow the Children to attend overnights with them if she was awarded custody.
{¶ 18} Mother also testified regarding her relationship with Father and indicated the DVCPO remained in effect at the time of the hearing and that she has no contact with
{¶ 19} Mother then testified regarding her marijuana use and stated she has used marijuana since at least 2011, and that she has continued to use marijuana throughout the course of this case. Despite her continued use, Mother testified the Children had never witnessed her smoking marijuana nor had they seen the drug. According to Mother, her level of use fluctuates with her “stress level” and “just kind of how [she‘s] feeling.” She admitted to using marijuana approximately two months before the custody hearing and further confirmed she was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia related to marijuana in 2012. Mother also indicated she had refused a drug screen during this case because it would have been positive for alcohol and admitted to driving after using marijuana.
{¶ 20} Despite engaging in drug and alcohol treatment, which was required by Mother‘s case plan, Mother was not concerned with her continued use of marijuana and alcohol. Rather, Mother testified she did not cоnsider her usage throughout the case as “abuse,” but an “aid” for her health ailments. Specifically, Mother suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn‘s Disease, carpal tunnel, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression, and she believes only marijuana can subdue her symptoms on a daily basis. Mother
{¶ 21} Mother described marijuana as “something that lets [her] breathe,” not something she “needs” or “can‘t live without.” However, Mother confirmed that she understood her Children were removed most recеntly due to her drug use and could not provide a reason why she had not stopped using marijuana. Mother further acknowledged that marijuana had prevented her from fulfilling her parenting duties but disagreed that her drug use had prevented her from properly caring for her Children.
{¶ 22} The juvenile court also heard from the Foster Parents. Foster mother A.H. testified that Z.D. had been in her care for approximately two years and six months, while R.D. had been in her care for two years and three months. The Fоster Parents confirmed they desired legal custody of the Children, and both agreed to facilitate visitation between the Children and Mother.
{¶ 23} The juvenile court then heard testimony from the GAL, who testified that he had been involved with the case since its inception. According to the GAL, the Children were recently in Mother‘s custody from October 2018 through December 2018 and he had no concerns with their care until the report of marijuana use. At that time, the GAL elected to file a motion for legal сustody of the Children to the Foster Parents, and testified the motion was based upon Mother‘s inconsistency in fulfilling case plan services. Specifically, he indicated Mother had failed to follow the recommendations after completing a drug and
{¶ 24} The GAL described his concerns with Mother‘s marijuana use, including his concern that Mother believes smoking marijuana is in her best interest and that Mother prioritizes her interests over what is best for the Children. As a result of those concerns, Mother‘s cоntact with the Children was restricted throughout the case. The GAL stated he had addressed his concerns with Mother and informed her that “the main hurdle to her getting her [C]hildren back was [her] marijuana use.” The GAL indicated he explained to Mother that if she could test clean for an extended period of time, the Children would “more than likely” be returned to her care. Regarding Mother‘s potential prescription for marijuana, the GAL testified he would remain concerned with Mother‘s marijuana use еven if she was prescribed marijuana. Specifically, he felt a prescription would not guarantee Mother could parent while under the influence of marijuana. The GAL also expressed concerns with Mother‘s ability to follow a prescription for marijuana and was very concerned with Mother‘s admission to driving after smoking the drug.
{¶ 25} The juvenile court also heard testimony regarding the GAL‘s concerns with Mother‘s ability to protect her Children. According to the GAL, Z.D. was initially removed from Mother‘s care because Mother failed to obtain a DVCPO against Father prior to the agency‘s involvement. The GAL was also concerned that, since obtaining the DVCPO, Mother had been in contact with Father on at least two occasions and the Children were present on one of those occasions. The GAL then indicated he was adamantly opposed to modifying the DVCPO to allow visitation with Father if the Children were placed in Mother‘s custody.
{¶ 26} The GAL further testified that he filed thе motion for legal custody because the Children had been in foster care for the majority of their lives and needed permanency,
{¶ 27} In concluding his testimony, the GAL stated it is in the best interests of the Children to be placed into the legal custody of the Foster Parents and that such a placement was the least restrictive option for these Children. Eventually, if Mother or Father could alleviate the concerns set forth by the agency, the GAL indicated the parents could receive additional contact with the Children or could petition the juvеnile court for custody at that time. However, at the time of the hearing the GAL believed that if Mother was granted legal custody, the parties “would be back [in court] sooner rather than later.”
{¶ 28} The WCCS caseworker assigned to the Children‘s case also testified. According to the caseworker, Mother needed to alleviate the agency‘s concerns identified in its dependency complaints before she could reunite with her Children. Those concerns were set forth in Mothеr‘s case plan and included ongoing domestic violence in the home between Mother and Father and Mother‘s trouble adhering to the terms of the DVCPO. In order to address WCCS‘s concerns, Mother was recommended to follow all court orders,
{¶ 29} The caseworker further testified that while the agency did not want to completely terminate Mother‘s rights in this case, the agency believed a placement with the Foster Parents would be in the best interests of Z.D. and R.D. The agency‘s assessment was that the Foster Parents’ home was stable and the Children were comfortable there. Although Mother had maintained stable housing throughout much of the case, the caseworker noted Mother has shown an inability to provide a stable living environment for the Children.
{¶ 30} At the conclusion of the evidence, the magistrate issued a decision granting legal custody to the Foster Parents. In doing so, the juvenile court summarized its holding as follows:
Mother has had over three years to achieve stability for herself and her children and she has failed to do so time and time again. Although it is apparent that Mother loves the girls, she appears unable to prioritize their needs and stability above her own desires. The [Foster Parents] have provided the girls with the love and stability that they so desperately need.
{¶ 31} Considering the testimony and evidence presented we find the record fully supports the juvenile court‘s decision finding it was in Z.D.‘s and R.D‘s best interest to be placed in the legal custody of the Foster Parents.
{¶ 33} With regard to Mother‘s relationship with Father, Mother argues the juvenile court improperly considered the parties’ prior relationship because the agency “had no concerns over Mother‘s contact with Father[.]” While the record reflects the agency did not have any recent concerns regarding Mother‘s contact with Father, the agency clearly had ongoing concerns with the partiеs’ contact throughout the case. Specifically, the agency originally became involved with Z.D. due to ongoing domestic violence between Mother and Father in the child‘s presence. It was only after WCCS removed Z.D. from Mother‘s care and urged Mother to obtain a DVCPO against Father that she did so. Mother‘s subsequent contact with Father in violation of the DVCPO was the reason WCCS removed R.D. from Mother‘s care. Moreover, the record indicates that, while the DVCPO was in effect, Mother allowed Father in her home while the Children were present and allowed Father in her vehicle. These violations resulted in the agency restricting Mother‘s parenting time on each occasion. Furthermore, despite the history of violence between the parties and Father‘s failure to engage in case plan services, Mother indicated she would be willing to amend the DVCPO to allow visitation between Father and the Children, a modification that was wholly unsupported by the GAL. In light оf the above, the record reflects Mother‘s relationship and contact with Father, although not a current agency concern, remained a troubling portent. As such, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in giving weight to the parties’ prior relationship, their history of inappropriate contact in violation of the DVCPO, and Mother‘s indifferent response to Father‘s abusive history.
{¶ 35} Furthermore, despite knowing she could not reunify with her Children if she continued using, Mother testified she believed using marijuana was in her best interest. She also elected to withhold informatiоn from WCCS relating to her claimed health concerns and failed to receive a medical marijuana card for which she allegedly qualifies. Mother also was convicted of possessing marijuana paraphernalia and admitted to driving under the influence of the drug. As such, the record reflects Mother‘s marijuana use has affected her ability to make sound decisions and to abide by the law, even when faced with the consequence of losing custody of her Children. As a result, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in considering Mother‘s consistent marijuana use throughout the case and its effect on the Children when determining what was in their best interests.
{¶ 36} Lastly, the juvenile court‘s legal custody determination properly considered the concerns of the Children. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates the
{¶ 37} Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it is in the best interests of the Children to grant legal custody to the Foster Parents. We further find that such a determination was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Mother‘s assignment of error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 38} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.