[Cite as In re A.B. , 2020-Ohio-3990.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

In re A.B., J.B., E.L. Court of Appeals No. L-19-1300

Trial Court No. JC 17263603

DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: August 7, 2020

* * * * * Christopher S. Clark, for appellant. Bradley W. King, for appellee.

* * * * * SINGER, J.

I. Introduction {¶ 1} Appellant, S.S., appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying her motion to reunify with her children, A.B. and J.B., and granting appellee’s, Lucas County Children Servic es (“LCCS”), motion to change disposition from temporary custody to legal custody.2. A. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} LCCS received a referral on June 22, 2017, alleging that appell ant was physically abusive towards A.B. and J.B. Appellant’s abusive b ehavior toward J.B. included striking him to the floor causing him to hit his face and choking him. Further, appellant hit A.B. so hard that it left a mark on A.B.’s back. {¶ 3} Upon receipt of the foregoing referral, LCCS launched an invest igation. LCCS questioned appellant, who informed LCCS that she was suffe ring from untreated mental health issues, including bipolar disorder. Appellant al so admitted that she had hit

J.B. {¶ 4} Thereafter, on June 23, 2017, appellant agreed to a safety plan by which she

would vacate the famil y home and A.B. and J.B. w ould be placed with a maternal aunt. Pursuant to the plan, appellant’s daughter, E.L., remained with her father, Er.L. Over the course of the following two weeks, maternal aunt informed LCCS that she was unable to maintain placement of A.B. and J.B., prompting LCCS to file a c omplaint in dependency, neglect, and abuse on July 11, 2017. {¶ 5} At a shelter care hearing held after LCCS filed its complaint, the court determined that appellant suffered from mental health issues th at were left untreated, and further concluded that appellant physically abused A.B. and J.B . Thereafter, the matter proceeded through discovery. {¶ 6} On August 21, 2017, an adjudication and disposition hearing was held, at which the court determined that A.B. and E.L. were dependent an d J.B. was abused.3. Consequently, the court awarded custody of E.L. to Er.L. 1 Temporary custody of A.B. and J.B. was awarded to LCCS, and the children were placed into the home of Er.L. along with E.L. {¶ 7} During the pendency of this case, the juvenile court noted that LCCS offered reasonable case plan services to appellant, including a dual di agnostic assessment, mental health services, parenting education, and direction to maintain stable housing and income. On April 4, 2019, appellant filed a “motion for reunification,” in which she sought an award of legal custody of A.B. and J.B. based upon the fact tha t she “successfully completed her case plan, the last issue being appropriate housi ng.” {¶ 8} Four days after appellant filed her motion, LCCS filed its moti on for legal custody of A.B. and J.B. Although LCCS acknowledged that appel lant completed her case plan services, LCCS had serious concerns as to appellant’s housing situation, her relationship with others, and her difficulty caring for her chi ldren during her visits with them. LCCS had learned that appellant obtained her housing by falsely claiming that she had custody of A.B. and J.B. Further, LCCS learned that appell ant’s father and appellant’s boyfriend were involved in a physical altercation a t her home, which resulted in the filing of criminal charges. Moreover, appellant’s most recent boyfriend, who had a history of violence and substance abuse, was found to have phys ically disciplined the children during appellant’s visits.

1 Appellant does not challenge the court’s award of custody of E .L. to Er.L.4. {¶ 9} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate on June 1 3, 2019. A transcript of the hearing is not contained in the record before us. One week later, the magistrate granted LCCS’s motion and denied appellant’s motion. On June 27, 2019, appellant filed her objections to the magistrate’s decision, ar guing that the award of legal custody of A.B. and J.B. to LCCS was not supported by a prepond erance of the evidence in light of the evidence that appellant completed her case plan services. Appellant filed a supplement to her objections on October 9, 2019, prompting a re sponse from LCCS that was filed on October 18, 2019. {¶ 10} On December 2, 2019, the juvenile court issued its judgment ent ry denying appellant’s objections and affirming the decision of the magist rate. In its decision, the court found that the magistrate’s findings were sufficient to m ake a best interest determination under R.C. 3109.04(F), and further concluded that the magistrate “properly considered the evidence before her at the time of the hearing a nd followed the law accordingly.” {¶ 11} Appellant’s timely notice of appeal followed. B. Assignment of Error {¶ 12} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignment of error for our

review: I. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the appell antmother’s motion for reunification, as a preponderance of the ev idence does5. not demonstrate that awarding legal custody to the stepfather i s in the best

interest of the children. II. Analysis {¶ 13} In appellant’s assignment of error, she contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for reunification, which sought an award of legal custody of A.B. and

J.B. {¶ 14} We review legal custody determinations for an abuse of discreti on. Blausey v. Blausey , 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-18-039, 2019-Ohio-4506, ¶ 13, citing Miller

v. Miller , 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). An abuse of dis cretion implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore

v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶ 15} Under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), a juvenile court is permitted to awa rd legal custody of any child to any person who files a motion seeking l egal custody. “In order to grant legal custody of a dependent child to a nonparent, the tr ial court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence that legal custody is in the chil d’s best interest.” In re

Am.H. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1025, 2019-Ohio-4374, ¶ 36, citing In re Christopher

M. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1063, 2007-Ohio-1040, ¶ 12. {¶ 16} In its decision affirming the magistrate’s grant of legal custo dy of A.B. and J.B. to LCCS, the trial court relied upon the best interest fac tors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). Due to appellant’s failure to request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the magistrate or provide this court with a transcript of the hearing that was held6. on her motion for reunification and LCCS’s motion for legal cus tody, we are left to speculate as to whether either the magistrate or the juvenile c ourt properly applied the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors in this case. {¶ 17} We have carefully reviewed the limited record provided in this case. From our review, it is clear that, notwithstanding appellant’s compl etion of her case plan services, serious concerns persist regarding appellant’s mental health issues and her ability to provide a safe and stable home for A.B. and J.B. Fo r this reason, and because we must presume the regularity of the proceedings with no trans cript to review,

Gozdowski v. Gozdowski , 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-16-017, 2017-Ohio-990, ¶ 18, we cannot say the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in granting legal custody of A.B. and J.B. to LCCS and denying appellant’s motion for reunification. {¶ 18} Accordingly, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error not w ell-taken.

III. Conclusion {¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Cou rt of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellant is ord ered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.7. In re A.B. C .A. No. L-19-1300

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ______________________

_________ JUDGE Arlene Singer, J.

_______________________________ Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.