[Cite as In re M.A., 2021-Ohio-948.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

IN RE M.A., ET AL. : 

 : Nos. 109906 and 109907 

Minor Children : 

 : 

[Appeal by T.G., Sr., Father] : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 25, 2021 

 

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case Nos. AD-19907310 and AD-19907311 

 

Appearances: 

Michael Drain, for appellant. 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.: 

In this consolidated appeal, appellant, T.G., Sr., appeals the juvenile 

court’s decision terminating his parental rights regarding his minor children M.A. 

and T.G. As we find that the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights was 

based on sufficient evidence, the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS 

 T.G., Sr., has two children with R.G.: M.A. and T.G. In June 2018, the 

appellee Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”) 

took custody of R.G.’s six children. As to this appeal, CCDCFS refiled a complaint in 

June 2019. The complaint included allegations of domestic violence, criminal 

activity, and substance abuse by T.G., Sr. On June 11, 2019, the juvenile court 

ordered temporary custody of the minors M.A. and T.G. to CCDCFS. On October 22, 

2019, after a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found the minor children to be 

dependent and that the allegations of the complaint were proven by clear and 

convincing evidence. 

 On March 3, 2020, the juvenile court held a hearing on permanent 

custody. Neither T.G., Sr., or R.G. appeared for the hearing. The juvenile court 

noted that there was an arrest warrant for T.G., Sr. Prior to the hearing, the court 

adopted the testimony and findings of the October 2019 proceeding without 

objection. Testifying at the hearing were CCDCFS social worker Carley Robertson 

and the court-appointed guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Pamela Hawkins. 

 Carley Robertson testified as to the history of the case, the reunification 

plan, and to both T.G., Sr.’s participation in visitation and completion of the plan. 

She stated that T.G., Sr., had minimal involvement in the plan. She outlined that as 

part of the plan, T.G., Sr., was referred to a drug treatment plan and a domestic 

violence plan. He did not provide any documentation regarding participation or 

completion of the plans, telling Robertson only that he completed probation and 
provided a generic certificate of completion. After September 2019, Robertson was 

unable to contact T.G., Sr., and he made no effort to contact her. As to visitation, 

Robertson testified that T.G., Sr.’s visitation with the children was suspended in 

August 2019, for inappropriate behavior, specifically chaotic behavior, to include 

calling the children names and play fighting. Robertson noted that as to the current 

foster placement of M.A. and T.G., they were adjusting well and their specific needs 

were being met. They were placed in different homes, but were able to socialize. 

Robertson testified that she investigated two potential relatives of T.G., Sr., for 

placement of the children, but they were not suitable. 

 GAL Hawkins submitted a report to the court and testified. Her report 

provided the court with a detailed family history, recorded T.G., Sr.’s failure to 

address the issues leading to removal of the children, and recommended permanent 

custody be granted to CCDCFS. Her recommendation was supported in part by T.G., 

Sr.’s failure to engage in the services he was referred to or to address the issues that 

led to the intervention of CCDCFS. She told the court that M.A. voiced her 

unwillingness to be placed with her parents. GAL Hawkins testified that the parents 

displayed a lack of commitment to correct the problems that led to removal. She 

recommended that the juvenile court grant CCDCFS permanent custody. 

At the conclusion of the hearings, the juvenile court terminated T.G., 

Sr.’s parental rights, placed M.A. and T.G. in the permanent custody of CCDCFS, 

and specifically found that the children “cannot be placed with the mother or the 

father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the mother or father.” 
Further, the juvenile court determined that the grant of permanent custody was in 

the best interest of the children. 

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 

Appellant raises one assignment of error, which reads, “There was not 

a sufficiency of the evidence for the trial court to find that an order of permanent 

custody was called for.” In this case, the trial court granted permanent custody to 

CCDCFS. In order for a court to grant permanent custody, the court must find by 

clear and convincing evidence that “(1) one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d) applies, and (2) an award of permanent custody is in the best 

interest of the child.” In re J.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108564, 2019-Ohio-4984, 

¶ 29. “These findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. ‘Clear 

and convincing evidence’ is that quantum of evidence that instills in the trier of fact 

a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.” In re T.S.,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109957, 2021-Ohio-214, ¶ 23, quoting In re Y.V., 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 96061, 2011-Ohio-2409, ¶ 13. If the grant of permanent custody is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence, we will not reverse that judgment. In 

re J.J., 2019-Ohio-4984, ¶ 30. 

The juvenile court granted permanent custody in this case where it 

found such custody was in in the best interests of the children, that the children 

cannot be placed with either of the children’s parents within a reasonable time or 

should not be placed with the children’s parents, and the children had been in 

temporary custody for 12 or more months in a 22-month period. The record in this 
case reflects that the children had been in the custody of CCDCFS for over 12 

months. 

The juvenile court made a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) in 

determining that the children could not be placed with the mother or father. 

Evidence in the GAL report and the testimony from Ms. Robertson demonstrated 

that neither appellant nor the children’s mother failed to address nor remedy the 

conditions that led to the CCDCFS involvement. Ms. Robertson’s testimony also 

indicated problems with appellant’s visitation, his lack of completing case services, 

as well as his lack of communication with CCDCFS. Additionally, appellant failed to 

appear at hearings. 

The trial court further found under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) that appellant 

demonstrated a lack of commitment where he failed to regularly visit, support, or 

communicate with his children and showed an unwillingness to provide an adequate 

permanent home. This finding is supported by the testimony that appellant had not 

visited with his children since August 2019, that he failed to engage in the 

reunification plan, his lack of contact with CCDCFS since September 2019, and his 

failure to appear at the hearing. The trial court also made an explicit finding under 

R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) that the children were abandoned by each of their parents. The 

evidence supported this finding where R.C. 2151.011(C) provides that “a child shall 

be presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or 

maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the 

parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.” Testimony 
supported this finding where appellant had not visited the children from August 

2019 to March 2020. 

In making the finding that permanent custody is in the best interests 

of the children in this case, the juvenile court was required to consider all relevant 

factors, to include those listed in R.C. 2151.414(D), which provides that: 

D) (1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held 

pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division 

(A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of 

the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to, the following: 

(a) The 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; 

(b) The 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; 

(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has 

been in the temporary 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, or the 

child has been in the temporary 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, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the 

Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of 

an equivalent agency in another state; 

(d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and 

whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of 

permanent custody to the agency; 

(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section 

apply in relation to the parents and child. 
For the purposes of division (D)(1) of this section, a child shall be 

considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on 

the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 

2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the 

removal of the child from home. 

There was evidence at the hearing under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a), that 

the children had not seen their parents for months, that visits were chaotic, and that 

the children were doing well in their current placements. Under R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(b), the GAL testified that M.A. was opposed to having contact with 

her family and further indicated in her report that the child had also made this 

sentiment known to her CCDCFS worker, therapist, and foster parents. Under R.C. 

2151.414(D)(1)(c), the record indicates that the children had been in CCDCFS 

custody from June 2018, a period of more than 12 months in the 22 months prior to 

the hearing. Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), the court determined that the children 

could not be placed with the parents within a reasonable amount of time and further, 

testimony at the hearing provided no relatives had been found suitable for 

placement. Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), the juvenile court specifically made a 

finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10). Accordingly, we find that 

competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings in this case. 

See In re J.J., 2019-Ohio-4984, ¶ 30. As such, we will not reverse the judgment of 

the juvenile court and overrule appellant’s sole assignment of error. 
III. CONCLUSION 

The juvenile court awarded permanent custody of M.A. and T.G. to 

CCDCFS. That judgment was supported by competent, credible evidence. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the juvenile court is 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. 

 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR 
KEYWORDS – 109906/109907 – In re M.A.

R.C. 2151.414(B), permanent custody, sufficiency of evidence. 

The trial court’s grant of permanent custody of appellant’s minor children to the 

Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS) was proper 

where the court found that the children had been in the custody of CCDCFS for 12 

months in a 22-month period, the grant of permanent custody was in the best 

interests of the children, and the children could not be placed with appellant or 

their mother within a reasonable time. These findings were properly based on 

competent, credible evidence that the parents had not completed any of the 

reunification plans or services.