[Cite as In re A.M.A., 2013-Ohio-3779.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CRAWFORD COUNTY 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 A.M.A., CASE NO. 3-13-02 

ADJUDGED DEPENDENT CHILD. 

[HEATHER M. MARTIN – O P I N I O N 

 APPELLANT]. 

 

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court 

Juvenile Division 

Trial Court No. C2125114 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: September 3, 2013 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Brian N. Gernert for Appellant 

Michael J. Wiener for Appellee, Crawford County Dept. of 

 Job & Family Services 

 

Geoffrey L. Stoll , Guardian Ad Litem 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-2- 

SHAW, J. 

{¶1} Mother-appellant, Heather M. Martin (“Heather”), appeals the 

December 13, 2012 judgment of the Crawford County Juvenile Court granting the 

“Motion to Award Legal Custody and Close Case” filed by the Guardian AdLitem (“GAL”) assigned to the case. As a result of the trial court’s ruling, 

Heather’s parents (the “Martins”) were awarded legal custody of Heather’s child, 

A.M.A., and the child welfare case with the Crawford County Department of Job 

and Family Services (the “Agency”) was closed. 

{¶2} On June 18, 2012, Heather gave birth to A.M.A. On June 27, 2012, 

the Agency filed a Motion for Ex Parte Orders and Shelter Care Hearing, 

requesting the trial court grant the Agency emergency temporary custody of 

A.M.A. In support of the motion, the Agency attached a letter, dated June 27, 

2012, that it received from A.M.A.’s Pediatrician, Dr. Howard Eckstein. In this 

letter, Dr. Eckstein explained that he had recently seen A.M.A. during an office 

visit and felt that she was “at a high risk for neglect.” (Doc. No. 1). Dr. Eckstein 

specifically stated that A.M.A. had lost weight since her discharge from the 

hospital and when he asked Heather to bring the child back in two days to check 

her weight, she refused. Dr. Eckstein described in the letter Heather’s erratic and 

irrational behavior during the office visit and on the phone after the visit. He also 

indicated in the letter that Heather had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-3- 

was not being treated. Dr. Eckstein closed the letter by expressing concern for 

A.M.A.’s “well-being, safety, and nutritional status.” (Id.). 

{¶3} The Agency also attached the affidavit of one of its caseworkers, 

Brandi Gandert, who stated that she had a telephone conversation with Dr. 

Eckstein on June 27, 2012, in which he articulated his concerns for A.M.A.’s wellbeing. In addition, the Agency filed a complaint alleging one-week-old A.M.A to 

be a neglected child pursuant to R.C. 2151.03(A)(2). 

{¶4} The record also indicates that A.M.A.’s older sibling was removed 

from Heather’s care and placed with the Martins due to concerns that Heather was 

unable to provide for the child’s basic needs. 

{¶5} The trial court granted the Agency emergency temporary custody of 

A.M.A. and appointed a GAL to the case. 

{¶6} On June 28, 2012, a shelter care hearing was held. In its July 3, 2012 

Judgment Entry, the trial court stated that “the Court was informed that all the 

parties present concurred and stipulated that probable cause does exist to believe 

that the child was in a neglected condition, and that removal from the mother’s 

home was necessary and appropriate to protect the child from immediate harm 

from the condition of the surroundings, to provide adequate care for the child, and 

to protect the best interest and welfare of the child.” (Doc. No. 14). The trial court 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-4- 

subsequently awarded the Agency temporary custody of A.M.A. and Heather was 

afforded reasonable visitation. 

{¶7} On July 16, 2012, the trial court held an adjudication hearing where 

Heather admitted to the allegations of neglect contained in the complaint, 

stipulated that sufficient evidence existed for an adjudication of neglect, and 

consented to the adjudication of A.M.A. as a neglected child. 

{¶8} On July 27, 2012, Heather, pro se, filed a “Motion for a More Definite 

Statement (Bill of Particulars),” claiming that she did not understand the 

allegations of neglect in the complaint and requesting “a more definite statement 

(bill of particulars) than what was offered in the complaint.” (Doc. No. 19). 

{¶9} On the same day, Heather’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw from her representation, claiming that Heather has been filing her own 

pleadings without consulting him and asserting that a “total breakdown in 

communication and cooperation has occurred between undersigned counsel and 

Heather M. Martin deteriorating the attorney-client relationship.” (Doc. No. 20). 

The trial court subsequently appointed different counsel to represent Heather. 

{¶10} On August 7, 2012, the Agency filed a motion requesting the trial 

court grant legal custody of A.M.A. to her maternal grandparents, Todd and 

Cheryl Martin (the “Martins”) as a dispositional order. The record indicates that 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-5- 

the Agency filed this motion because Heather was unwilling to cooperate with the 

Agency’s attempt to obtain a psychological evaluation of her. 

{¶11} In a judgment entry dated August 15, 2012, the trial court addressed 

the concerns presented by Heather in her pro se motion. Specifically, the trial 

court stated that Heather’s newly appointed “legal counsel had sufficient 

knowledge of the particulars of the evidence supporting the allegations of the 

Complaint so that he was able to successfully negotiate an amendment from 

neglect to dependency. It is the determination of the court that a ‘more definite 

statement’ after the conclusion of the adjudication would be redundant and 

surplusage and serves no useful purpose.” (Doc. No. 25). 

{¶12} On August 15, 2012, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and 

journalized its findings from the hearing in its August 17, 2012 Judgment Entry. 

In this judgment entry, the court indicated that at the hearing the Agency orally 

withdrew its motion for legal custody based upon Heather’s representations that 

she intended to cooperate with the completion of a parenting evaluation and a 

psychological evaluation, and sign all appropriate releases for information relating 

to the evaluations. The trial court still determined that it would not be in A.M.A.’s 

best interest to return her to Heather, and instead ordered the Martins to have 

temporary custody of A.M.A. with the Agency having protective supervision. The 

trial court specified that its orders were to be in effect until June 17, 2013 unless 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-6- 

extended or modified. Heather was given reasonable supervised visitation with 

A.M.A. which could be increased or decreased by the Agency depending upon 

Heather’s progress with the case plan. The trial court specifically ordered Heather 

to complete a parenting evaluation and a psychological evaluation and to sign all 

necessary releases. 

{¶13} The record indicates that Heather signed the case plan on September 

5, 2012, which the trial court subsequently approved. The case plan identified the 

primary concern with Heather was that she had been diagnosed with 

Schizoaffective Disorder and Bi-Polar Disorder and was not receiving treatment. 

{¶14} The case plan listed several objectives for Heather to meet, which 

also addressed the Agency’s concern with Heather’s mental health. In particular, 

Heather was expected to cooperate with and complete a full psychological 

evaluation which included a parental component. Heather was expected to follow 

all the recommendations from the evaluation. Heather was also expected to take 

medications as prescribed and to notify the Agency of any newly prescribed 

medications or changes in her medication. Finally, Heather was expected to sign 

all necessary releases pertaining to case plan goals. The case plan also specified 

that Heather’s progress would be measured in the following ways: announced and 

unannounced visits; her cooperation with the Agency; obtaining the completed 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-7- 

assessment and following all recommendations; and reports from the Agency 

working with Heather. 

{¶15} On September 6, 2012, Heather, in compliance with the case plan, 

submitted to a psychological and parental evaluation conducted by Dr. David 

Tennenbaum. 

{¶16} On September 12, 2012, the GAL filed a “Motion to Award Legal 

Custody and Close Case.” As the basis for his motion the GAL highlighted 

several of Dr. Tennenbaum’s findings in his psychological assessment of Heather, 

in which Dr. Tennenbaum ultimately concluded that due to her troubled 

psychiatric history, including multiple psychotic episodes, and her unwillingness 

to be accountable for her diagnosed psychiatric disorders, “Heather cannot be 

viewed as capable of protecting any small child[.]” (Tennebaum Report at 8). 

The GAL argued in his motion that, based on Dr. Tennenbaum’s assessment, 

Heather “has virtually no chance of making any type of meaningful recovery 

within the time parameters set forth by statute for the [Agency] to effectuate 

reunification.” (Doc. No. 35). Accordingly, the GAL requested the trial court 

award legal custody of A.M.A. to the Martins. 

{¶17} On October 22, 2012, the trial court held a hearing where the Agency 

indicated that it was unable to find local service providers to meet the treatment 

recommendations enumerated in Dr. Tennenbaum’s report. The trial court granted 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-8- 

a continuance to allow Heather’s counsel more time to attempt to find appropriate 

local services to meet those treatment recommendations. 

{¶18} On November 26, 2012, the Agency received notice that Heather’s 

releases for treatment information had been revoked. 

{¶19} On December 5, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the GAL’s 

motion to modify the disposition in the case. The GAL presented the testimony of 

Brandy Gandert, the Agency’s caseworker assigned to the case. 

{¶20} Brandy testified to Heather’s lack of cooperation with the Agency 

and other social service providers. Specifically, Brandy explained that Heather 

had revoked releases for her medical information that she previously signed in 

compliance with the case plan. Brandy explained that since Heather revoked the 

releases the Agency cannot assess her progress with meeting the objectives in the 

case plan. Brandy also testified that she attempted to conduct an unannounced 

home visit of Heather’s residence, which is a component of the case plan. 

However, Heather would not allow Brandy into the home without her attorney 

present. Brandy explained that this complicated the Agency’s typical protocol in 

conducting home visits, because both announced and unannounced visits are 

intended to give the Agency a more accurate assessment of the home conditions. 

{¶21} Brandy also testified that A.M.A. was doing very well in the 

Martins’ home. Brandy acknowledged that Heather regularly and consistently 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-9- 

exercised her visitation with A.M.A. However, Brandy testified that she believed 

that without Heather’s cooperation there was nothing more the Agency could do 

for Heather in helping her progress with the case plan. Accordingly, Brandy 

recommended closing the Agency’s case and stated that it is in A.M.A.’s best 

interest to grant legal custody to the Martins. Brandy explained that Heather could 

still have visitation with A.M.A. but she would need to arrange that with the 

Martins and the Agency would no longer have any oversight. 

{¶22} In addition to Brandy’s testimony, the GAL admitted Dr. 

Tennenbaum’s psychological evaluation of Heather as an exhibit. 

{¶23} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that the 

evidence supported a finding that Heather’s lack of cooperation had obstructed the 

Agency’s ability to facilitate her reunification with A.M.A. The trial court further 

stated that “until such time as there would be meaningful cooperation, the court 

must find that there [are] no further useful or beneficial services [that can be 

provided by the Agency], and, therefore, the Court does find that the motion is 

well taken[.]” (Tr. at 27-28). The trial court subsequently ordered the disposition 

to be modified from temporary custody to legal custody of A.M.A. to the Martins 

“until such time as either parent can demonstrate to the Court that they are able to 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-10- 

resume the responsibilities and duties of parenting this child such that a 

modification of the Order would be appropriate.”1

 (JE, Dec. 5, 2011 at 2-3). 

{¶24} Heather now appeals, asserting the following assignment of error. 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING 

CRAWFORD COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES 

MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE 

CONTINUED REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE 

CHILD’S HOME AND TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE 

CHILD TO RETURN SAFELY HOME AS REQUIRED BY 

OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2151.419(A)(1) 

{¶25} In her sole assignment of error, Heather claims that the trial court 

erred in determining that the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the 

continued removal of A.M.A. from her home pursuant to R.C. 2151.419. 

{¶26} At the outset, we note that an award of legal custody does not 

permanently deprive Heather of her parental rights, and parents whose children are 

in the legal custody of an agency or other person may petition the court for 

modification of the custody award. In re M.D. 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP–954, 

2008–Ohio–4259, ¶ 16. See also R.C. 2151.353(E)(2). The juvenile court may 

award legal custody of a child to a non-parent where a preponderance of the 

evidence supports the conclusion that such an award is in the best interest of the 

child. In re N.F., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP–1038, 2009–Ohio–2986, ¶ 9. 

This contrasts with an award of permanent custody, which must be supported by 

 

1

 We note that, during the course of the proceedings, A.M.A.’s father was identified and legally determined 

to be her biological father. However, he did not actively participate in the trial court proceedings, despite 

being properly served with notice. 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-11- 

clear and convincing evidence. Id. (stating that an award of “legal custody where 

parental rights are not terminated is not as drastic a remedy as permanent 

custody.”). Further, “preponderance of the evidence” means evidence that is more 

probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value. Id. 

{¶27} Determining an appropriate disposition is left to the sound discretion 

of the court. In re M.D., 2008–Ohio–4259 at ¶ 21. The court “must also consider 

which situation will best promote the care, protection, and mental and physical 

development of the child with the understanding that the court should separate a 

child from his family environment only when necessary for the child’s welfare or 

in the interest of public safety.” In re T.P., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2012–02–

004, 2012–Ohio–4614, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2151.01(A). 

{¶28} Accordingly, this Court may not reverse a juvenile court’s choice of 

dispositional alternatives in the absence of a finding that the court abused its 

discretion, i.e., acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably. In re M.D. at ¶ 

22. We reverse its choice of disposition only where a juvenile court’s decision 

regarding a child’s best interest is not supported by competent, credible evidence 

and is unreasonable. 

{¶29} As previously discussed, the Revised Code imposes a duty on the 

part of children services agencies to make reasonable efforts to reunite parents 

with their children where the agency has removed the children from the home. 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-12- 

R.C. 2151.419; see, also, In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337, 344 (3d Dist. 1994). 

Further, the agency bears the burden of showing that it made reasonable efforts. 

R.C. 2151.419(A)(1). “Case plans are the tools that child protective service 

agencies use to facilitate the reunification of families who * * * have been 

temporarily separated.” In re Evans, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1–01–75, 2001–Ohio–

2302. To that end, case plans establish individualized concerns and goals, along 

with the steps that the parties and the agency can take to achieve reunification. Id. 

Agencies have an affirmative duty to diligently pursue efforts to achieve the goals 

in the case plan. Id. “Nevertheless, the issue is not whether there was anything 

more that [the agency] could have done, but whether the [agency’s] case planning 

and efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of this case.” In 

re Leveck, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5–02–52, 5–02–53, 5–02–54, 2003–Ohio–1269, 

¶ 10. We also note that the statute provides that in determining whether 

reasonable efforts were made, the child’s health and safety is paramount. See R.C. 

2151.419(A)(1) 

{¶30} In this case, the record demonstrates that Heather has a significant 

history of ongoing and chronic mental illness, which has often been left untreated 

due to her refusal to admit that she suffers from a mental illness. The record 

suggests that Heather’s struggle with mental illness has in the past interfered with 

her ability to parent, which resulted in A.M.A.’s older sibling being removed from 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-13- 

Heather’s care and placed with the Martins. The record also reflects that there is a 

real concern that Heather is unable to provide for the basic needs of a small child. 

Specifically, based on his assessment of Heather, Dr. Tennenbaum concluded the 

following regarding her current ability to raise a young child. 

Further, diagnostically, as has been noted historically, Heather’s 

paranoid thinking will further compromise interpersonal 

relationships, particularly as this interfaces with the ability to 

safely and effectively raise any children. * * * While Heather 

works to present herself effectively, concerns are multi-layered 

as case planning considers reunification. She not only discounts, 

but seems to ignore her own history; she projects blame and 

takes no accountability, at least from what she shares with me, 

in having contributed to concerns that have been documented 

since mid-childhood. At times that she has been frankly 

psychotic, as has been documented repeatedly, Heather cannot 

be viewed as capable of protecting any small child, her history of 

behavioral acting-out, and lashing-out further compromising 

prognosis. Her condition appears chronically problematic. The 

effort must be toward providing parenting classes, and 

supportive but insight-seeking counseling, as this interfaces with 

psychiatric follow-up. 

(GAL Ex. A at 7-8). 

{¶31} Thus, given Heather’s extensive and ongoing psychological history, 

the Agency’s ability to monitor Heather’s progress with her psychiatric treatment 

is critical. The record demonstrates that Heather has obstructed the Agency’s 

ability to monitor her progress by revoking the releases to allow the Agency to 

obtain information from her service providers and refusing to participate in 

unannounced home visits. Both of these are case plan objectives that were put in 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-14- 

place by the Agency to allow Heather the opportunity to demonstrate that she is 

capable of providing for A.M.A.’s basic needs and that her mental health issues no 

longer pose a danger to A.M.A.’s well-being. It is apparent from the record that 

the Agency is limited in what it can do to assist Heather in working towards 

reunification with A.M.A. without her cooperation. However, as previously 

discussed, due to the impermanent nature of the legal custody disposition, Heather 

is not foreclosed from petitioning the court for a modification of the custody 

award. Moreover, if Heather chooses to take the appropriate steps to demonstrate 

that she is capable of providing for A.M.A’s basic needs she will increase the 

chances that her petition is successful. 

{¶32} We also note that the record supports the trial court’s finding that it is 

in A.M.A.’s best interest to grant legal custody to the Martins until Heather 

chooses to take steps to demonstrate that she is capable of parenting A.M.A. 

Testimony at the motion hearing indicates that the Martins have provided a safe 

and stable home in which A.M.A. is thriving. 

{¶33} Based on the foregoing, we find that the Agency’s case planning and 

efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of this case. We also 

find that there is competent, credible evidence in the record to support the trial 

court’s determination that modification of the disposition from temporary custody 
Case No. 3-13-02 

-15- 

to legal custody of A.M.A. to the Martins is in A.M.A.’s best interest. Therefore, 

we find no error with the trial court’s ruling. 

{¶34} The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the 

Crawford County Juvenile Court is affirmed. 

 Judgment Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI and ROGERS, J.J., concur. 

/jlr