Court Opinion

ID: 9943197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 20:09:05.955673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:29.591672
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re D.M.B.-M., 2024-Ohio-675.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                     LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: D.M.B-M.                  :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
  and                                       :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                            :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
IN THE MATTER OF: D.L.B-M.                  :
                                            :
                                            :       Case Nos. 2023 CA 00080
                                            :                 2023 CA 00081
                                            :
                                            :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Licking County
                                                    Court of Common Pleas, Probate
                                                    Division, Case Nos. 2022-5073 and
                                                    2022-5074

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   February 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant M.B.                        For Defendant-Appellees T.M. & M.M.

JERMAINE L. COLQUITT                                W. SCOTT HAYES
33 W. Main St. Suite 109                            195 E. Broad Street
Newark, Ohio 43055                                  Pataskala, Ohio 43062

ALLISON MACLEOD-OWEN
Guardian ad Litem
110 E. Elm Street Suite B
Granville, Ohio 43023
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                 2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The appellant appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common

Pleas, Probate Division, which granted the appellees’ petition for adoption of the

appellant’s minor children, D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M.

                     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   The appellant is the biological mother of minor children D.M.B-M. and

D.L.B-M., who were removed from her care in 2014. Initially they lived with their maternal

grandmother, M.T. The appellant has four other children, who are not the subject of this

case, who were also living with MT. Six children were too much for M.T., and D.M.B-M.

and D.L.B-M were subsequently placed with the appellees. This appeal deals only with

D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M (hereinafter “the children”.)

       {¶3}   The appellees were awarded legal custody of the children on December 1,

2015, and the children have been in their custody and care since that time. On July 18,

2022, the appellees filed a petition for adoption of the children.

       {¶4}   Prior to the appellees’ petition for adoption, the children regularly visited

M.T. and their siblings. However, after the petition was filed M.T. and the children’s

siblings began to be cruel to the children and harass the appellees. M.T. threatened to

continue her harassment of the appellees until they withdrew the petition. A Guardian ad

Litem (“GAL”) was appointed for the children.

       {¶5}   The GAL determined that despite M.T.’s harassment, the appellees

provided a stable, consistent, and loving presence for the children. The children were

enrolled in school and learning well, and were involved in extracurricular activities. In

addition, the appellees kept up with the children’s medical and therapy appointments.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                   3

       {¶6}   The GAL determined further that the children were comfortable and happy

in the appellees’ home. The children had bonded with appellees, and had communicated

to the GAL that they were excited to be adopted by the appellees. The GAL opined that

adoption was the natural progression towards providing stability in the children’s lives.

       {¶7}   The appellees have raised the children for most of their lives. The children

have medical conditions, and the appellees keep up with their appointments and manage

their health care. Their overall health is described as good.

       {¶8}   The appellant struggles with addiction from the use of illicit drugs.

       {¶9}   Appellee T.M. pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct arising from

an incident in which, while at the police station to be fingerprinted in connection with his

petition for adoption, he took D.M.B-M.’s face in his hand in order to make the child look

at him after he had asked D.M.B-M. to stop making noise in the lobby. The incident left a

small scratch on the child’s chin from T.M.’s fingernail. The children’s maternal

grandmother, M.T., called the police and alleged that T.M. choked the child, resulting in

domestic violence and assault charges. The GAL, who had been appointed at the

appellees’ request following the charges, investigated the allegations and advised the trial

court that she had no concerns that the children were in any danger from appellee T.M.

       {¶10} On February 9, 2023, the trial court conducted a full bifurcated evidentiary

hearing on the petition for adoption. The trial court heard testimony from the appellant,

the appellees, the children’s oldest biological sibling, the children’s grandmother M.T.,

and the GAL. In addition, the trial court conducted in camera interviews with the children.

Further, because D.M.B-M. was at the age at which his consent to the adoption was

required, the trial court briefly spoke with him on the record. D.M.B-M. told the court that
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                    4

he was excited about being adopted by the appellees, that his adoption by the appellees

was “something he would like to have happen,” and provided the trial court with his

consent.

       {¶11} The trial court considered the evidence presented, and granted the

appellees’ petition. The appellant appealed, and on July 25, 2023 this Court reversed and

remanded the matter to the trial court “to sufficiently indicate whether or not the trial court

considered all the factors in R.C. 3107.161(B) and explain their application to this case.”

In the Matter of D.M.B-M., 5th Dist. Licking Nos. 2023 CA 00014, 2023 CA 00015, 2023-

Ohio-2560, ¶21.

       {¶12} On October 31, 2023, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry in which it

discussed in detail how each factor set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) applied to this case, and

again granted the appellees’ petition for adoption.

       {¶13} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following sole

assignment of error:

       {¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND

THAT THE ADOPTION OF D.L.B. AND D.M.B. WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST

INTEREST BECAUSE THIS FINDING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE. R. at 80.”

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶15} A probate court's decision to grant or deny an adoption petition is reviewed

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In Re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319,

320, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or

judgment, it is a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. In re
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                      5

Adoption of A.L.S., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-09-146, 106 N.E.3d 69, 2018-Ohio-507,

¶ 16. “[T]he vast majority of cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted involve

claims that the decision is unreasonable.” Effective Shareholder Solutions v. Natl. City

Bank, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-080451 and Hamilton Nos. C-090117, 2009-Ohio-6200,

¶ 9. A decision is unreasonable where it is not supported by a sound reasoning process.

Id.

                                         ANALYSIS

        {¶16} The appellant does not dispute that her consent to the adoption was

unnecessary due to her failure to have de minimis contact with the children or provide

support for them for within the one year prior to the filing of the petition for adoption. Thus,

the only issue in the case sub judice is whether the trial court abused its discretion when

it found that the appellees’ adoption of the children was in their best interest. We find that

it did not.

        {¶17} This Court discussed best interest analysis in the context of adoption in the

case of In re Adoption of Kat. P., Fairfield Nos. 10CA16 and 10CA17, 2010-Ohio-3623,

stating:

              An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's decision on adoption

        unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Adoption of

        Masa (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 163, 492 N.E.2d 140. A judgment supported by

        some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed by a reviewing

        court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v.

        Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578. A

        reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                     6

       where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the

       judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610,

       614 N.E.2d 742, 1993–Ohio–9.

Id. at ¶ 8.

       {¶18} R.C. 3107.161 sets forth the factors a trial court must consider when making

a best interest determination in a contested adoption, and states:

       (A)    As used in this section, “the least detrimental available alternative”

       means the alternative that would have the least long-term negative impact

       on the child.

       (B)    When a court makes a determination in a contested adoption

       concerning the best interest of a child, the court shall consider all relevant

       factors including, but not limited to, all of the following:

       (1)    The least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the

       child's growth and development;

       (2)    The age and health of the child at the time the best interest

       determination is made and, if applicable, at the time the child was removed

       from the home;

       (3)    The wishes of the child in any case in which the child's age and

       maturity makes this feasible;

       (4)    The duration of the separation of the child from a parent;

       (5)    Whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and

       permanent family relationship, taking into account the conditions of the
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                    7

      child's current placement, the likelihood of future placements, and the

      results of prior placements;

      (6)    The likelihood of safe reunification with a parent within a reasonable

      period of time;

      (7)    The importance of providing permanency, stability, and continuity of

      relationships for the child;

      (8)    The child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents,

      siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best

      interest;

      (9)    The child's adjustment to the child's current home, school, and

      community;

      (10)   The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the

      situation;

      (11)   Whether any person involved in the situation has been convicted of,

      pleaded guilty to, or accused of any criminal offense involving any act that

      resulted in a child being abused or neglected; whether the person, in a case

      in which a child has been adjudicated to be an abused or neglected child,

      has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectful act

      that is the basis of the adjudication; whether the person has been convicted

      of, pleaded guilty to, or accused of a violation of section 2919.25 of the

      Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the

      offense was a member of the person's family or household; and whether

      the person has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or accused of any
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                     8

       offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense

       was a member of the person's family or household and caused physical

       harm to the victim in the commission of the offense.

       (C)    A person who contests an adoption has the burden of providing the

       court material evidence needed to determine what is in the best interest of

       the child and must establish that the child's current placement is not the

       least detrimental available alternative.

       {¶19} During the best interest portion of the February 9, 2023 hearing, the trial

court heard testimony from the appellant, the appellees, one of the children’s siblings, the

children’s grandmother M.T., and the GAL. In addition, the trial court questioned D.M.B-

M. on the record regarding his consent to the adoption, and conducted in camera

interview with both of the children. In rendering its October 31, 2023 decision, the trial

court considered the sworn testimony and exhibits entered into the record during the

February 9, 2023 hearing, the documentary evidence contained in its file, the substance

of the in camera interviews with the children, and the report and recommendation of the

GAL.

       {¶20} The trial court separately considered and applied each of the eleven factors

set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) to the facts of this case, and with regard to each found as

follows:

       R.C. 3107.161(B)(1). The trial court determined that the appellees were the

       least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the children’s growth

       and development, particularly in light of the actions of the birth family

       towards the children after the filing of the appellees’ petition. In addition, the
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                   9

      children told the GAL that they were very excited to be adopted by the

      appellees, the appellees provided safe and suitable housing for the children

      with adequate space, and the children were thriving in their current home

      with the appellees.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(2). The trial court determined that the age and health of

      the children at the time of the best interest determination, and at the time

      the children were removed from the home, supported granting the

      appellees’ petition for adoption. The children were first removed from their

      birth parents’ home when they were 4 and 2, had been in the appellees’

      care since they were 5 and 3, were 12 and 10 years old at the time of the

      hearing, and were thriving in the appellees’ home.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(3). The children made their wishes known to the trial

      court during its in camera interview with each of them, after which the trial

      court found that the age and maturity of the children was such that it could

      give their desire to be adopted by the appellees significant weight. Further,

      D.M.B-M was at the age at which his consent to the adoption was required,

      and his consent to the adoption was executed in the presence of the trial

      court.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(4). The trial court determined that the children had not

      been in the care of their birth parents since the ages of 4 and 2, had been

      separated from their birth parents for eight years prior to the trial court’s

      consideration of the July 18, 2022 petition for adoption, and had been

      placed with the appellees since 2015.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                     10

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(5). The trial court determined that the children had

      bonded with the appellees, and had been thriving with them since 2015,

      rendering further placement unlikely. In addition, prior placements with

      other birth relatives had been unsuccessful.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(6). The trial court determined that it was very unlikely that

      the children could be safely reunited with their birth parents at any time, let

      alone within a reasonable amount of time. Their birth father’s whereabouts

      were unknown and he had an extensive criminal record; and, the appellant

      testified that she was not in a position to care for the children.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(7). The trial court determined that providing the children

      with permanency and stability now, and ensuring continuation of the

      relationship developed with the appellees, was immensely important.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(8). The trial court noted that the children’s interaction and

      interrelationship with their parents, siblings, and grandmother had affected

      them negatively, and continued to cause them upset even at the time of the

      evidentiary hearing. In contrast, the children’s relationship with each other

      and with the appellees significantly impacted them in a positive manner.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(9). The trial court determined that the children had been

      placed in the appellees’ home for most of their lives, were enrolled in school,

      and participated in extra-curricular activities. The appellees’ home was

      located in a friendly and safe community, and provided the children with a

      sense of belonging.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                   11

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(10). The trial court determined that the mental and

      physical health of all persons involved supported the appellees’ adoption of

      the children. The appellant has a history of struggling with substance use

      disorder. The birth father’s mental and physical health was unknown.

      Neither of the appellees suffer from a mental or physical health condition

      that prevent them from providing care for the children long term. D.L.B-M.

      has an IEP at school and was being tested for dyslexia and other learning

      disabilities, was being treated for migraines, and has a birth defect related

      to her heart that was being monitored by doctors. D.M.B-M. was receiving

      counseling due to the upset caused by the children’s birth family. The

      children were otherwise healthy and were receiving appropriate medical

      care while in the appellees’ care.

      R.C. 3107.161(B)(11). Finally, the trial court determined that while appellee

      T.M. had been charged with domestic violence and assault, and pleaded

      guilty to disorderly conduct in connection with an interaction he had with

      D.M.B-M., the videotaped evidence, the witnesses - including D.M.B-M.

      himself, and the GAL all confirmed that the incident was isolated and

      relatively minor. Appellee T.M. complied with the requirements of the plea

      agreement. The GAL had no concerns regarding the children’s wellbeing

      while in the appellees’ care, and recommended that the adoptions be

      granted. The trial court considered all of the evidence presented regarding

      the event, and found that the children were safe and well-cared for in the

      appellees’ household.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081                                     12

       {¶21} The trial court heard the evidence, and was in the best position to ascertain

the veracity of the witnesses, including the children when interviewed in camera. Based

upon the trial court’s detailed application of the R.C. 3107.161(B) factors, it found that

granting the appellees’ petitions for adoption of the minor children was in their best

interest. Given the testimony and evidence presented, we cannot find any abuse of

discretion by the trial court in finding that the best interests of the children are best served

through adoption by the appellees. The factors set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B), which were

thoroughly discussed by the trial court in its October 31, 2023 Judgment Entry,

overwhelmingly favor appellees’ adoption of the children.

                                       CONCLUSION

       {¶22} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion when it granted the appellees’ petitions for adoption of D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M.

Accordingly, the appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the decision of the

Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.