Court Opinion

ID: 9396229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 20:08:03.32533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.043747
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.B., 2023-Ohio-1697.]

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

In re J.B.                                       Court of Appeals No. L-22-1226

                                                 Trial Court No. JC 20280667

                                                 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

                                                 Decided: May 19, 2023

                                           *****

        David T. Rudebock, for appellee.

        Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.

                                           *****

        OSOWIK, J.

        {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a September 31, 2022 judgment of the Lucas County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated the parental rights of

appellant, father, J.O., and granted permanent custody of the minor child, J.B., to

appellee, Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”). The mother did not appear at the

permanent custody hearing and is not a party to this case. Appellant likewise did not
appear at the permanent custody hearing. For the reasons set forth below, this court

affirms the judgment of the trial court.

       {¶ 2} On April 16, 2020, a complaint in dependency was filed in Henry County

regarding the minor child. On June 3, 2020, the minor child, J.B., was found to be

dependent by the Henry County Juvenile Court. Appellant stipulated and consented to

the dependency finding. The articulated basis of the trial court’s dependency

determination found, in relevant part, “Father having a no contact order with any children

under the age of 18 as a condition * * * for charges of menacing by stalking, a felony of

the fourth degree, and domestic violence * * * from an incident in which J.B. is the

victim * * * Mother, a known prostitute in Toledo, then took [him] * * * [and was]

staying in a [Detroit] hotel.” The case was then transferred to Lucas County for

disposition.

       {¶ 3} On September 15, 2020, the dispositional hearing was conducted. The trial

court determined that it was in the best interest of the minor child to grant temporary

custody to LCCS. On August 26, 2020, the trial court approved LCCS’s case plan. On

June 16, 2021, the grant of temporary custody was extended. On December 16, 2021, a

second extension of temporary custody was granted. On January 25, 2022,

approximately two years after the case commenced, LCCS filed a motion for permanent

custody.

2.
       {¶ 4} On September 6, 2022, the permanent custody hearing was conducted. The

trial court noted that appellant was properly served, but nevertheless failed to appear for

the hearing. Appellant’s counsel notified the court that appellant would not return

counsel’s communications and failed to convey any position or stance to counsel in

connection to the case. The trial court found that appellant had waived his right to

counsel and counsel for appellant’s request to withdraw was granted.

       {¶ 5} During the course of the permanent custody hearing, the initially assigned

LCCS caseworker testified that although appellant did complete the recommended

batterers’ assessment and parenting classes, appellant shortly thereafter committed

another domestic violence incident in which he physically assaulted and injured his minor

stepson. The incident was captured on video camera security footage. Appellant was

charged and convicted in connection to the offense. In response to appellant’s recurrence

of domestic violence against a minor, LCCS required that appellant undergo a new

batterers’ assessment, parenting classes, and complete recommended services. Appellant

did not do so and made no attempt to comply with services following the incident.

       {¶ 6} The caseworker further testified that appellant, who is gainfully employed,

owns his own business, and owns a motor vehicle, only exercised his right of visitation

with J.B. approximately six times over an 18-month period.

       {¶ 7} The subsequently assigned LCCS caseworker bolstered this testimony by

further testifying that appellant made no efforts to visit J.B. during her involvement in the

3.
case, despite his ability to do so. The caseworker also testified that there were no viable

relative placements for J.B. and that appellant indicated that he knew of no potential

relative placements for his son.

       {¶ 8} The caseworker concluded that an award of permanent custody to LCCS was

in the best interest of the minor child given that appellant continued to commit acts of

domestic violence against minors and refused to reengage with any of the services needed

for reunification to potentially be possible.

       {¶ 9} J.B.’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) next testified in the case. The GAL

testified that the minor child had endured significant trauma in his life in connection to

the issues of the biological parents and, consequently, J.B. regularly acts out sexually.

The GAL conveyed that J.B. has engaged in sexually inappropriate incidents resulting in

his removal from at least five of his foster placements, ultimately resulting in his

placement into a treatment group home.

       {¶ 10} The GAL concluded that an award of permanent custody to LCCS was in

the best interest of the minor child given that appellant continued to engage in acts of

domestic violence against minors even after participating in services, and declined to

engage in further services following the recurrence of domestic violence. Lastly, the

GAL testified that J.B. articulated that he had no desire to visit with appellant and that he

would never want to be left unsupervised with appellant.

4.
       {¶ 11} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined, in relevant part,

“The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that J.B. cannot be placed with his

parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents, in accordance

with R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) * * * this court also finds by clear and convincing evidence

that a grant of permanent custody * * * is in J.B.’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D).”

This appeal ensued.

       {¶ 12} In the sole assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court’s

granting of permanent custody to LCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We do not concur.

       {¶ 13} As this court held in In re M.G., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1114, 2020-

Ohio-5238, ¶ 33, “[The court] must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine whether in resolving conflicts in

the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the judgment must be reversed.” In conjunction, as held in In re A.H., 6th

Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, “A trial court’s determination in a

permanent custody case will not be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest

weight of the evidence.”

       {¶ 14} The record reflects that both the mother and the father were properly served

in connection to this case. The record reflects that neither communicated with counsel or

appeared for the permanent custody hearing. Counsel for both parents withdrew based

5.
upon the lack of cooperation and the lack of appearance by their respective clients. The

mother declined to appeal.

       {¶ 15} The record reflects that LCCS presented uncontroverted, clear and

convincing evidence demonstrating that J.B., “cannot be placed with either of the child’s

parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.” R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a). The record consistently reflects, through uncontroverted testimony,

of appellant’s recurrence of domestic violence against minors, of appellant’s lack of

visitation with the minor child, and of appellant’s refusal to engage in services after the

latest domestic violence offense, that, “Following the placement of [J.B.] outside the

child’s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the

agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be

placed outside the home, [appellant] has failed continuously and repeatedly to

substantially remedy the conditions.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

       {¶ 16} The record also reflects that appellant, “Demonstrated a lack of

commitment towards J.B. by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with him

when able to do so.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(4). Lastly, the record reflects that appellant,

“Has been convicted of or pled guilty to an offense under * * * section 2903.21.” R.C.

2151.414(E)(6).

       {¶ 17} Wherefore, we find that the record is devoid of evidence that the trial court

clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in the permanent custody

6.
determination. On the contrary, the record reflects that the trial court’s grant of

permanent custody to LCCS, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), was supported by clear

and convincing evidence.

         {¶ 18} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the

costs of this case pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

7.