Court Opinion

ID: 9397494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 16:08:49.719626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.209794
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re H.B., 2023-Ohio-1757.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                   MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:                           :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
   H.B. (D.O.B.: 04/07/2010)                :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
   E.B. (D.O.B.: 03/29/2012)                :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
   E.V. (D.O.B.: 09/09/2016)                :
                                            :
                                            :       Case No. CT2022-0093
                                            :
                                            :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Muskingum County
                                                    Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
                                                    Division, Case No. 22130176-78

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   May 24, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

RONALD L. WELCH                                     RICHARD D. HIXON
Prosecuting Attorney                                3808 James Court, Suite 2
Muskingum County, Ohio                              Zanesville, Ohio 43701

By: JOHN CONNOR DEVER
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney                      Guardian Ad Litem
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189                    KEVIN VAN HORN
Zanesville, Ohio 43702                              715 Adair Avenue
                                                    Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                            2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant, Tiffany Vanmatre, appeals the decision of the Muskingum

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of H.B., E.B. and

E.V. to their maternal great-aunt and uncle. Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective

Services (MCACPS) is the appellee.

                     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   H.B. (D.O.B. 4-7-2010), E.B. (D.O.B. 3-29-12) and E.V. (D.O.B. 9-2-16) are

siblings who were placed in the temporary custody of MCACPS on January 22, 2022 and

thereafter placed with relatives, Anita and Michael Spicer, their maternal great-aunt and

uncle. The events leading to the placement of the children in the temporary custody of

MCACPS are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal and are therefore omitted.

Appellant, Tiffany Vanmatre, the mother of the children, does not contend that the

placement of the children in the temporary custody of MCACPS was error, she does not

argue that she has made significant progress on the case plan such that the children

should be returned to her custody, or that she will make such progress in the immediate

future, so those issues need not be addressed. Vanmatre’s appeal focuses solely upon

the trial court’s grant of legal custody of the children to the Spicers.

       {¶3}   MCACPS petitioned the court to grant legal custody of the children to the

Spicers and that matter came on for hearing on November 17, 2022. Neither parent

appeared at the hearing, but counsel for Vanmatre was present. The Spicers executed

and filed a Statement of Understanding regarding the consequences and responsibilities

of legal custody as required by R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). The trial court heard testimony and

received evidence from a case worker from MCACPS and Anita Spencer, the proposed
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                                 3

legal guardian. After concluding that MCACPS made reasonable efforts to return the

children and that the parents had not resolved the problems that led to the removal, the

trial court granted legal custody of the children to the Spicers. Vanmatre’s contact with

the children was to be at the Spicers’ discretion and always supervised, while the father

was to have no contact absent a successful petition to the court for visitation.

         {¶4}   Significant to this case is the fact that the record shows that H.B. suffers

from cerebral palsy, was living at a residential facility and likely would remain there for the

foreseeable future. He had originally been placed with the Maternal Grandfather, but his

condition required more care than could be provided, so he was admitted to a residential

facility in April 2022 and remained in that facility at the time of the hearing. Anita Spicer

admitted that she was not capable of assuming his care, but agreed that continued

residential placement was in H.B.’s best interest and agreed to assume responsibility for

him in that context.

         {¶5}   Vanmatre filed a notice of appeal and submitted a single assignment of

error:

         {¶6}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

FINDING IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR

MATERNAL GREAT-AUNT, AS SUCH A FINDING WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”

         {¶7}   We assume that Appellant has inadvertently omitted from the assignment

of error a reference to granting legal custody to the Spicers as the argument following the

assignment addresses that issue.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                               4

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶8}   Unlike in a permanent custody proceeding where a juvenile court's standard

of review is by clear and convincing evidence, the court’s standard of review in legal

custody proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence. In re S.D., 5th Dist. Stark Nos.

2013CA0081, 2013CA0082, 2013–Ohio–5752, ¶ 32; In re A.C., 12th Dist. No. CA2006–

12–105, 2007–Ohio–3350 at ¶ 14; In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445, 455, 751 N.E.2d 552

(7th Dist.2001).

       {¶9}   The statutes regarding an award of legal custody do not include a specific

test or set of criteria, and a trial court must base its decision on the best interest of the

child. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188; In re P.S., 5th

Dist. Stark No. 2012CA00007, 2012-Ohio-3431. When determining the issue of legal

custody, the trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances and all factors

relevant to the best interest of the child. In re D.T., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2013CA00252,

2014-Ohio-2495. “The statutory best interest test designed for the permanent custody

situation may provide some ‘guidance’ for trial courts making legal custody decisions.” In

re A.F., 9th Dist. No. 24317, 2009–Ohio–333 at ¶ 7, quoting In re T.A., 9th Dist.

No. 22954, 2006–Ohio–4468 at ¶ 17; In re S.D. 5th Dist. Stark Nos. 2013CA0081,

2013CA0082, 2013–Ohio–5752, ¶ 33.

       {¶10} We review the trial court’s award of legal custody for an abuse of discretion

and recognize that a trial court has broad discretion in proceedings involving the care and

custody of children. In re R.D.J., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 12 CAF 07 0046, 2013–Ohio–

1999, ¶ 29, quoting In re Gales, 10th Dist. No. 03AP–445, 2003–Ohio–6309; In re Nice,

141 Ohio App.3d 445, 455, 2001–Ohio–3214, 751 N.E.2d 552; In re Mullen, 129 Ohio
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                               5

St.3d 417, 2011–Ohio–3361, ¶ 14. Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of

law or judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court's decision was unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

                                         ANALYSIS

       {¶11} Vanmatre argues that placing legal custody of the children with the Spicers

is not in their best interest because Anita Spicer has not had any contact with H.B., the

child in the residential facility. She concludes that because placement of H.B. in the legal

custody of the Spicers is not in his best interest due to lack of contact, and because it is

in the best interest of siblings to be placed together, none of the children can be placed

with the Spicers. We note that Vanmatre offers no alternative, does not assure the court

that she will be prepared to take custody of the children in the near future nor does she

offer of another suitable relative placement. Under her analysis the children will either

remain in temporary custody indefinitely or be placed in the legal custody of persons who

have had no contact with the children.

       {¶12} MCACPS provided Vanmatre a case plan that addressed substance abuse,

mental health, housing, and income, and Vanmatre was aware of the plan but made no

progress toward complying with its requirements. (Trial Transcript, page 6, line 24 to page

7, line 2). Vanmatre was subject to random drug tests beginning in May 2021 and

continuing through February 2022. Most of the results, when Vanmatre did appear for the

test, were positive for oxycodone. (Trial transcript, page 7, lines 5-20).

       {¶13} Vanmatre was unable to obtain suitable housing. She allegedly explained

that she was awaiting settlement from an automobile accident but had not made any
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                                  6

progress in that regard prior to the hearing. (Trial transcript, page 8, line 11 to page 9, line

5).

        {¶14} Vanmatre had not been regularly visiting her children. Two of the children

were placed with the Spicers on January 21, 2022 while MCACPS had temporary custody

and Vanmatre visited them once since that placement. The eldest child, H.B., suffered

from cerebral palsy and had been placed in a residential facility to provide his care.

Vanmatre had not visited him at that facility since the date of this placement. Vanmatre

did talk with the children at the Spicers’ residence via telephone, but those calls were

inconsistent and unpredictable.

        {¶15} The two children placed with the Spicers are thriving. They had been

struggling but they are doing very well in school and E.B., who was ten at the date of the

hearing, was involved in football and starting basketball. MCACPS talked to the children

about the consequences of legal custody and the fact that their biological parents may

still have visitation. MCACPS reported that the children appear to understand. MCACPS

also facilitated visitation of the siblings with their elder brother, H.B., at the residential

facility.

        {¶16} MCACPS recommended that any visitation between Vanmatre and her

children be supervised and that the father be permitted no visitation without his providing

additional information. They also recommended that the children be placed in the legal

custody of the Spicers and that the involvement of MCACPS be terminated.

        {¶17} Anita Spicer, great-aunt of the children, confirmed that they had accepted

placement of two of the children and that they were doing well. She also confirmed her

agreement that visitation between the two children in her custody and their sibling in the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                                  7

residential facility should continue and she would do what she could to facilitate regular

contact. She also understood that legal custody meant that the biological parents could

obtain rights to visit the children and she had no objection. She felt that the parents should

remain a part of the children’s lives, and was willing to protect the children if the parents

behaved inappropriately or appeared under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She

confirmed that she is willing to accept legal custody of the children and, although she saw

no reason for MCACPS to be involved, she welcomed them to visit at their discretion.

       {¶18} Anita Spicer expressed her understanding that as legal custodian she would

be responsible for making decisions regarding the medical care of H.B. while he was in

the residential facility. She admitted she had little contact with H.B. but understood his

need to be in a facility that could care for his needs.

       {¶19} When MCACPS moved to terminate temporary custody and place the

children in the legal custody of the Spicers, the children had been in the Spicers’ home

for eight months and were thriving. Based upon the record it is clear that neither biological

parent would have been in the position to accept custody of the children at the time the

motion was filed. Consequently, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, the status of

the children would have remained unchanged. Physical custody of two of the children

would remain with the Spicers and the eldest child, H.B. would remain in his residential

placement. Vanmatre offers no alternatives despite her objection to placing the children

in the legal custody of the Spicer’s as against their best interest.

       {¶20} After reviewing the record and the elements of R.C. 2515.414(D) regarding

the best interest of the children, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

when it determined that it was in the best interest of the children to grant legal custody to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0093                                              8

the Spicers. The grant of legal custody to the children’s great-aunt and uncle will preserve

the relationship of the children with each other, their parents and extended family. The

children are content and thriving in their current placement, have expressed no anxiety

about separation from their biological parents and the placement has been endorsed by

the guardian ad litem. The children have been in the physical custody of the Spicers for

close to a year and none of the parties offered an alternative to continued placement with

them.

        {¶21} Further, we find sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion

and reject Vanmatre’s contention that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

        {¶22} Vanmatre’s assignment of error is overruled.

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

King, J. concur.