Court Opinion

ID: 9908818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 20:06:58.211398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:31.284677
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

                                            COURT OF APPEALS
                                           STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                    :   JUDGES:
                                                    :
                                                    :   Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                                    :   Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                    :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    IN RE O.G.                                      :
                                                    :   Case No. 2023 CA 00102
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :   OPINION

  CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                        Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
                                                        No. 2021JCV00973

  JUDGMENT:                                             AFFIRMED

  DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                               December 8, 2023

  APPEARANCES:

    For Mother-Appellant:                               For SCDJFS-Appellee:

    KATHLEEN S. O’BRIEN                                 JAMES B. PHILLIPS
    116 Cleveland Ave. NW                               300 Market Ave. N.
    Suite 303                                           Canton, OH 44702
    Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 Delaney, J.

          {¶1} Mother-Appellant appeals the August 18, 2023 judgment entry of the Stark

 County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the

 minor child, O.G. to Appellee, Stark County Department of Job and Family Services.

                               FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

          {¶2} Mother-Appellant R.A.C. is the biological mother of O.G., born in January

 2020. The alleged biological father of O.G. is G.G. Mother and G.G. are not married.

 Mother is also the parent of A.C., born in August 2013. A.C.’s biological father is J.C.O.

          {¶3} In June 2021, Mother and children came to the attention of Appellee Stark

 County Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”) due to the deplorable

 sanitary and structural conditions of Mother’s home. In July 2021, the children were

 removed from the home to allow Mother an opportunity to clean the home. The home was

 sufficiently cleaned to allow the children to return to the home, but in August 2021,

 SCDJFS observed that the home had returned to the earlier unsanitary conditions. A.C.

 alleged that Mother did not come out of her room and there were concerns that J.C.O.

 was using drugs.

          {¶4} On September 28, 2021, SCDJFS filed a complaint alleging dependency

 and/or neglect of O.G. and A.C. by Mother, G.G., and J.C.O. An emergency shelter care

 hearing was held where the juvenile court found probable cause for SCDJFS involvement

 and that SCDJFS made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for the removal of the

 children from the home. The juvenile court awarded emergency temporary custody of

 O.G. and A.C. to SCDJFS. The children were placed in the same certified foster home.

 Mother did not provide any familial placement suggestions at the time of removal.
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

          {¶5}    The juvenile court appointed a Guardian ad Litem for the children.

          {¶6} The juvenile court held a dependency hearing on November 10, 2021.

 SCDJFS dismissed the allegations of neglect; thereafter, Mother stipulated to the finding

 of dependency. J.C.O. also stipulated to dependency. G.G.’s whereabouts were

 unknown. The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing the same day where O.G. and

 A.C. were placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. A.C. had been moved to a

 different foster home because she was engaging in sexualized behavior. The juvenile

 court found that SCDJFS had made reasonable efforts for permanency.

          {¶7} The juvenile court held an administrative review hearing on March 24, 2022,

 where Mother’s case plan was approved and adopted. Mother had provided one urine

 sample that was inconclusive. Her home conditions remained deplorable, resulting in a

 health violation order. Mother said she had a psychiatrist but did not provide any

 information. Mother had visitation with the children, but she had to be reminded to not

 engage the children in adult topics.

          {¶8} On April 13, 2022, SCDJFS moved to dismiss J.C.O. as a party in O.G.’s

 case because testing determined he was not O.G.’s biological father. The juvenile court

 granted the motion.

          {¶9} The juvenile court conducted an administrative review on August 25, 2022.

 The judgment entry stated that Mother had not done her substance abuse and mental

 health assessments. Mother had pending criminal drug charges. SCDJFS moved to

 extend temporary custody. On October 17, 2022, the juvenile court granted the motion to

 extend temporary custody to March 28, 2023 based on the parties’ agreement.
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

          {¶10} The matter came on for an administrative review hearing on February 23,

 2023 with judgment entry filed on February 28, 2023. A.C., O.G.’s sibling, had been

 placed with her paternal aunt and uncle. O.G. remained in foster care because there was

 no familial placement available. The foster home was interested in adopting O.G. Mother

 had recently plead guilty to aggravated possession of drugs. She had tested positive for

 cocaine and methamphetamine. Mother did not have any housing or stable employment.

          {¶11} On February 24, 2023, SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of

 O.G.

          {¶12} After the appointment of new counsel for Mother, the evidentiary hearing

 was held on July 20, 2023. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing.

          {¶13} The SCDJFS ongoing case worker assigned to O.G.’s case testified first.

 She said that since the filing of the case on September 28, 2021, O.G. has not been

 outside of SCDJFS custody. O.G. has been in the custody of SCDJFS for more than 12

 of the last 22 months. The juvenile court held regular review hearings where it found

 SCDJFS made reasonable efforts for permanency planning and placement of O.G.

          {¶14} The alleged father of O.G. is G.G. Paternity had not been proven for G.G.

 and Mother had not named anyone else who could be the biological father of O.G. Case

 plan services were established for G.G. but he did not complete any services. G.G. had

 not visited O.G. within the last 90 days. There was a possibility that G.G. had been

 deported.

          {¶15} The ongoing caseworker testified to Mother’s case plan. Mother was to

 address her mental health and substance abuse concerns. Mother had completed

 substance abuse assessments at Commquest and mental health assessments at
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 Coleman, but she did not engage in further services. She was released from Commquest

 due to noncompliance. On June 6, 2023 and July 11, 2023, Mother submitted to random

 drug testing after visitation with O.G. She tested positive for cocaine and

 methamphetamine. Mother was currently on probation for substance charges and theft

 charges, but she had not provided the caseworker with a release to contact her probation

 officer. Mother was scheduled for a psych appointment, but she was on a waiting list for

 counseling. Mother told the caseworker she was attending counseling at the University of

 Akron, but she did not provide the caseworker with any information for confirmation.

          {¶16} Mother was also required to obtain stable housing. The ongoing caseworker

 knew Mother was staying in a home that did not have plumbing and had no information

 about a lease. The caseworker talked to Mother about contacting the homeless hotline

 and registering for a shelter to secure income-based housing, but Mother was resistant.

 Mother went to a domestic violence shelter in May 2023 and was discharged from the

 shelter when she was not compliant with its curfew. Mother was required to gain

 employment to support O.G.’s basic needs, but the ongoing caseworker had no

 information as to employment.

          {¶17} Next, Mother testified at the hearing. Mother testified that since May 2023,

 she had a residence in Canton, Ohio. She paid a down payment and was responsible for

 paying off the tax lien owed on the house, then the owner would put the home into her

 name. The home did not have plumbing, which Mother testified she was installing herself.

 Mother was also self-employed through her LLC named Chains and Charms, set up in

 2018. She sold jewelry, did housekeeping and maintenance work. She also worked with
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 Amstead Maintenance on a regular basis. Mother approximated she earned at least $500

 per week.

          {¶18} Mother testified that she completed her mental health case plan

 requirement. She went to University Healthcare by the Akron University Hospital for

 mental health treatment. Mother said in 2021, she completed an assessment and went

 through the six-month program. Mother also completed two assessments with

 Commquest in 2022 and 2023. In May and June 2023, she went to Coleman after a

 referral while she was in jail for not completing her community service and violating her

 probation. She testified that she was currently on probation and had been drug tested

 through probation since December 2022. She admitted that she relapsed in July 2023.

 She was attending drug treatment through ISP. Mother said she did not do drug testing

 with SCDJFS because she did not have private transportation. She did not have time to

 take public transportation, comply with probation and SCDJFS, and maintain full time

 employment.

          {¶19} Before she met G.G., Mother said she had full-time employment in medical

 assisting. She met G.G. in 2018 and he destroyed it all. When the children were placed

 in the custody of SCDJFS, she developed depression, which prevented her from

 completing her case plan. She believed her substance abuse issues resulted from the

 removal of her children. Mother requested an extension of temporary custody until

 September.

          {¶20} At the time of the hearing, O.G. was three years old. O.G. did not have any

 medical or cognitive issues. O.G. had been in the same foster home since September 28,
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 2021. He was extremely bonded with the foster parents, calling them “mom” and “dad.”

 The foster parents were interested in adopting O.G.

         {¶21} Mother had two-hour biweekly supervised visits with O.G. The caseworker

 testified that Mother and O.G. were bonded and visitations went well. O.G.’s grandfather

 and A.C. attended visitations sometimes. Mother also had two adult children.

         {¶22} The GAL recommended that O.G. be placed in the permanent custody of

 SCDJFS.

         {¶23} The juvenile court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law on

 August 18, 2023. The juvenile court first found that G.G. had abandoned O.G. The

 juvenile court next found that O.G. had been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS since

 September 28, 2021. Following placement of the child outside of the home and

 notwithstanding the reasonable case planning and diligent efforts of SCDJFS, Mother

 failed to remedy the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside of the home.

 O.G. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. It was further in the best

 interest of O.G. to be placed in the permanent custody of SCDJFS.

         {¶24} The juvenile court issued its judgment entry terminating G.G. and Mother’s

 parental rights to O.G. on August 18, 2023. It is from this judgment that Mother now

 appeals.

                                        ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         {¶25} Mother raises two Assignments of Error:

         I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY

         TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY

         SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

          CONVINCING            EVIDENCE    THAT     GROUNDS         EXISTED      FOR

          PERMANENT CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD AND SUCH DECISION WAS

          AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

          II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY

          TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY

          SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND

          CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE

          MINOR CHILD TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD

          AND SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

          EVIDENCE.

                                           ANALYSIS

          {¶26} Mother contends in her first and second Assignments of Error that the

 juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights to O.G. and awarding SCDJFS

 permanent custody of the child. We disagree.

          {¶27} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re

 Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405

 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must

 be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing

 evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief

 or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St.

 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue

 must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine

 whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 of proof.” Id. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. If some competent, credible evidence going to all

 the essential elements of the case supports the trial court's judgment, an appellate court

 must affirm the judgment and not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E.

 Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).

          {¶28} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to

 the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d

 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is

 “crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the parties’

 demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77

 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).

          {¶29} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when

 deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court

 to schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody

 of a child by a public children services agency.

          {¶30} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court may grant permanent

 custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing, by clear and

 convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody

 of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the

 following apply:

          (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not 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 has not been in the temporary custody of one or more
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

         public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for

         twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, 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, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's

         parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's

         parents.

         (b) The child is abandoned.

         (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are

         able to take permanent custody.

         (d) 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.

         (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from

         whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an

         abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any

         court in this state or another state. * * * *.
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

          {¶31} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the

 child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not

 be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all

 relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter

 such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the

 factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the

 child's parents.

          {¶32} R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must

 apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, a trial court will usually

 determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)

 through (e) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of

 the child. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), in determining the best interest of a child in a

 permanent custody proceeding, the court shall consider all relevant factors.

                                              I.

          {¶33} In her first Assignment of Error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in

 granting permanent custody of O.G. to SCDJFS. She contends the juvenile court should

 permit her more time to complete her case plan.

          {¶34} In the instant case, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies to O.G., to wit: he was

 in the temporary custody of SCDJFS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-

 two-month period. SCDJFS received temporary custody of O.G. on September 28, 2021.

          {¶35} This Court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an

 agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is

 sufficient to award permanent custody. In re D.H., 5th Dist. Licking No. 2022 CA 00025,
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 2022-Ohio-4495, ¶ 59 citing Matter of O.M., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 20CA0017, 2021-

 Ohio-1310, 2021 WL 1424200, ¶ 33 citing In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist.

 Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018. Therefore, a finding that grounds existed

 for permanent custody cannot be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Matter of

 L.G., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020-CA-00139, 2021-Ohio-743, ¶ 36.

         {¶36} The juvenile court, however, determined that O.G. could not be placed with

 Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother. The record in this

 case supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that despite the reasonable case planning

 and diligent efforts by SCDJFS to assist Mother to remedy the conditions that initially

 caused O.G. to be placed outside the of the home, Mother has consistently failed to

 substantially remedy the conditions. Mother testified that she had completed her case

 plan goals; however, the evidence shows that she did not cooperate or communicate with

 the caseworker to document her compliance with her case plan goals, resulting in

 contradictory testimony between the caseworker and Mother.

         {¶37} Mother testified that she had completed her substance abuse treatment and

 drug testing through her probation. The caseworker asked Mother for a release so that

 she could contact the probation officer to confirm her compliance, which Mother did not

 provide. Mother admitted that she tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine use

 during the pendency of the case. Mother testified that she completed her mental health

 goals with a facility in Akron. The caseworker asked Mother for records to confirm her

 completion, which Mother did not provide. Mother testified that she was employed but did

 not provide the caseworker with documentation of her employment or proof of income.

 Mother testified that she had owned a home but did not provide any lease agreement or
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 ownership documentation of the home. The home did not have any working plumbing at

 the time of the hearing.

          {¶38} In this case, Mother and the caseworker gave contradictory testimony as to

 Mother’s completion of her case plan. The juvenile court found the caseworker’s

 testimony to be more credible than Mother’s. Upon this record, we find the juvenile court’s

 determination that Mother had not completed her case plan and could not be reunified

 with O.G. within a reasonable amount of time was supported by clear and convincing

 evidence.

          {¶39} Mother’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.

                                                II.

          {¶40} Mother contends in her second Assignment of Error that the juvenile court

 abused its discretion when it awarded permanent custody of the child to SCDJFS

 because the clear and convincing evidence did not support it was in the child's best

 interest. We disagree.

          {¶41} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing,

 R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) mandates the trial court must 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 parents 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; (d) the child's need for a

 legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

 without a grant of permanent custody; and (e) whether any of the factors in division (E)(7)

 to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and child.

          {¶42} A child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent

 situation that fosters growth, stability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he

 discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent

 custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the

 nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives

 of the parties concerned.” In re E.H., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2022CA00007, 2022-Ohio-1682,

 2022 WL 1579856, ¶ 101 quoting In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000

 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d

 424 (8th Dist. 1994). In this case, we find there was competent, credible evidence to

 support the juvenile court's decision that it was in the best interest of the O.G. to be placed

 in the permanent custody of SCDJFS.

          {¶43} O.G. was born in January 2020 and placed in the temporary custody of

 SCDJFS in September 2021. At the time of the hearing in 2023, he was three years old.

          {¶44} O.G. had been in the same foster-to-adopt home since his placement in

 September 2021. He was bonded with his foster family. He was healthy and had no

 cognitive or mental health challenges requiring exceptional care.

          {¶45} Mother was bonded with O.G. and did well during her supervised visitation.

 Mother, however, had not progressed beyond supervised visitation during the pendency

 of the case due to her failure to progress in her case plan.
[Cite as In re O.G., 2023-Ohio-4483.]

         {¶46} The juvenile court found that any detriment that could occur by severing any

 bond between Mother and O.G. would be outweighed by the benefits of permanency for

 this child. We agree.

         {¶47} Mother’s second Assignment of Error is overruled.

                                        CONCLUSION

         {¶48} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

 By: Delaney, J.,

 Gwin, P.J. and

 Hoffman, J., concur.