Court Opinion

ID: 9405424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 15:14:24.909555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.009583
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re W.W., 2023-Ohio-2149.]

STATE OF OHIO                    )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                 )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                 )

IN RE: W.W.                                           C.A. No.       30404
       E.W.

                                                      APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
                                                      COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
                                                      CASE No.   DN 21 12 0979
                                                                 DN 21 12 0980

                                DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 28, 2023

        HENSAL, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}    Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her children in the legal custody of Appellee Father and closed

the cases. This Court affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}    Mother and Father are the biological parents of W.W., born December 16, 2012,

and E.W., born August 28, 2014. The parents were never married, although they lived together

with the children until sometime in 2017. Father continued to live near Mother and the children

until he moved to Kentucky in August 2019, for work. In August 2020, Father moved to Indiana

when his employer again relocated him.

        {¶3}    In 2014, when Mother was pregnant and about to give birth to E.W., she contacted

Appellee Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”) for help because she

was feeling suicidal. Mother agreed to a voluntary safety plan under which CSB placed W.W.
                                                 2

with a maternal aunt and uncle (“Aunt” and “Uncle,” respectively), while Mother went to the

hospital to give birth. Because Mother tested positive for amphetamines at the hospital, however,

the agency took both W.W. and E.W. into protective custody and placed them with Aunt and

Uncle. Both children were adjudicated dependent. Within a month, CSB returned the children to

the parents’ home in Father’s temporary custody. In 2015, W.W. and E.W. were returned to the

parents’ legal custody and those dependency cases were closed.

       {¶4}    While Father continued to live in Ohio, the children spent two days each week and

every other weekend in his care. After he left the state, he obtained a court order granting him

approximately five weeks of visitation with the children each year. Father also had the right to

speak with the children by telephone three times a week. He consistently exercised these rights.

       {¶5}    In November 2021, E.W. called the police as he and W.W. witnessed Mother’s live-

in boyfriend physically assaulting her. When a CSB intake caseworker arrived to investigate the

alleged domestic violence in the home, Mother admitted that she was depressed and suicidal and

that she had left the children to care for themselves for three days while she remained in bed.

Mother voluntarily agreed to check herself into a hospital for a mental health evaluation and

treatment in lieu of an involuntary commitment. Because Father was living in Indiana, working

nights, and only had limited physical contact with the children, CSB took the children into custody

and filed complaints alleging that they were abused, neglected, and dependent. The agency again

placed the boys in the home of Aunt and Uncle.

       {¶6}    Mother and Father both attended the adjudicatory hearing with separate counsel.

Both parents waived their rights to a hearing and stipulated to a finding that the children were

dependent. CSB withdrew its remaining allegations. The magistrate adjudicated W.W. and E.W.
                                                 3

dependent children and left the matter of visitation in the discretion of CSB and the guardian ad

litem.

         {¶7}   CSB filed a proposed case plan. Mother’s sole objective was to obtain a mental

health assessment, follow all recommendations, and develop appropriate skills for coping and

interacting with the children. Father was required to maintain a safe and stable home environment

and an income source adequate to meet the children’s basic needs; visit regularly with the children;

and cooperate with a background check, home study, and/or an Interstate Compact for the

Placement of Children (“ICPC”) assessment, if necessary. The case plan required the children to

have psychological or psychiatric evaluations and work on managing their emotions. Mother and

Father were required to participate in the children’s counseling when the therapists deemed that

appropriate.

         {¶8}   Prior to the initial dispositional hearing, Father moved for legal custody. CSB did

not file a dispositional motion. At the hearing, however, the assistant prosecutor asserted on behalf

of the agency that CSB supported Father’s motion. The guardian ad litem also recommended legal

custody to Father with no additional oversight by CSB or the court. Mother’s attorney conceded

that Mother was not in a position to regain custody of the children at that time. Instead, Mother’s

counsel requested that the juvenile court deny Father’s motion and keep the cases open to give

Mother time to work on her case plan objectives. Counsel asserted that the brevity of the cases

precluded a finding that legal custody to Father was in the children’s best interest because W.W.

and E.W. had never resided for any significant time with Father or outside of Ohio.

         {¶9}   The evidentiary hearing proceeded before the magistrate. While Father presented

a case in chief, CSB did not. Mother presented her case in chief, and the hearing concluded with
                                                  4

the testimony of the guardian ad litem. Thereafter, the magistrate issued a decision granting

Father’s motion for legal custody and closing the cases.

       {¶10} Mother filed timely objections to the magistrate’s decision. She argued that (1) the

determinations to close the cases and award legal custody to Father, which necessitated the

children’s relocation outside Ohio, were contrary to the evidence as to the best interest of the

children; and (2) prior to placing the children out of state, CSB was required to facilitate an

evaluation and obtain an acceptance by the receiving state of Indiana pursuant to the ICPC. No

party filed an opposition to Mother’s objections, although Father and the guardian ad litem filed a

joint motion to lift the automatic stay occasioned by Mother’s filing of objections. The juvenile

court lifted the automatic stay pending a later hearing on the motion to lift the stay,1 freeing Father

to take physical possession of the children while Mother’s objections were pending. Father had

already relocated the children to his home in Indiana based on the magistrate’s earlier enunciated

effective date of the legal custody award.

       {¶11} Thereafter, but before the juvenile court ruled on Mother’s objections, Mother

moved to modify visitation. She alleged that she had not seen the children in more than a month

because Father was not allowing her visitation. Mother requested an order granting her visitation

every other weekend, or alternatively, one weekend each month, plus the standard order of

visitation regarding holidays.2

       1
         That subsequent hearing never took place.
       2
         Three weeks after the juvenile court issued its final judgment, the magistrate held a “status
hearing.” Father was present with his attorney. Mother was present but not represented by
counsel. Although the magistrate noted in his order that Mother “plans” to hire an attorney to
prosecute her motion to modify visitation, the magistrate nevertheless issued an order after “a
discussion in open court” granting Mother parenting time on the first weekend of every month.
The order made no reference to supervision. While the order did not schedule an evidentiary
hearing on Mother’s motion, it scheduled another “status hearing” six weeks later.
                                                    5

          {¶12} The juvenile court issued a judgment overruling Mother’s objections. The trial

court found that the preponderance of the evidence supported the findings that legal custody to

Father and closing the cases were in the best interest of the children. In addition, the court found

that an ICPC screening was not required pursuant to the exception set forth in R.C. 5103.20 Article

III.(B)(4). The juvenile court awarded legal custody of W.W. and E.W. to Father and docketed

the children’s cases closed. Mother timely appealed and raises two assignments of error for

review.

                                                   II.

                                    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

          THE [JUVENILE] COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR TO
          MOTHER’S GREAT DETRIMENT WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT IT WAS
          IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN TO CLOSE THE CASE AT THE
          FIRST DISPOSITION NOTWITHSTANDING THE CASE[ ] PLAN.

          {¶13} Mother argues that the juvenile court’s judgment awarding legal custody of W.W.

and E.W. to Father is contrary to the best interest of the children. This Court disagrees.

          {¶14} As an initial matter, to the extent that Mother raises issues relating to the children’s

dependency adjudications and various due process concerns, we may not consider those as Mother

failed to preserve those issues for appeal. Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) precludes a party from assigning

as error on appeal any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party first objected to that

finding or conclusion as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b). Accordingly, a party may not raise an

issue for the first time on appeal where the party has not first raised the issue in objections to the

magistrate’s decision. In re J.J., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29534, 2020-Ohio-2808, ¶ 10. In the

absence of a claim of plain error, Mother has forfeited those issues on appeal. See Juv.R.

40(D)(3)(b)(iv).

          {¶15} As to Mother’s assigned error, this Court has held:
                                                 6

       On appeal, an award of legal custody will not be reversed if the judgment is
       supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence
       entails the greater weight of the evidence, evidence that is more probable,
       persuasive, and possesses greater probative value. In other words, when the best
       interest of the child is established by the greater weight of the evidence, the trial
       court does not have discretion to enter a judgment that is adverse to that interest.
       Thus, our standard of review is whether a legal custody decision is against the
       manifest weight of the evidence.

(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) In re M.F., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010823, 2016-

Ohio-2685, ¶ 7.

       {¶16} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight

of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the

credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]

must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Eastley v. Volkman,

132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence, this Court “must always

be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.

       {¶17} “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse, the juvenile court’s

determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a parent or a relative is based

solely on the best interest of the child.” In re K.H., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27952, 2016-Ohio-1330,

¶ 12. The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or

set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal

custody on the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-

7994, at ¶ 18, quoting In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard,

the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in Revised Code Section

2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-

5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those factors
                                                  7

include the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the child’s wishes, the custodial history

of the child, the child’s need for permanence, and whether any of the factors in Section

2151.414(E)(7)-(11) are applicable. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see also In re B.C., 9th Dist.

Summit Nos. 26976 and 26977, 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 16.

       {¶18} In addition, the juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in Section

3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A., 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010850 and 15CA010860,

2017-Ohio-1, ¶ 17. While some factors overlap with those above, others include the child’s

adjustment to his or her environment; the mental and physical health of all persons involved; the

parents’ history of providing support and honoring companionship orders; certain indicia of

violence, abuse, or neglect in any household involved; and whether a parent plans to or has

established a residence outside of Ohio. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

       {¶19} Until CSB first removed the children in 2014, W.W. and E.W. were in Mother’s

legal custody, but also living with Father. The juvenile court placed the boys in Father’s temporary

custody before shortly thereafter placing them in both parents’ legal custody. The family resided

together until the boys were five and three years old. At that time, Mother left the home, taking

the children with her, and Father obtained a visitation order granting him approximately 12 days

each month with the boys. When his employer transferred him out of state, Father continued to

exercise his modified visitation to its fullest extent. That included five weeks of in-person visits

per year and telephone conversations three times each week.

       {¶20} The children have had life-long relationships with Mother and Father, enjoying a

close bond with each and loving both parents “immensely,” according to the caseworker. The

boys are comfortable with Father and behave well while in his care. On the other hand, there is

significant tension between W.W. and Mother, evidenced by W.W.’s verbal and physical
                                                 8

aggression towards her. Mother testified regarding W.W.’s “very explosive behaviors” and

defiance towards her since 2019, behaviors not exhibited by the child in the homes of Father or

Aunt and Uncle. Both children expressed discomfort regarding Mother’s live-in boyfriend whose

assault on Mother necessitated E.W.’s call to the police.

       {¶21} The boys have a supportive and loving relationship with Aunt and Uncle with

whom they were placed during both the instant and 2014 cases. Both parents also maintain a good

relationship with Aunt and Uncle which has created a neutral environment for the children during

their placement. Mother and Father have both facilitated a relationship between the children and

their paternal grandmother who has visited regularly with the boys. In fact, the children recently

enjoyed three weeks in her care while Aunt and Uncle went on vacation.

       {¶22} The caseworker and guardian ad litem spoke with the children throughout the case

regarding their wishes for custody. Initially, the boys told the caseworker that they wanted to live

with Mother but only as the situation used to be, specifically “where there’s not fighting going

on[,]” and Mother was preparing meals and helping them with homework. During the last two

months of the cases, however, W.W. and E.W. both consistently asserted that they wanted to live

with Father. The boys told the guardian ad litem that it had been a long time since “things were

normal” in Mother’s home, as Mother was frequently unable to get out of bed to care for them.

       {¶23} The guardian ad litem opined that an award of legal custody to Father was in the

children’s best interest and that protective supervision was unnecessary. She reported that Father

has been involved with the children their whole lives and that he was healthy and demonstrated

the ability to provide adequate care for them. The guardian ad litem emphasized that Father was

not involved in the underlying circumstances which led to the children’s removal, and that there
                                                 9

was no reason to delay reunification with the parent capable of providing a safe and stable home

for the boys.

        {¶24} W.W. and E.W. were nine and seven years old, respectively, at the time of the

hearing. While Mother was their primary caregiver for the past few years, they were removed

from their home twice based on the impact of Mother’s mental health issues on their well-being.

Even when CSB was not involved with the family, Mother admitted to being hospitalized for

mental health concerns six times since 2014. She testified that she has been struggling with mental

health issues for 20 years and is still working with professionals to find a mental health treatment

protocol that works for her. Mother admitted that her diagnoses of complex post-traumatic stress

disorder, major depressive disorder, and general anxiety disorder have rendered her unable to get

out of bed to engage in normal and necessary daily activities on multiple occasions. Mother

conceded that those same issues preclude her ability to provide an adequate home for the children

at this time.

        {¶25} The children have lived for several years in an environment in which they have had

to routinely provide daily care for themselves when Mother’s mental health impacts her ability to

function. W.W. and E.W. deserve the permanence of a stable home where their needs will be met

on a consistent basis. Father has been a constant presence in the boys’ lives, taking full advantage

of his visitation schedule and speaking with the children by phone three times every week. Father’s

visits with the boys have always been unsupervised and the record does not reflect that there have

ever been any concerns regarding his interactions with them.

        {¶26} Father has the desire and ability to provide a permanent home for the children. He

has worked for General Motors for 23 years and earns $90,000 a year. He transferred from the

overnight third shift to the daytime first shift to allow him to be home with the children. He lives
                                                10

in a very large one-bedroom apartment but has coordinated with his landlord to move into a two-

bedroom unit as soon as necessary, i.e., when he has attained legal custody of the children. The

guardian ad litem visited Father’s current home in Indiana and found it appropriate. She opined

that a larger apartment in the same complex would be equally appropriate. Father has investigated

options for school, before- and after-school care, and medical/dental providers for the children.

He only needed to finalize the boys’ enrollments and establishment as patients.

       {¶27} Both children have been in treatment for several years for their own mental health

issues. W.W. was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional disturbances,

anxiety, and oppositional defiant disorder. E.W. was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder. Each child attends biweekly counseling sessions and takes medications to address these

issues. The guardian ad litem testified that, since the children’s placement with Aunt and Uncle,

the professionals working with W.W. have successfully reduced his medication dosage. The effect

on the child has been positive, as he now smiles frequently and has become more engaging. Father

is working with the caseworker to find appropriate mental health providers near his home to

continue the children in counseling. He understands their mental health issues and agrees to ensure

that they continue to receive all necessary services, including counseling and medications, as

recommended by the professionals. Father recently participated in counseling sessions with each

child, and the counselor found his interactions appropriate, as Father listened to the children and

remained neutral when the boys expressed their thoughts about custody.

       {¶28} Both the caseworker and guardian ad litem agreed that Father was suitable to

provide permanency for the children without the need for continuing oversight by the agency or

juvenile court. Because Father had an established history of providing for the children’s needs

and was not involved in the circumstances which necessitated CSB’s involvement, both the
                                                11

caseworker and guardian ad litem testified that ongoing protective supervision was not necessary

for the benefit of the children.

        {¶29} On the other hand, Mother’s mental health issues played a significant role in the

agency’s intervention. The caseworker emphasized that the instant cases began with a mental

health crisis for Mother and that Mother again recently sought hospitalization for another mental

health crisis which included suicidal ideations. Mother admitted she was unable to leave her bed,

had not eaten or taken her medications for several days, and believed that Father should take the

children. Given the chronic nature of Mother’s mental health issues despite two decades of

therapies, medication management, and various other attempted and anticipated treatments, there

was no way to determine how long it might take for Mother to successfully manage her symptoms

and be able to provide care and stability for the children. The boys reported multiple instances

when Mother was bedridden and unable to provide for their daily care, leaving them to get

themselves ready for school and prepare their own meals. Unless and until Mother is able to

manage her mental health, the children would continue indefinitely to be at risk for neglect in

Mother’s home. On the other hand, there was no evidence that Father ever failed to provide for

the children’s basic needs while in his care.

        {¶30} While Father resides outside of Ohio, he has done so for several years. The parents

have managed visitation arrangements without difficulty under those circumstances.

        {¶31} Finally, Father has a good support network. He maintains a good relationship with

Aunt and Uncle, who informed him, the caseworker, and guardian ad litem that they are willing to

supervise visitation for Mother.     Father also has the support of his mother. The paternal

grandmother is retired, has a close relationship with the children, and lives only three hours away
                                                 12

from Father’s home. She testified that she is willing and available to travel to Father’s home to

help with the children whenever needed or requested.

       {¶32} Based on a thorough review of the record, this is not the exceptional case where the

trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding legal

custody of W.W. and E.W. to Father. Father demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence

that it is in the children’s best interest to be in his legal custody. Father has played a consistent

role in the children’s lives, providing stability and support without any concerns for the boys’

health, safety, or welfare. The children are comfortable with Father and wish to live with him.

CSB and the guardian ad litem support an award of legal custody to Father without ongoing

protective supervision.

       {¶33} Father has been proactive in preparing for legal custody of the children. He

arranged to move into a larger apartment to accommodate the boys. He identified a school,

daycare, and medical/dental service providers for the children. He was working with the agency

caseworker to find appropriate pediatric mental health providers so the children could continue in

counseling. Father modified his work schedule to be home with the children. He has the support

of the paternal grandmother who is willing and able to drive to Father’s home to help with the

children’s care, should Father require that.

       {¶34} Unfortunately, Mother is admittedly unable to provide an appropriate home for the

children at this time. She detailed her ongoing mental health issues and informed the guardian ad

litem two months before the hearing that she believed she was “treatment resistant” to mental

health care. Mother did not present any evidence regarding how long it might take her to

successfully manage her mental health issues, or if she would ever attain the stability necessary to

provide consistent care for the children.
                                                 13

       {¶35} Father demonstrated that he is able to provide a safe and stable home for the

children as of the date of the hearing. His history of providing care for the children without any

concerns for their well-being vitiated the need for continuing oversight by CSB or the juvenile

court. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court’s finding that an award of legal custody to

Father is in the children’s best interest is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother’s

first assignment of error is overruled.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE [JUVENILE] COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR TO
       MOTHER’S GREAT DETRIMENT IN DETERMINING THAT AN ICPC
       SCREENING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CASE WAS NOT REQUIRED
       PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE CHILDREN’S CUSTODY FOR THE
       PURPOSE OF OUT-OF-STATE PLACEMENT.

       {¶36} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by granting legal custody to Father and

closing the children’s cases after determining that an ICPC assessment of Father and his

circumstances was unnecessary. This Court disagrees.

       {¶37} Revised Code Section 5103.20 sets forth 18 articles governing the interstate

compact for the placement of children (“ICPC”). Article I.(A) lists as one of the purposes of the

compact the “[p]rovi[sion] [of] a process through which children subject to this compact are placed

in safe and suitable homes in a timely manner.” Article V. addresses the requirement for an

assessment of proposed placement in another state. The ICPC by its plain language is not

applicable under certain circumstances.

       {¶38} By definition in the ICPC, a “non-custodial parent” is “a person who, at the time of

the commencement of court proceedings in the sending state, does not have sole legal custody of

the child or has joint legal custody of a child, and who is not the subject of allegations or findings

of child abuse or neglect.” R.C. 5103.20 Article II.(I). Father qualifies as the children’s non-
                                                    14

custodial parent because the children were placed in the parents’ joint custody after the 2014 case.

Moreover, CSB made no allegations of abuse or neglect as to Father in its 2021 complaints and

the juvenile court made no such findings as to Father.

          {¶39} Article III. of the ICPC addresses the applicability of the compact and expressly

states:

          (B) The provisions of this compact shall not apply to:

          ***

          (4) The placement of a child with a non-custodial parent provided that:

          (a) The non-custodial parent proves to the satisfaction of a court in the sending state
          a substantial relationship with the child; and

          (b) The court in the sending state makes a written finding that placement with the
          non-custodial parent is in the best interests of the child; and

          (c) The court in the sending state dismisses its jurisdiction over the child’s case.

          {¶40} In this case, the evidence demonstrated and the juvenile court found that Father had

a substantial relationship with the children and that it was in their best interest to award legal

custody to Father. Thereafter, the juvenile court docketed the cases closed. With the children’s

custodial dispositions finalized and no further issues pending, the juvenile court properly dismissed

its jurisdiction over W.W.’s and E.W.’s cases. As the requirements for exclusion from application

of the ICPC were met, the juvenile court did not err by refusing to require CSB to request that

Indiana initiate a home study of Father’s home before placing the children with him. Compare In

re T.K.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190020, 2019-Ohio-5076, ¶ 35-36 (rejecting an out-of-state

parent’s argument that an ICPC assessment that did not approve his home should not be considered

because he was excepted from application of the compact after concluding that the parent had not

demonstrated the three requirements pursuant to R.C. 5103.20 Article III.(B)). Mother’s second

assignment of error is overruled.
                                                15

                                                III.

       {¶41} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
                                                 16

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                      JENNIFER HENSAL
                                                      FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.
CONCURS.

FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
DISSENTING.

       {¶42} I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that the juvenile court’s award of legal

custody of the children to Father at this early stage of their cases is against the manifest weight of

the evidence. Based on that conclusion, I would not address Mother’s second assignment as it

would be moot.

       {¶43} Mother argues that the juvenile court’s award of legal custody of W.W. and E.W.

to Father, particularly without ordering a period of protective supervision, is contrary to the best

interest of the children. In addition, Mother challenges the juvenile court’s entering a final

dispositional order before it adopted the agency’s proposed case plan, leaving Mother no

opportunity to work on her case plan objectives. I agree that the juvenile court rushed to judgment

in these cases.

       {¶44} Prior to their removal in these cases, Mother had been the children’s primary

caregiver their entire lives. After the parents ended their relationship, the children spent less than

half their time with Father during the next two years. After Father left Ohio, W.W. and E.W.

visited with him for only five weeks throughout the course of every year. The three were always

on vacation during those times, so Father had no responsibility for getting the children to school,
                                                17

appointments, or other scheduled activities. In addition, Father allowed the boys to spend time

with the paternal grandmother during his scheduled visitation periods, limiting further the time

they remained in his exclusive care.

        {¶45} The evidence demonstrated that W.W. and E.W. were well acclimated to their home

environment with Mother. They were both doing extremely well in school where they were

engaged in accelerated academic programs. Mother has a three-bedroom home where the boys

were able to have their own rooms. The children have long-term friends and various family

members in Ohio. They are established with medical, dental, and mental health providers near

Mother’s home. Consistent participation in mental health services is particularly important for the

boys.

        {¶46} Both children have been in treatment for several years for mental health issues.

W.W. was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional disturbances, anxiety, and

oppositional defiant disorder. E.W. was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Each child attends biweekly counseling sessions and takes medications to address these issues.

Mother was proactive in establishing services for the children, while Father has never had to

coordinate with professionals to meet the children’s special needs.

        {¶47} Mother’s home offers an appropriate physical structure for the boys. They were

comfortable in that familiar environment. On the other hand, during the past several years, Father

established homes out of state, first in Kentucky, and currently in Indiana. The children have not

lived with Father for any extended time after he left Ohio. Father does not have a bedroom for the

children in his current home, although he testified that he planned to obtain a two-bedroom

apartment so the boys could share a room, in the event he obtained legal custody. Outside of

Father, the children have no family or friends in Indiana. They are not familiar with the school,
                                                18

daycare, or medical providers Father has considered. While the paternal grandmother testified that

she would be available to help Father care for the children, she lives three hours away. Perhaps

most significantly, the children have no relationship with any mental health counselors where

Father lives. In fact, Father has not even identified counselors who would be available and

qualified to work with the children. While the CSB caseworker testified that she would put Father

in contact with his Indiana county’s child welfare agency in the hopes that they would identify

counseling options for the boys, that had not yet happened.

       {¶48} While the majority is confident that the children have settled in their desire to live

with Father, I would emphasize that their wishes have fluctuated during the short pendency of

these cases. The boys initially expressed the desire to live with Mother, later hedging but still

asserting that they would live with Mother “if things were normal[.]” Mother’s recent mental

health struggles admittedly disrupted the children’s “normal” environment.

       {¶49} Mother is fully aware of the significance of her mental health issues and that she is

prone to bouts of anxiety and depression. She has consistently strived to manage her symptoms,

working with professionals for 20 years to adopt and modify treatment protocols and readily

seeking in-patient services to address crises. Before admitting herself for in-hospital care, Mother

has made arrangements with other adults to provide care for the children.            Although she

understands that she is currently unable to care for the boys because of a recent mental health

crisis, Mother has demonstrated consistent efforts to address her issues.         She has further

demonstrated sustained periods of stability and the ability to provide an appropriate environment

for the children. It does not seem unreasonable to delay finalizing the children’s custodial

disposition to allow Mother at least some time to work on case plan objectives.
                                                 19

       {¶50} I do not believe that the evidence established that there were no concerns regarding

Father’s ability to provide a safe and stable home for the children. Mother testified that Father

was verbally and emotionally abusive toward her when they lived together. In fact, she sought

intervention by CSB while pregnant with E.W. and struggling with depression and suicidal

thoughts because Father was dismissive and emotionally abusive to her. The caseworker admitted

that she remembered such allegations of Father’s abuse in the 2014 case. Although the guardian

ad litem dismissed the issues of Father’s abuse of Mother as having occurred “[m]any years ago,”

Mother testified that Father was still frequently verbally abusive, and that the children heard him

calling her profane names while the parents talked on the phone.

       {¶51} Father admitted during the hearing that Mother never interfered with his ability to

take the children for visits. On the other hand, after the magistrate awarded him legal custody and

Father took the children to his home in Indiana, Mother had to seek court intervention when Father

refused her visits with the boys for more than a month. As a result, the magistrate ordered Father

to make the children available to Mother for visitation on the first weekend of every month.

Accordingly, while Father testified that he would facilitate visits between Mother and the children,

his actions after obtaining legal custody demonstrated otherwise.

       {¶52} Finally, although CSB and the guardian ad litem supported granting Father’s

dispositional motion and closing the children’s cases, neither the caseworker nor guardian

articulated any persuasive reasons to forego at least a limited period of oversight to ensure that the

change in custody was in the boys’ best interest. The guardian ad litem argued against an ICPC

assessment of Father’s home and circumstances which might have illuminated issues not yet

identified during the short tenure of the cases. She argued only that such assessments can take a

long time and would merely prolong the children’s cases. Given the limited time the children had
                                                 20

spent with Father during the past three years, Father’s lack of experience providing the boys’ day-

to-day care, his unfinalized move and enrollment of the children in school and services, and the

allegations that Father has been verbally and emotionally abusive, I believe that the guardian’s

presumption that there were no concerns for the children’s well-being with Father was unfounded.

If nothing else, there was evidence that Father was not inclined to facilitate an ongoing relationship

between the children and Mother, despite their established bond.

       {¶53} After reviewing the record, I would conclude that this is the exceptional case in

which the trier of fact lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding

legal custody of the children to Father without any period of protective supervision, and instead

closing the cases. As Father filed the motion for legal custody, he bore the burden of proving by

a preponderance of the evidence that transitioning W.W. and E.W. into his home in Indiana with

no ongoing monitoring by CSB, the guardian ad litem, and the juvenile court was in the best

interest of the children. See In re A.W., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 20CA011671, 2021-Ohio-2975, ¶ 17.

In my opinion, the evidence does not indicate that Father met his burden. Given the very brief

time (just over four months) that CSB and the guardian ad litem had to investigate the out-of-state

parent who had not had the opportunity to provide care for the boys on an extended basis for

several years, I believe that closing the children’s cases was premature.

       {¶54} All parties recognize the boys’ history of mental health treatment and the need to

continue with those services. The children also have basic needs like adequate housing, education,

daycare, and access to medical and dental care. While Father may ultimately demonstrate his

ability to provide a safe and stable home for the boys, the evidence presented in these cases was

largely speculative and merely indicated good intentions and high hopes. Father claimed to have

identified medical professionals, a daycare provider, and the public school in his district, but he
                                                 21

had not established any services or enrollments. He hoped to move to a two-bedroom apartment

under his current lease but he had not finalized those plans. Father had not yet identified any

mental health service providers for the boys. The CSB caseworker’s plan to contact the child

welfare agency in Father’s county for counseling references for the children demonstrates the

ongoing benefit of agency involvement in these cases.

       {¶55} I further cannot ignore the prior history of verbal and emotional abuse between

Mother and Father. It was unreasonable for the juvenile court to fault Mother for maintaining a

relationship with an abusive boyfriend, while diminishing the significance of Father’s abusive

treatment of Mother. Moreover, Father spent limited time parenting the children during the past

several years, never for an extended period, and always when he and the children were on vacation

without the demands of school, appointments, or routines. Father tacitly admitted that he did not

pursue additional visitation with the children because it was too much trouble to try to work out

an arrangement with Mother. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s reliance in part on the finding that

Father was the “non-offending party” in these cases was not consistent with the sum and substance

of the evidence.

       {¶56} As a final note, I am concerned that CSB filed complaints alleging the children’s

abuse, neglect, and dependency, but immediately after adjudication abdicated its role as a proactive

agent for the children’s welfare. The agency failed to file a dispositional motion, present a case in

chief, or advocate a stance based on a thorough investigation. Instead, CSB offered its support of

Father’s motion and let Father prosecute the cases initiated by the agency. It is disconcerting that

an ICPC assessment, the tool designed to verify the propriety of a placement for children, was

portrayed as an inconvenience and too time consuming to utilize. See R.C. 5103.23 Art. I, Purpose

and Policy (A)-(D). Reasonable investigation, particularly when the propriety of the proposed
                                                22

placement or custodial disposition is based on mere speculation and the cases are in their earliest

stages, is not a waste of time. The well-being of children merits no less.

       {¶57} For the reasons enunciated above, I would conclude that Father failed to meet his

burden of proof in these cases. The decision to close the children’s cases after the initial

dispositional hearing and award legal custody to Father without ongoing oversight was premature

and based predominantly on mere speculation. Accordingly, I believe that the juvenile court’s

judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. I would sustain Mother’s first assignment

of error and decline to address her second as moot.

APPEARANCES:

ALEXANDRA HULL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

SHUBHRA AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

HOLLY FARAH, Guardian ad Litem.