Court Opinion

ID: 9384849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 13:06:01.565625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.877275
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re D.L., 2023-Ohio-1125.]

                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 IN RE: D.L.                                :     APPEAL NO.      C-220448
                                                  TRIAL NO.       F20-151Z
                                            :

                                            :

                                            :          O P I N I O N.

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 5, 2023

Roger W. Kirk, for Appellant Father,

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services,

Robert Adam Hardin, Guardian Ad Litem for D.L.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

       {¶1}    Appellant Father challenges the juvenile court’s order granting legal

custody of his son, D.L., to Maternal Grandmother. Father argues that the record lacks

competent and credible evidence showing that awarding Maternal Grandmother

custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. For the following reasons, we disagree

with Father and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

                            I.      Facts and Procedure

       {¶2}    In February 2020, Mother gave birth to D.L. shortly before she

tragically succumbed to a gunshot wound. Mother left behind another child, D.L.’s

half-sister (“Sister”). Like Mother, Sister’s father was a victim of gun violence.

       {¶3}    Days after Mother’s death, the Hamilton County Department of Job and

Family Services (“HCJFS”) obtained a temporary custody order for Sister. One week

later, Father agreed to place D.L. in HCJFS’s temporary custody. In a complaint,

HCJFS alleged that D.L. and Sister were dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C).

The complaint noted that Father was “believed to have been the target of the shooter

on 2/2/20” and Father was convicted of multiple felonies from 2008 to 2013.

Eventually, Maternal Grandmother was awarded legal custody of Sister. At a

dependency hearing, Father stipulated to the facts in the complaint. Following a

hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated D.L. dependent.

       {¶4}    Father requested custody of D.L. and completed his case-plan services.

In July 2021, the magistrate terminated HCJFS’s temporary custody of D.L., awarded

Father legal custody of D.L., and granted Maternal Grandmother visitation rights. The

magistrate’s findings were minimal, but HCJFS noted that “Father has established a

bond with his child” and had “unsupervised weekend visits with no reported

concerns.” HCJFS’s supervision of D.L. concluded on September 13, 2021.
                                         2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶5}   But the following week, the court granted temporary custody of D.L. to

HCJFS because Father had been arrested and jailed for carrying a concealed weapon

and having a weapon under a disability. The magistrate noted, “HCJFS attempted a

Safety Plan but [Father] was unavailable due to being in a restrictive medical until [sic]

due to a medical complication.” In the ensuing months, both Paternal and Maternal

Grandmothers petitioned for custody of D.L. In December 2021, the magistrate

adjudicated D.L. dependent “[b]ased upon the clear and convincing evidence

presented and the stipulations entered.” Relevant here, the parties stipulated that

Father was incarcerated awaiting trial for his firearm-related felony charges.

       {¶6}   At the disposition hearing, Patricia Waller, D.L.’s HCJFS caseworker,

testified that HCJFS requested custody out of concern that Father’s pending firearm-

related charges jeopardized his ability to parent D.L. In addition, she noted that Father

lacked financial stability and “his own individual housing.” She explained that Father

had been evicted in December 2021 and was living with someone but had no further

information without a background check or home study. And she stated that Kroger

had fired Father after it learned of his criminal history. Waller acknowledged that

Father had completed the case-plan services recommended to him following Mother’s

death and that he was consistent with visitation. But she testified that his ongoing legal

issues complicated her ability to recommend future case-plan services. Rather, the

post-arrest case plan directed Father to contact a support program to assist him with

his unemployment and housing issues.

       {¶7}   Father acknowledged his criminal charges and related legal issues but

testified that he anticipated that the case would be resolved “within the next court date

or two.” Father explained that housing had never been an issue before his recent arrest

and pretrial incarceration, which ultimately caused his eviction. He clarified his living
                                          3
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

arrangements and lack of home study—while he had been living in his significant

other’s house with her family, he did not ask HCJFS to complete a home study of her

house because of alleged complications with having his sister fingerprinted.

       {¶8}   Waller explained that D.L. had lived with Maternal Grandmother for

most of his life, where he was “a happy two-year-old child.” She described D.L.’s bond

with Sister and his aunt, who both live with Maternal Grandmother. Finally, Waller

explained that HCJFS disapproved a placement with Paternal Grandmother because

the home-study report indicated she failed to acknowledge Father’s criminal history.

Yet, Paternal Grandmother recalled that there was little conversation about Father’s

criminal history during the home study. The home study report recommending D.L.’s

placement with Maternal Grandmother, as well as the home-study report advising

against placing D.L. with Paternal Grandmother, were entered into the evidence.

       {¶9}   Following the hearing, the magistrate determined that awarding

Maternal Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. Father

objected and, after a brief hearing, the juvenile court denied Father’s objection and

analyzed the best-interest factors in both R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and 3109.05(F)(1). The

court found that Father “has a lengthy history of court involvement,” and “continued

to rack up criminal charges in multiple counties since HCJFS was once again awarded

custody, stemming from Father’s 2021 arrest.” The court relied on Waller’s testimony

that Father was unemployed and lacked stable housing.

       {¶10} Beginning with D.L.’s interaction and relationships, the juvenile court

found that D.L. was placed with Maternal Grandmother from birth, and “apart from a

few months Father regained Custody [sic],” D.L. remained in her care along with his

sibling. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). Turning to D.L.’s custodial history, the juvenile

court found that D.L. had been in HCJFS’s custody for 27 months out of the past 31
                                       4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

months. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c). Regarding D.L.’s need for secure, permanent

housing, the juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother had permanent housing

and Father had no independent housing. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).

       {¶11} While the juvenile court acknowledged Father’s desire to regain custody

and his consistent visitation with D.L., it found that D.L. had a close bond with

Maternal Grandmother and Sister. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(c). The juvenile court

found that D.L. was adjusted to life with Maternal Grandmother, who provides “a

stable and safe living environment” for him. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). And it found

Maternal Grandmother well suited to facilitate parenting and visitation time with D.L.

See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f). The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s findings and

conclusion. Father appeals the juvenile court’s decision.

                              II.     Law and Analysis

       {¶12} Father argues in a single assignment of error that granting Maternal

Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was an abuse of discretion and contends that the

juvenile court’s best-interest analysis is not supported by sufficient evidence or the

manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶13} When determining the appropriate disposition for a child adjudicated

dependent, the juvenile court may “[a]ward legal custody of the child to either parent

or to any person” who moves for legal custody before the dispositional hearing. R.C.

2151.323(A)(3). The juvenile court’s award of legal custody of D.L. to Maternal

Grandmother vested her with certain caretaking and decision-making rights. See R.C.

2151.011(B)(21). But “an award of legal custody of a child does not divest parents of

their residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.” See In re C.R., 108 Ohio

St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, ¶ 17, citing R.C. 2151.011(B)(19), and In

re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-7208, 781 N.E.2d 971, fn. 1.
                                       5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶14} The juvenile court’s decision to grant or deny legal custody “must be

determined according to the best interest of the child.” In re M/E, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-200349, 2021-Ohio-450, ¶ 19. Because Father retained his residual parental

rights, privileges, and responsibilities, we review the juvenile court’s factual findings

to see if they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re A.W., 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-140142, 2015-Ohio-489, ¶ 9. Further, we review the juvenile court’s

determination of the child’s best interest for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 18. For us

to find that the juvenile court abused its discretion, its decision must be unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. at ¶ 10, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d

217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). In the context of legal-custody decisions, best-

interest findings are reasonable if supported by competent and credible evidence. Id.

       {¶15} When determining the best interest of a child in a legal-custody dispute,

the juvenile court may consider the best-interest factors enumerated under R.C.

2151.414(D)(1) or 3109.04(F)(1). Id. Here, the juvenile court applied the facts of this

case to the relevant factors in both statutes. Father maintains that the juvenile court’s

determination that awarding Maternal Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was in the

child’s best interest is not supported by credible evidence. We disagree.

       {¶16} Beginning with R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), the juvenile court considered D.L.’s

interactions and interrelationships, custodial history, and need for a legally secure

permanent placement. The juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother had

provided D.L. with secure and permanent housing for most of his life and that he had

developed a strong bond with Maternal Grandmother and Sister. Waller testified that

she personally observed D.L. in Maternal Grandmother’s home, where she described

him as a “happy two-year-old child” with all of his needs met. Waller had no concerns

for D.L.’s safety or well-being in her care, or regarding Maternal Grandmother’s ability
                                              6
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

to protect D.L. Further, Waller explained that D.L. was bonded with Sister. In addition

to Waller’s testimony, the home-study report for Maternal Grandmother supports the

juvenile court’s findings.

       {¶17} Turning to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the relevant factors considered were

Father’s wishes, the person most likely to facilitate visitation and parenting time,

D.L.’s interactions and interrelationships, and his adjustment to his home and

community. The juvenile court recognized Father’s desire to have custody of D.L. and

his consistent visitation with his son, but found that D.L. had developed a close bond

with Maternal Grandmother and Sister. In addition, D.L. had adjusted to living in

Maternal Grandmother’s home, which was a stable and safe environment. Further, the

juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother “is in the best position to facilitate

consistent, stable parenting time visits.” Again, these findings by the juvenile court are

supported by Waller’s testimony and Maternal Grandmother’s home-study report.

       {¶18} Father asserts that the evidence in the record demonstrates that his

pending criminal cases would not affect his ability to parent D.L., he had recently

found employment, and that he could provide stable housing for D.L. at his significant

other’s house. Waller testified that HCJFS was concerned with the potential outcome

of Father’s criminal charges. While Father and his attorney expressed a belief that his

pending criminal charges would be promptly dismissed, his criminal case is still

pending. And despite Father’s testimony describing his significant other’s house, he

acknowledged that he had never requested a home study. In contrast, the juvenile

court was presented with a copy of the home-study report for Maternal Grandmother,

describing her home as safe and secure.

                                            7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶19} After our review of the record, we hold that competent and credible

evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that awarding legal custody of D.L. to

Maternal Grandmother was in D.L.’s best interest.

                                 III.   Conclusion

       {¶20} We overrule Father’s single assignment of error and affirm the juvenile

court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:

      The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           8