Court Opinion

ID: 9896582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 18:12:10.83741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:08.398786
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re W.P., 2023-Ohio-4083.]

                                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           FAYETTE COUNTY

 IN RE:                                            :
                                                          CASE NO. CA2023-04-008
          W.P., JR., et al.                        :
                                                                  OPINION
                                                   :              11/13/2023

                                                   :

                                                   :

                                                   :

             APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                               JUVENILE DIVISION
                      Case Nos. AND20220092; AND20220093

Melissa S. Upthegrove, for appellant.

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel S. Martin, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} April Wilson ("Mother"), appeals the decision of the Fayette County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting Yalonda Pointer (paternal "Grandmother") legal
                                                                    Fayette CA2023-04-008

custody of Mother's two children. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the juvenile

court's decision.

       {¶ 2} On March 14, 2022, Fayette County Children's Services ("FCCS") filed a

complaint alleging W.P. Jr. was an abused and legally dependent child and that his brother,

W.W. was also dependent. The complaint further alleged that Mother had recently thrown

a phone at W.P. Jr. and punched him in the face after Mother became angry with him for

not watching W.W. in a parking lot. W.P. Jr. informed FCCS there were other instances of

abuse as well. The children were quickly removed from Mother's custody and placed in the

temporary custody of FCCS. FCCS, in turn, then placed the children with Grandmother. It

should be noted that the children's father is incarcerated and played no active part in any

of the proceedings.

       {¶ 3} On June 1, 2022, the trial court found, after considering the testimony

presented as well as the admissions of Mother, that W.P. Jr. and W.W. were dependent

children and that W.P. Jr. was abused by Mother. Meanwhile, a case plan was developed

by the Fayette County Department of Job and Family Services ("FCDJFS") and approved

by the trial court. The plan, with the goal of reuniting Mother with the children, tasked her

with, among other things, obtaining both mental health and substance abuse assessments,

following all recommendations of any medical providers, completing anger management

and parenting programs, and regular drug testing.

       {¶ 4} During these proceedings, Grandmother moved for legal custody of the two

children. By agreement of the parties, the motion was not heard until March 24, 2023. At

the hearing, the court heard testimony from Mother, Grandmother, Mother's sister, and

Mother's caseworker at FCCS.

       {¶ 5} The testimony regarding the children's condition in Grandmother's custody

was uncontroverted. W.P. Jr. was doing well in school, obtained advanced levels of English

                                             -2-
                                                                     Fayette CA2023-04-008

and math, and was in a gifted program. W.W., who had a history of developmental delays,

made significant progress with his speech and vocabulary. He was also enrolled in speech

therapy programs at school and at Dayton Children's Hospital. Both children participated

in sports and other activities.   Despite previously being truant, they now had perfect

attendance at school. At Grandmother's house, the children shared bunk beds in one of

her bedrooms. Ultimately, Grandmother testified, "the boys have been healthy . . . happy .

. . [and] secure" in her care.

       {¶ 6} Testimony concerning Mother's condition and compliance with the FCDJFS

case plan was not as uniformly positive. After the children were placed in the custody of

Grandmother, Mother completed parenting and anger management classes. Mother also

maintained employment and housing. However, Mother continued to have instances of

emotional outbursts.       Her caseworker reported various occurrences during their

interactions, and Mother had one outburst outside of court. In addition, one of Mother's

visits with the children had to be cut short after she became overly emotional. Outside of

that incident, Mother's supervised visits with the children went well. All involved in the case

agreed Mother was bonded with the children, and Grandmother expressed willingness to

let the visits continue.

       {¶ 7} Consistent with her case plan, Mother sought out evaluations and treatment.

However, over the course of the year, she saw various providers and repeatedly dropped

out of programs due to dissatisfaction in one respect or another. As a result, Mother

struggled to timely obtain the full psychological evaluation and alcohol and drug assessment

required by her case plan. This delayed the custody hearing. Mother often claimed the

reason for these setbacks, as well as her continuing outbursts, was that medical providers

and government workers refused to "hear" her.

                                              -3-
                                                                      Fayette CA2023-04-008

       {¶ 8} Mother also stopped taking mental health medications. She claimed this was

advised by her providers, but Mother's caseworker testified it was against provider

recommendation. Further, Mother had access to medical marijuana and claimed to only

use it once a day to sleep, but her drug tests indicated "extremely high levels" of marijuana

use. Mother had no explanation for these results. In the opinion of Mother's caseworker,

Mother's mental health remained a "major concern."

       {¶ 9} Both FCCS and the children's guardian ad litem ("GAL") recommended to the

trial court that Grandmother retain custody of the children but that Mother still receive

visitation rights. The GAL's report to the court reflected that the children desired to continue

living with Grandmother and have visitations with Mother.

       {¶ 10} In its March 31, 2023 order, the trial court granted Grandmother legal custody.

Mother was granted parenting time. This appeal followed.

       {¶ 11} Mother raises a single assignment of error for our review:

       {¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF LEGAL CUSTODY TO A NON-PARENT

RELATIVE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THUS

CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR

       {¶ 13} R.C. 2151.353(A) provides that when a child has been adjudicated abused,

dependent, or neglected, a juvenile court may award legal custody to a nonparent. "A

juvenile court's custody determination under R.C. 2151.353 must be based on the best

interests of the child." In re A.M.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-12-159, 2022-Ohio-2913,

¶ 18; In re K.B., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-063, 2013-Ohio-858, ¶ 11. To determine

the best interests of the child, the juvenile court considers all relevant factors, including

those identified in R.C. 3109.04(F). Id.

       {¶ 14} Under R.C. 3109.04(F), courts consider various factors, but some are

particularly relevant for review here: (1) the wishes of the parents; (2) the wishes of the

                                              -4-
                                                                    Fayette CA2023-04-008

children; (3) the children's interaction and relationships with those who may significantly

affect their best interest; (4) the children's adjustment to any new home, school, and

community; (4) the mental and physical health of all persons involved; (5) who is more likely

to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights; and (6) whether a parent has

been convicted of or pleaded guilty to child abuse or neglect.         "'[N]o single factor is

determinative of the best interest of a child; rather, the determination should be made in

light of the totality of the circumstances.'"    Vaughn v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Warren No.

CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-1805, ¶ 42, quoting Suess v. Suess, 12th Dist. Warren No.

CA96-01-006, 1996 WL 571362, *2 (Oct. 7, 1996).

       {¶ 15} In legal custody matters, the judgment of a trial court is presumed correct; it

will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion occurs. Seng v. Seng, 12th Dist.

Clermont No. CA2007-12-120, 2008-Ohio-6758, ¶ 10. Stated differently, "'[t]he discretion a

trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the

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

parties concerned.'" Grover v. Dourson, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2018-07-007, 2019-Ohio-

2495, ¶ 15, quoting Kenney v. Kenney, 12th Dist. Warren CA2003-07-078, 2004-Ohio-

3912,¶ 6. Ultimately, if the record contains competent and credible evidence which supports

the trial court's decision, that decision will not be disturbed, as that court was in the best

position to "'to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness [in person].'"

Seng at ¶ 16, quoting Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997-Ohio-260.

       {¶ 16} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the children

to Grandmother. Based on the evidence and testimony presented to it, the trial court made

many findings that considered various relevant factors, including those identified in R.C.

3109.04: (1) Mother's desire for custody; (2) the GAL's report and recommendations which

documented the children's desire to stay with Grandmother; (3) the successful assimilation

                                                -5-
                                                                    Fayette CA2023-04-008

of the children into Grandmother's home; (4) the children's recent successes in school and

participation in extracurricular activities while under Grandmother's care; and (5)

Grandmother's willingness to let Mother continue visiting the children on a regular basis.

The trial court also found "Mother has significant mental health issues." Upon review of the

record, the trial court's decision was based on competent and credible evidence.

       {¶ 17} Mother undoubtedly made progress with her case plan. However, it is well

established that completion of a case plan's requirements does not entitle her to regain

custody of the children. In re S.U., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-07-047, 2014-Ohio-

5166, ¶ 35. Instead, the court must look to whether Mother "substantially remedied the

concerns that caused the removal from the parent's custody." In re V.R.R., 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2022-08-079, 2023-Ohio-185, ¶ 35.

       {¶ 18} Here, despite the progress made, Mother failed to adequately remedy the

mental health concerns that initially led to the removal of the children from her custody. As

documented throughout this case, Mother is still susceptible to emotional outbursts, and

her actions, particularly regarding mental health medications and marijuana use, are

contrary to the recommendation of health providers. The trial court's concerns about

Mother's mental health, and thus her ability to effectively parent the children, were

supported by the record.

       {¶ 19} In conclusion, the trial court's decision to grant custody of the children to

Grandmother was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Mother's sole assignment of

error is overruled.

       {¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.

       S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

                                             -6-