Court Opinion

ID: 9892748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 19:10:07.052859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:35.821536
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re C.G., 2023-Ohio-3857.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF:                                  Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                                   Hon. John W. Wise, J.
        C.G. aka                                   Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

        G.C.                                       Case No. 2023 CA 26

                                                   OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
                                                Juvenile Division, Case No. 2021 AB 0081

JUDGMENT:                                       Reversed and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         October 24, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Appellee                                    For Appellant Mother

R. KYLE WITT                                    DAVID TAWNEY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                            117 West Main Street,
GENYLYNN COSGROVE                               Suite 208
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                            Lancaster, Ohio 43130
239 West Main Street, Suite 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130                           For Father

Guardian ad Litem                               ZACHARY MERANDA
                                                33 West Main Street
THOMAS GORDON                                   Newark, Ohio 43055
3135 Sun Valley Drive
Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                 2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant, J.W., appeals the decision of the Fairfield County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated Appellant’s parental rights and

granted Fairfield County Department of Job and Family Services’ (“Agency”) motion for

permanent custody of C.G. The following facts give rise to this appeal.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2}   C.G. was born on June 17, 2021. Appellant is the biological mother of C.G.

B.G. is the biological father (“Father”).

       {¶3}   On June 18, 2021, the Agency received a report of abuse as C.G. tested

positive at birth for suboxone.

       {¶4}   On August 31, 2021, C.G. was found to be a dependent minor and placed

into the temporary custody of the Agency.

       {¶5}   On November 14, 2022, the Agency filed a motion requesting they be

granted permanent custody of C.G.

       {¶6}   On March 13, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for

permanent custody.

       {¶7}   First, Appellant testified that she is the mother of C.G. She was already

involved with the Agency when C.G. was born, as C.G.’s sibling U.G. ingested her

prescription medication. Appellant had five children involved with the Agency when C.G.

was born. The Agency eventually obtained permanent custody of her other five children

for her lack of compliance with her case plan.

       {¶8}   Appellant testified she had a relapse in February of 2022 when she had an

overdose. After her relapse she entered inpatient treatment in April of 2022 and was
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                       3

discharged in August of 2022. From inpatient treatment she went to Southern Hope, a

sober living and inpatient facility. She was then briefly at another facility she did not feel

safe at and transferred to Spectrum Outreach in October of 2022.

       {¶9}   Appellant recently moved into a new home with B.G. Both are employed,

and Appellant recently got hired full time at a retail store at a higher wage. She will have

a second, part-time job where she can work hours as necessary. Appellant admitted there

was violence between her and B.G. in the past which led to Agency involvement.

       {¶10} Appellant and B.G. have had unsupervised visits with C.G. She believes

they are going well, and C.G. is bonding with her.

       {¶11} Appellant testified that since entering inpatient treatment in April of 2022,

she has not tested positive for any controlled substance other than what she is prescribed.

       {¶12} Next, B.G. testified that he is C.G.’s father. He testified he had three children

with Appellant at the time C.G. was born. All three were involved with the Agency. B.G.

said he did not have good compliance with the other three children’s case plan. He was

incarcerated when C.G. was born, serving a sentence of about four months. He is not

sure what he was incarcerated for, either drug use or violating probation.

       {¶13} B.G. was incarcerated again at the end of 2021 for about a month or two for

a felony drug possession charge. Upon release, he entered inpatient treatment. He was

there for roughly six months. He then went to sober living for a couple of months. He then

enrolled in Spectrum. In order to work on preventing domestic violence, B.G. and

Appellant have set boundaries. He completed a batterer’s intervention program and

participates in counseling. He and Appellant are also engaged in parenting classes. He
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                     4

is working at Taco Bell right now. They have been in their current residence for a week.

The rent is about $800 per month.

       {¶14} Since entering his inpatient program, B.G. has had no positive drug

screens. He is up for a promotion at his job, and his visits with C.G. have been going well.

       {¶15} Morgan Furness then testified that she is the caseworker employed by the

Agency. C.G. has been in foster care since his birth. Appellant and B.G. do not have

custody of any of their other children. At the beginning of temporary custody there was a

lack of involvement by either parent with the case plan.

       {¶16} Since Appellant started inpatient treatment, she has complied with her case

plan. The Agency paid Appellant and B.G.’s first month rent in their new residence.

Appellant has continued her substance abuse counseling and random screening. She

also is in therapy for her mental health. There are no safety concerns with their new

residence, and it is appropriate for a child.

       {¶17} B.G. was not active in his other children’s case plan. Upon leaving

incarceration a second time, he entered inpatient treatment and has been compliant with

the case plan.

       {¶18} Ms. Furness then testified about the concerns the Agency holds. The

Agency is worried about maintaining their recovery outside of a heavily structured

environment, maintaining housing of their own, and the potential return of domestic

violence into the home. The Agency would need a longer period of time to observe in

order to make this determination.

       {¶19} The Agency has had temporary custody of C.G. since his birth. He turned

two this year. The Agency has noted no concerns with the parents’ interaction with C.G.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                        5

       {¶20} During observation of C.G. with the foster parents, the Agency noted all his

basic needs are being met. He is comfortable in his environment. He has bonded with his

foster parents and the other children in the home.

       {¶21} On cross-examination, Ms. Furness stated that Appellant has had a longer

period of compliance with her case plan than non-compliance. The Agency did not

attempt to arrange any overnight visits for C.G. with either parent while in sober living.

       {¶22} Last, the Guardian ad Litem, Thomas Gordon, testified he had been with

the family since the case with the older children first opened. The Guardian ad Litem filed

a report with the trial court recommending the Agency not be granted permanent custody

of C.G. He observed the parents with C.G. ten times, and every time, Appellant and B.G.

were appropriate with C.G. The Guardian ad Litem also saw C.G. with his foster family.

They took very good care of him, and C.G. enjoys being with them. The Guardian ad

Litem would recommend the parents receive more time to show they can maintain a

sober, safe, and stable living arrangement.

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶23} Thereafter, Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal. She raises the

following two Assignments of Error:

       {¶24} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MINOR CHILD

COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE APPELLANT WITHIN A REASONABLE LENGTH

OF TIME.

       {¶25} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY.”
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                            6

       {¶26} For the sake of judicial economy, we will address the assignments of error

out of order.

                                                   II.

       {¶27} In Appellant’s second Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court

erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to grant Appellee’s motion for permanent

custody. We agree.

       {¶28} “[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 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).

       {¶29} 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’
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                       7

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

Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 1997-Ohio-260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.

                        Requirements for Permanent Custody Awards

       {¶30} 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

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

child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.

       {¶31} Following the hearing, R.C. §2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant

permanent custody to the agency, 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 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.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                    8

              (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 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.

       {¶32} Therefore, 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, the trial

court will usually determine whether one of the circumstances delineated in R.C.

§2151.414(B)(1) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best

interest of the child.

       {¶33} In the case sub judice, the trial court found that R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a)-

(c),(e) do not apply to either parent, but R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(d) does apply.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                   9

                                     Best Interest of the Child

       {¶34} 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 caregivers and out-of-home

       providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;

                (b)   This wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or

       through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard to the maturity of the

       child;

                (c)   The custodial history of the child, including whether 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;

                (d)   The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement

       and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of

       permanent custody to the agency;
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                   10

              (e)    Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this

       section apply in relation to the parents and child.

       {¶35} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance. In re

C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816.

       {¶36} In the case sub judice, we note the trial court found that C.G. is very bonded

to Appellant, B.G., and the foster family. The trial court further found Appellant and B.G.

have not shown that they can maintain their sobriety, employment, and housing outside

of a highly structured environment. The trial court also notes Appellant and B.G. lost

custody of older children. The trial court has also found that for over the past year

Appellant and B.G. have successfully worked the case plan, maintained sobriety, gained

employment, participated and completed mental health counseling, substance abuse

counseling, and parenting classes.

       {¶37} What is also noted is that the Agency has not pointed to any part of the case

plan where Appellant or B.G. were deficient in the prior year, unlike with their other

children’s case plan where neither engaged with the Agency. In addition, the Guardian

ad Litem does not recommend permanent custody be granted to the Agency. He feels

Appellant and B.G. should be given an opportunity to show they can maintain their

sobriety, employment, and safe living arrangements.

       {¶38} Appellee’s argument at the permanent custody hearing focused on the need

for C.G. to have a permanent, stable living arrangement. However, no one element is

given greater weight or heightened significance. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-

1104, 862 N.E.2d 816. Appellant and B.G. have been meeting the goals and objectives

of the case plan for more than the past year with no deficiency or shortcomings noted by
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 26                                                 11

the Agency. Yet the Agency did not find reunification possible. We fail to see how the

case plan was designed in a way to achieve reunification, and how reasonable efforts

were made at reunification as required by R.C. §2151.419(A)(1). The case plan should

have been designed to provide sufficient time to show their ability to maintain their

sobriety, employment, and a safe, permanent, and stable living arrangement for C.G.

       {¶39} Based upon the foregoing, we find the evidence was insufficient to grant the

Agency’s motion for permanent custody.

       {¶40} Accordingly, Appellant’s second Assignment of Error is sustained.

                                                I.

      {¶41} Based upon our disposition in Appellant’s second Assignment of Error, we

decline to address Appellant’s first Assignment of Error.

      {¶42} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,

Juvenile Division of Fairfield County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

King, J., concur.

JWW/br 1019