Court Opinion

ID: 9890902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 19:08:06.101914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:22.020106
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re M.S.M., 2023-Ohio-3771.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: M.S.M.                    :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
                                            :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                            :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                            :
                                            :
                                            :       Case No. 2023 CA 00070
                                            :
                                            :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                    Pleas, Case No. 2022 JVC 00455

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   October 16, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff - Appellant                           For Defendant-Appellee

KATHALEEN S. O’BRIEN                                BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH
116 Cleveland Avenue NW, Suite 303                  402 2nd Street SE
Canton, OH 44702                                    Canton, OH 44702

D. COLEMAN BOND                                     LYNETTE BLASIMAN, CASA GAL
116 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 600                     110 Central Plaza, Suite 436
Canton, OH 44702                                    Canton, OH 44702

RALPH LACKI, GAL – Mother
4608 Castlebar Avenue NW
Canton, OH 44708
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                    2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Mother-Appellant S.M. appeals the June 22, 2023 judgment entry of the

Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted permanent

custody of her minor child, M.S.M. to Appellee Stark County Job and Family Services

(SCJFS). We affirm the trial court.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} This case involves one child, M.S.M. born April 15, 2022. On April 25, 2022,

SCJFS filed a complaint alleging dependency/neglect. Concerns included Mother's

extensive history with children's services agencies in Colorado and Montana resulting in

Mother's permanent loss of custody of at least six other children, Mother's ongoing severe

mental health issues, her multiple aliases, Mother possibly shaking M.S.M., and Mother

leaving M.S.M with the alleged father who is a registered sex offender. The same day, an

emergency shelter care hearing was held resulting in M.S.M. being placed in the

temporary custody of SCJFS.

       {¶ 3} On July 7, 2022, M.S.M. was found to be dependent and placed in the

temporary custody of SCJFS. A case plan was developed with a goal of reunification.

Mother's case plan required her to obtain a parenting assessment at Summit

Psychological, mental health counseling, drug screens, supervised visits with M.S.M.

including attending her medical appointments, complete Goodwill Parenting, and obtain

independent housing and income.

       {¶ 4} Thereafter, the trial court conducted the appropriate six-month review

hearings.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                 3

      {¶ 5} On March 8, 2023, Mother filed a motion to change legal custody of M.S.M.

to herself or her boyfriend who was not M.S.M.'s father.

      {¶ 6} On March 9, 2023, SCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody of M.S.M.

The motion alleged in part that M.S.M. could not be placed with Mother within a

reasonable time, that Mother had lost custody of other children, and that permanent

custody was in M.S.M.'s best interests.

      {¶ 7} On March 15, 2023, counsel for Mother filed a motion to withdraw citing

Mother's March 8, 2023 motion which she personally filed in the family court by telling

court employees her attorney had directed her to file the motion. However, counsel for

Mother had previously declined to file the motion on behalf of Mother as there was no

legal basis to support the motion. The trial court granted counsel's motion to withdraw

and appointed new counsel.

      {¶ 8} On April 6, 2023 SCJFS filed an amended complaint to add developments

involving Mother abducting a newborn in Coshocton County. Mother was arrested March

17, 2023, charged with several felonies, and incarcerated pending trial.

      {¶ 9} On June 7, 2023, Mother filed a motion to extend SCJFS's temporary

custody for an additional six months.

      {¶ 10} On June 13, 2023, the trial court heard evidence on SCJFS's motion for

permanent custody and Mother's motion to extend temporary custody. By judgment

entries filed June 22, 2023, the trial court denied Mother's motion for an extension of

temporary custody, found M.S.M cannot or should not be placed with either parent in a

reasonable amount of time, that permanent custody to SCJFS was in M.S.M.'s best
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                 4

interest, terminated all parental rights, and granted permanent custody of M.S.M to

SCJFS. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed contemporaneously.

      {¶ 11} Mother filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. She raises two assignments of error as follow:

                                            I

      {¶ 12} "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

GROUNDS EXISTED FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD AND SUCH

DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

                                           II

      {¶ 13} "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

AND SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

                                          I, II

      {¶ 14} Because they are interrelated, we address Mother's assignments of error

together. Mother argues: (1) the trial court should have granted her motion for an

extension of time to complete her case plan; (2) that the trial court erred in granting

permanent custody to SCJFS because SCJFS failed to demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that grounds existed to grant permanent custody or that permanent
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                      5

custody was in M.S.M.'s best interest; and (3) the trial court's decisions are against the

manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

                                      Applicable Law

       {¶ 15} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states in relevant part that permanent custody may be

granted to a public or private agency if the trial court determines by clear and convincing

evidence at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of R.C. 2151.414, that it is in the best

interest of the child and any of the following apply:

              (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned* * *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.

              ***

       {¶ 16} R.C. 2151.414(B) therefore provides a two-pronged analysis the trial court

is required to apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial

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

2151.414(B)(1) (a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding

the best interest of the child.

       {¶ 17} R.C. 2151.414(D) governs "best interests" and states:

              (D) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held

              pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division

              (A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                           6

              of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors,

              including, but not limited to, the following:

              (1) 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;

              (2) 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;

              (3) 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 ending on or

              after March 18, 1999;

              (4) 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;

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

              apply in relation to the parents and child.

       {¶ 18} 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), paragraph three of the
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                         7

syllabus. See also, In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 361 (1985).

"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." Cross at 477.

       {¶ 19} On review for manifest weight, the standard in a civil case is identical to the

standard in a criminal case: a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and

determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or finder of fact] clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction

[decision] must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d

172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). In weighing the evidence, however, we are

always mindful of the presumption in favor of the trial court's factual findings. Eastley v.

Volkman, 132 Ohio St .3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517.

                                    Mother's Arguments

       {¶ 20} Mother argues she complied with all aspects of her case plan and took

substantial steps in the right direction. The evidence elicited at the hearing, however,

reflects the contrary. The trial court heard from SCJFS ongoing case worker Jennifer

Grice, Mother's mental health counselor, her parenting class advisor, Canton police

detective Kevin Sedares, and the guardian ad litem. Mother presented no evidence.

       {¶ 21} SCJFS case worker Jennifer Grice was assigned to M.S.M.'s case. She

testified the initial concerns were Mother's significant mental health history, concerns she

may have been experiencing a postpartum psychosis, and reports that Mother was

shaking M.S.M. Grice stated she developed a case plan for Mother which consisted of a
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                      8

parenting evaluation, parenting classes, comprehensive mental health treatment, random

drug screens, and a directive to find and maintain independent housing. Transcript of trial

(T.) 21-23.

       {¶ 22} Grice reported Mother failed to successfully complete parenting classes and

was inconsistent with mental health treatment. T. 24, 26-27. Rather, Mother's mental

health deteriorated during the pendency of the case. Mother was chronically dishonest

and manipulative. She filed a false affidavit with the trial court to support her self-filed

motion to change legal custody. The affidavit included an email which purported to be

written to Mother from Grice, but which Grice did not write. When compared to Mother's

prior emails to Grice, it appeared the email was written by Mother. T. 29-34, SCJFS

Exhibit 1.

       {¶ 23} Grice further testified Mother's visitation with M.S.M. was not productive.

Mother failed to take direction from staff and spent a significant portion of her visitation

arguing with staff and inspecting M.S.M. for injuries. T. 28

       {¶ 24} In January of 2023 Mother told Grice she was pregnant. Grice testified this

was concerning due to Mother's history of falsely claiming to be pregnant. Mother told

Grice she did not have a due date because her blood test was not showing she was

pregnant but allegedly an ultra sound confirmed she was. T. 35-36. On February 8, 2023,

Mother appeared for a visit with M.S.M. appearing to be at near full-term pregnancy when

one week prior she had not appeared pregnant at all. Grice testified Mother's stomach

appeared to be fake. T. 36-37. In early March, 2023, Mother claimed she gave birth at

home. Grice alerted Coshocton County Children's Services because Mother was residing

in Coshocton County at the time. T. 38-39.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                         9

       {¶ 25} Canton Police Detective Kevin Sedares testified as to what followed Grice's

contact with Coshocton County authorities. On March 17, 2023 Mother was arrested for

abducting a newborn by posing as a Coshocton County Children's Services worker. He

stated a vehicle involved in the incident was identified, located, and a traffic stop was

conducted. Mother, her boyfriend, and the abducted child were in the car. At Mother's

apartment, Sedares recovered a prosthetic stomach. Mother still claimed the child was

hers. T. 97-101. As of the date of the hearing, Mother was charged with multiple felonies

in connection with the abduction and was being held in jail pending trial. T. 101. In its brief

filed with this court, SCJFS has included in its appendix Exhibit 17 which is a Stark County

Court of Common Pleas judgment entry dated August 9, 2023. The entry reflects Mother

entered pleas of guilty to burglary, a felony of the second degree, abduction, a felony of

the third degree, forgery, a felony of the fifth degree, interference with custody, a

misdemeanor of the first degree, and personating an officer, a misdemeanor of the first

degree. The entry further reflects mother was sentenced to an indefinite term of

incarceration of 7 to 10.5 years.

       {¶ 26} Summit Psychological Associates psychology assistant Michael Stranathan

testified he conducted Mother's psychological evaluation. Stranathan obtained records

from SCJFS before conducting his evaluation. The records outlined Mother's prior

involvement with child protective services in Ohio, Colorado, and Montana. T. 64-65.

Mother denied any prior involvement with children's services agencies, claiming she had

"severe retrograde amnesia" due to traumatic brain injury following an accident and had

no recollection of anything that happened in her life prior to 2020. T. 66. Later, however,

Mother admitted to permanently losing custody of other children prior to 2020. T. 66-67
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                     10

Mother was further unable to produce any evidence she had been involved in an accident.

Instead, she claimed she was in the witness protection program and that all her records

were automatically destroyed upon her placement into the program. T. 68-69. Then, in

between appointments, Mother claimed she had suffered another traumatic brain injury

and her memories had been restored. T. 70.

       {¶ 27} Stranathan performed testing on Mother and diagnosed her with borderline

personability disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and Munchausen Syndrome. He

testified he noticed similar diagnoses in Mother's history, and that these diagnoses

negatively impact Mother's ability to parent a child. T. 71-73. Stranathan additionally

stated Mother exhibits manipulative, deceptive, and attention-seeking behavior. She

attempted to manipulate the evaluation by providing false information and refusing to sign

releases. This was also historically consistent behavior for Mother. T. 73-74. Stranathan

did not believe Mother could successfully complete her case plan due to these non-

adaptive personality traits, and was further concerned Mother would attempt to abscond

with M.S.M. T. 75-76.

       {¶ 28} Goodwill Industries Parenting Program supervisor Jennifer Fire also

testified. She stated Mother was in her class and like Stranathan, Fire also noted Mother

provided contradictory information. T. 81. Mother missed six classes. When she was in

class her participation was distracting and off topic. T. 84. Fire felt Mother's visits with

M.S.M. were concerning as she did not accept redirection offered during her visits. T. 85.

Fire recommended Mother be prohibited from bringing food to visits for M.S.M. out of fear

that Mother would attempt to harm M.S.M. with tainted food. In her 15 years with the same

agency, Fire had never before had such concerns or made a similar recommendation. T.
Stark County, Case No. 2023 CA 00070                                                      11

89. Fire also felt and that Mother's home was not safe for the child, that Mother could not

keep M.S.M. safe, and did not recommend Mother be reunited with M.S.M. T. 86, 90.

       {¶ 29} During the best interest phase of the hearing, Grice testified M.S.M. has

been in the same foster home since her removal from Mother's custody. She reported

M.S.M. is bonded with her foster parents and has no behavioral, medical, or

developmental issues. M.S.M.'s foster family was interested in adopting M.S.M. T. 135-

137. Grice testified kinship placements had been explored but yielded no appropriate

relatives to care for M.S.M. T. 138. She believed permanent custody was in M.S.M's best

interest and an extension of temporary custody was not. T. 139-140. The guardian ad

litem echoed Grice's recommendation. T. 152.

       {¶ 30} Based upon the testimony presented, we do not find the trial court erred or

lost its way in terminating Mother's parental rights and granting permanent custody of

M.S.M to SCDJF, as SCJFS produced clear and convincing evidence to support the trial

court's findings. We further find no error in the trial court's denial of Mother's motion for

an extension of time. Finally, we do not find any manifest miscarriage of justice.

       {¶ 31} Mother's assignments of error are overruled.

       {¶ 32} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Family

Court Division, is hereby affirmed.

By King, J.,

Delaney, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.