Court Opinion

ID: 9930613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 14:06:38.20669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:48.793632
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.H., 2024-Ohio-423.]

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

 IN RE: B.H. AND S.G.                        :     APPEAL NOS. C-230530
                                                               C-230532
                                             :     TRIAL NO. F20-95Z

                                             :

                                             :       O P I N I O N.

Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 7, 2024

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

Donita Parrish, Attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem for the children,

Alana Van Gundy, for Appellant Mother,

Jeffrey J. Cutcher, for Appellant Father.
                         OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     K.S. (“mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s judgment granting

permanent custody of her children, S.G. and B.H., to the Hamilton County

Department of Job and Family Services (“JFS”). Mother asserts that the court’s

decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. Mother further argues that the record does not show that the guardian

ad litem (“GAL”) observed the children with mother in violation of Sup.R. 48.

        {¶2}     Although B.H.’s1 alleged father (“father”) did not have significant

involvement with B.H. and did not engage in any case-plan services, he has appealed

in support of mother’s arguments. Because he does not make any arguments specific

to the termination of his parental rights, we address mother’s and father’s arguments

together.

                    I.      Relevant Facts and Procedural History

                    A. Pretrial stipulations, services, and status

        {¶3}     In January and February 2021, JFS filed a complaint and an amended

complaint with the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, alleging that S.G. and B.H. were

neglected, abused, and dependent.

                            Mother and father’s stipulations

        {¶4}     In April 2021, JFS dismissed and refiled its complaint. During a July

2021 adjudicatory hearing, mother and father stipulated to numerous facts alleged in

JFS’s April 2021 complaint:

        •        In October 2019, maternal grandmother, who lived with mother

        and the children, overdosed in the home while the children were

1 S.G.’s father did not participate in the proceedings.

                                                   2
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

present. The two oldest children (who are not the subject of this appeal)

reported that maternal grandmother took Xanax and Ativan, displayed

out-of-control behaviors, urinated on herself, got into an altercation

with mother, and later fell and hit her head. The children had to call 911

because mother was asleep. Maternal grandmother later died from

injuries cause by the fall.

•      In text messages, mother and maternal grandmother had

discussed obtaining drugs, selling “food stamps,” and other means to

make money.

•      In June 2020, JFS received a report of substance abuse in the

home, mother’s “out of control behavior,” mother’s untreated mental

health, and mother’s failure to meet her children’s basic needs. The

children reported to JFS seeing needles and illicit substances around

the home and being used by people in the home. Mother denied

substance use but admitted that her paramour, B.W., used drugs in the

home. As a result, JFS implemented a safety plan with maternal

grandfather.

•      In July 2020, mother denied JFS access to her home and the

children as required by the safety plan. She failed to respond to JFS’s

attempts to contact her until an October 2020 telephone call, when she

admitted to her failure to address her anger and mental-health issues.

She continued to refuse JFS access to the home.

•      In November 2020, the court granted interim custody of the two

older children, A.G. and L.G., to a relative. Mother failed to comply with

                                    3
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

court orders to provide the children’s personal belongings and submit

to a hair-follicle toxicology test.

•      After the November 2020 custody hearing, JFS interviewed A.G.

and L.G, who reported that there was often no food in the home and

they had witnessed domestic violence between mother B.W. They told

JFS that they had witnessed drug use and drug paraphernalia in the

home, drug trafficking by mother, and needles and blood in the

bathroom. They had seen B.W. under the influence of substances,

exhibit bizarre behaviors, and “nod[] off.” The children were able to

describe what different drugs look like, how drugs are injected, and the

marks left by an injection, which they had seen on B.W.’s arm. They had

observed baggies of white powder and marijuana in the home. L.G. and

A.G. were responsible for cooking, cleaning, bathing, changing, and

supervising the younger three children because mother mostly stayed in

her room and slept.

•      JFS received reports that the family home had been robbed

multiple times, with the children present, by people that mother knew.

Mother had obtained two guns.

•      JFS discovered that S.G. had a speech delay caused by an

untreated cleft palate.

•      Father had a significant criminal history involving drugs and

theft charges. He had an open warrant for his arrest.

•      After the court granted JFS interim custody of the children in

January 2021, JFS workers who retrieved the children from mother’s

                                      4
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       home observed that mother had a black eye. JFS discovered that mother

       had posted pictures of herself on social media showing physical injuries,

       including a black eye.

                                Additional allegations

       {¶5}   Mother and Father did not stipulate to other facts alleged in the April

2021 complaint:

       •      JFS alleged that in January 2020, it received a report that police

       had responded to the home after mother shot B.W. during a domestic-

       violence altercation while the children were present. JFS alleged that

       B.W. frequently visited the home, had pleaded guilty to drug charges,

       and had multiple active warrants. Mother reported that she made

       attempts to keep B.W. away from the home, but he continued to return.

       •      S.G. and B.H. allegedly had never been enrolled in school.

       Mother had previously been charged with failing to send L.G. to school.

                Case-plan participation and GAL involvement

       {¶6}   By March 2021, the GAL had made three unsuccessful attempts to

contact mother. She had conducted virtual meetings with B.H. and S.G. twice in

February 2021 and had face-to-face contact with the children in March 2021 at their

foster-home placement. JFS interviewed father in February 2021.

       {¶7}   Mother’s initial case plan stated that mother spent her money on drugs

and other unnecessary items over providing food and necessities for her children,

permitted unsafe people access to the home, and left the children either unattended or

with these unsafe people. The children were fearful of her due to her outbursts. Mother

had lost her housing. But mother believed there were no safety concerns and saw no

                                          5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

need for JFS’s involvement. The case plan required mother to engage in services, such

as a diagnostic assessment of functioning (“DAF”), domestic-violence and parenting

classes, and drug screens. She was also required to visit the children regularly.

       {¶8}   In April 2021, mother and father agreed with an interim-custody award

to JFS. The court adjudicated the children dependent. In addition to the stipulated

facts, the trial court found that 1) mother had a history with JFS with concerns about

her mental health, substance abuse, and inability to meet the children’s basic needs,

including stable housing and food; 2) mother and grandmother had texted about a lack

of food; 3) B.H. and S.G. were not, and never had been, enrolled in school, causing

significant delays; and 4) mother either shot or attempted to shoot B.W. in the home

with the children present.

       {¶9}   By July 2021, mother was not participating in any services, was staying

with different friends, and had no stable income. Mother had not consistently visited

the children, causing the Family Nurturing Center (“FNC”) to cancel mother’s

visitation.

       {¶10} In December 2021, mother had begun to make some progress in

completing case-plan services. She had completed a visitation intake and was

“somewhat engaged in her parenting classes.” Reunification remained the goal. The

magistrate granted JFS’s first motion to extend temporary custody of the children and

granted mother supervised visitation.

                         JFS sought permanent custody

       {¶11} Approximately 18 months after removing the children from mother’s

care, JFS sought permanent custody of the children.

                                           6
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶12} Though JFS had referred mother for a DAF, substance-abuse treatment,

drug screens, and parenting classes, she failed to engage in substance-abuse and

mental-health treatment and parenting classes. Mother lacked stable housing and

reportedly was seeking employment. Mother’s February 2022 drug screen was positive

for fentanyl, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and opiates. Mother’s visitation

was cancelled again due to her lack of attendance. Mother had pending felony drug

and weapons charges. Father had abandoned B.H.

      The children’s counselors recommended no visits with mother

       {¶13} A December 2022 letter from B.H.’s counselor reported that B.H. had

been residing with his foster parents for two years and expressed that he wanted to be

adopted by them. Mother had failed to appear for most visits, only visiting B.H. eight

times over ten months. B.H. experienced vomiting and diarrhea within 24 hours of the

visit each time he saw mother, with four instances resulting in a fever of more than 101

degrees. B.H.’s counselor concluded that “somatic symptoms of stress were extreme

and obviously directly correlated with the visits with his mother.” Further, mother’s

visits “caused posttraumatic stress that is too much for a little boy to handle, and it

manifested in physical illness that disrupted his school attendance, holiday, and other

activities.” The counselor concluded that B.H.’s visits with mother were “detrimental

to [B.H.’s] mental and physical health, and that restarting them would set him back

significantly in his emotional and academic progress.”

       {¶14} A December 2022 letter from S.G.’s counselor stated that she had

“work[ed] therapeutically with S.G. long enough to have seen her through four foster

and kinship placements.” The counselor was against visitation with mother because

“mother has demonstrated a grossly inconsistent visit pattern in the past and this

                                           7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

places a great deal of unnecessary psychological burden on 8 year old [S.G.] including

feelings of abandonment, neglect, shame and self-blame.” The counselor added that

mother had not made any “noted psychological changes” and continued to “express

that [S.G.] was, in fact, safe in her care.” She further opined that mother had

“continued in the same lifestyle choices as when [S.G.] was originally taken into JFS

custody” due to her failure to take accountability for the reasons behind the removal

of her children. S.G.’s counselor recommended suspending mother’s visits until

mother could “show and verbalize significant emotional change and responsibility for

her negative impact on [S.G.’s] emotional and physical wellbeing.”

                B. Hearing on the permanent-custody motion

       {¶15} The court held a January 2023 hearing on JFS’s permanent-custody

motion. Although Father was not present, he was represented by counsel.

                           JFS caseworkers’ testimony

       {¶16} JFS caseworkers testified that mother had failed to engage in required

services, despite the agency’s referrals. Although JFS referred mother to complete a

DAF, she failed to do so, which prevented JFS from making any treatment

recommendations. Mother appeared at three drug screens and was positive for “a

multitude of things” at the first two. Mother left one JFS caseworker “incoherent”

messages. But a 2023 drug screen came back as negative for illicit substances.

       {¶17} Mother did not see the children for months at a time, had lost her

visitation time at FNC due to persistently being late or not attending, and failed to take

advantage of setting up supervised visits at the agency. Mother’s last visit with the

children had occurred in either February or March of 2022. Mother failed to maintain

stable housing. JFS caseworkers testified that mother failed to meet S.G.’s medical

                                            8
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

needs throughout the case. Further, a caseworker testified about B.H.’s trauma due to

dangers of drug use in the home, break-ins, and mother’s shooting B.W. while the

children were present.

       {¶18} By the January 2023 trial, mother had only completed about two of the

approximately 12 parenting classes. Mother was living in a sober-living home and was

working full-time. But a caseworker testified that mother would have been able to

“dive deeper” into her domestic-violence classes had she completed the YWCA

domestic-violence assessment.

       {¶19} When asked whether mother had alleviated any concerns that had

caused JFS’s removing the children from her care, a JFS caseworker responded that

“she’s in parenting classes, but that doesn’t indicate any behavioral change.” Mother’s

sober-living home was not considered stable housing because the children could not

reside there with her full-time.

                  S.G.’s counselor testified about her trauma

       {¶20} S.G.’s counselor testified that S.G.’s diagnoses typically present in youth

due to “[t]raumatic experiences, violence, domestic violence, a variety of experiences

that create trauma in the child’s life.” The counselor stated that S.G. had shared “many

traumatic experiences that have occurred with” mother and “frightening” stories. The

counselor noted that S.G.’s “acting out” was a “direct consequence of her trauma.”

                Mother testified that she was making progress

       {¶21} Mother testified that she did not complete a DAF because a case

manager had told her it was not necessary “right before [she] went to jail” and again

at her sober-living home, and there was already one on file. She asserted that she had

                                           9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

not previously completed services because she did not receive the referrals, or when

she did, they were given to her slowly over time to avoid overwhelming her.

       {¶22} Mother acknowledged that her children had witnessed events that were

detrimental to their well-being and expressed remorse for what her children had

experienced. She admitted that she avoided communication with JFS, failed to attend

drug screens, visited inconsistently, and lacked responsibility. Mother stated that she

had been sober since August 28, 2022.

       {¶23} Mother stated that her visitation at FNC had been terminated four times

due to poor time management, which she had remedied by completing a time-

management class. Mother asserted that she had attended four parenting classes since

her release from jail, but she could not complete the remainder as it required her to be

able to visit with the children and her visits had been revoked. As she could not keep

the children overnight at the sober-living home for more than two nights, mother

suggested that the children could stay with maternal grandfather for the remainder of

each week if she were granted custody.

       {¶24} Mother conceded that she was not fully ready to take the children on by

herself at the time of trial. But she testified that she was attending domestic-violence

support groups. She stated that she has been attending mental-health treatment for

five years, worked full-time, voluntarily took a time-management class to help with

her issues with being late, and asserted that she had an entire medical team helping

with S.G.’s medical issues before JFS’s involvement.

                                  GAL’s testimony

       {¶25} The GAL had been assigned the children since January 2021. While the

GAL had never spoken to mother one-on-one, she spoke to mother at a team meeting

                                          10
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

where mother had participated. Further, the GAL had not been able to communicate

with mother because she was not responsive to the GAL’s attempts to contact her.

       {¶26} The GAL stated both children were bonded to their respective

placement families. B.H. had expressed that he did not want to see his mother. B.H.’s

foster parents had been coordinating time with his siblings’ custodians and foster

parents so that the siblings could spend time together.

        C. The trial court granted JFS’s permanent-custody motion

       {¶27} The magistrate awarded JFS permanent custody of the children. Mother

and father objected. Mother’s objection argued that the magistrate’s decision was not

supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Father’s objection argued that there was a less-restrictive option other than permanent

custody to JFS, the magistrate’s decision was against the manifest weight of the

evidence where mother “complied with the case plan to the best of her ability,” and

that he supported the children’s reunification with mother.

       {¶28} The juvenile court overruled the parents’ objections, adopted the

magistrate’s decision, and incorporated the decision into its judgment as follows.

              R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) Interactions and Interrelationships

       {¶29} The children had not visited mother in several months and both fathers

had abandoned the children. The children’s foster families appropriately cared for the

children, and they were bonded to those families. The children maintained a strong

bond with their biological siblings.

                    R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) The Wishes of the Child

       {¶30} The GAL favored JFS taking permanent custody of both children.

                                          11
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                       R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) Custodial History

       {¶31} The children had been in the temporary custody of JFS for more than

12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

    R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) Child’s Need for Legally Secure Permanent Placement

       {¶32} The parents failed to show dedication to caring for the children,

especially regarding their health needs, and the children needed a legally secure

permanent placement, which could not be achieved absent granting JFS permanent

custody of the children.

                 R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) Whether Factors in (E)(7)-(10) Apply

       {¶33} The court found that the children’s fathers had abandoned them.

                           II.     Assignments of Error

       {¶34} Mother asserts two assignments of error. She argues that 1) the juvenile

court’s decision was based on evidence that was either inadmissible or ambiguous, was

not supported by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to the weight of the evidence;

and 2) the GAL had not performed her duties. Father’s sole assignment of error asserts

that the juvenile court’s decision to grant JFS permanent custody of B.H. was not

supported by sufficient evidence. Father’s arguments only pertain to his child, B.H.,

and he does not ask this court to reverse any findings involving him. Father asked that

“his appeal [] be viewed in the context of support for Mother, as opposed to reversal

of any finding attributed to” father.

                             A.     Standard of Review

       {¶35} Courts have described permanent termination of parental rights as “the

family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio

App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991). Because parents have a paramount right

                                          12
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

to the custody of their children, a juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent

custody to an agency must be supported by “clear and convincing” evidence. In re

W.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110363 and C-110402, 2011-Ohio-4912, ¶ 46. Clear

and convincing evidence is sufficient evidence to “produce in the mind of the trier of

fact 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). When applying a clear-and-

convincing standard, this court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s

where ample competent and credible evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. In

re A.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190027, 2019-Ohio-2028, ¶ 16.

       {¶36} A review of the sufficiency of the evidence is different than a review of

the weight of the evidence. In re A.B., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150307 and C-

150310, 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 15. To determine whether sufficient evidence supported a

judgment terminating parental rights, we must determine whether some evidence

exists on each element. Id. at ¶ 15. It is a test for adequacy and is a question of law.

Id. But a weight-of-the-evidence review in permanent-custody cases requires us to

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

witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the juvenile

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

judgment must be reversed. Id. at ¶ 16.

                        B.     Permanent-custody statute

       {¶37} Under R.C. 2151.414(B)’s two-pronged test, a trial court may grant an

agency permanent custody of a child only when clear and convincing evidence shows

that 1) under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)’s factors, granting permanent custody is in the child’s

                                           13
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

best interest, and 2) one or more of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e)’s conditions exist. In

re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, ¶ 15.

       {¶38} R.C. 2151.414(D)’s best-interest standard requires the juvenile court to

consider all relevant factors, including 1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship

with the child’s parents, relatives, foster parents, and other persons who may

significantly affect the child; 2) the child’s wishes, either expressed by the child or

through a GAL; 3) the child’s custodial history, including whether the child has been

in an agency’s custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period; 4) the

child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of

placement can be achieved without granting the agency permanent custody; and 5)

whether any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) are applicable. In re S.J.,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25550, 2013-Ohio-2935, ¶ 14-15.

       {¶39} The other prong requires a juvenile court to find, by clear and

convincing evidence, that one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) factors exists: 1) that the child

cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed

with a parent; 2) the child is abandoned; 3) the child is orphaned, and there are no

relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody; 4) the child has been in

the temporary custody of an agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month

period; or 5) the child has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child

on three separate occasions.

                                    C.     Analysis

       {¶40} Father’s appeal makes no arguments on his own behalf; instead, his

appeal is solely in support of mother. The Ninth District has held that when both

parents’ rights have been terminated, either parent has standing to assert the other

                                           14
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

parent’s rights. In re C. C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24101, 2008-Ohio-3634, ¶ 12. The

analysis for father’s assignment of error is the same as for mother’s first assignment of

error: whether the juvenile court’s judgment was supported by sufficient evidence.

Mother also asserts that the judgment was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

  1. The juvenile court’s judgment was supported by credible, competent evidence

                                 a. R.C. 2151.414(B)

       {¶41} The trial court correctly determined that the children were in JFS’s

temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

  b. Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that
              permanent custody was in the children’s best interest

       {¶42} Mother argues that the trial court’s judgment was based on “evidence

that was either inadmissible or ambiguous, which does not result in meeting the clear

and convincing standard.” She points to S.G.’s counselor’s testimony, asserting that it

was an expert opinion and that the state failed to establish that she was an expert. But

mother neither assigned as error, see App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A), nor raised to the

trial court any argument that the counselor’s testimony was inadmissible. See State v.

Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747, 2009-Ohio-1370, 910 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.)

(“[E]rrors not raised in the trial court in the first instance may not be considered on

appeal.”). These failures preclude our review of this issue.

       {¶43} Next, mother asserts that the state failed to show by clear and

convincing evidence that she did not visit the children; or that she could not visit for

erroneous reasons. She questions the credibility of S.G.’s counselor’s statements

involving whether visitation should continue because the counselor only met mother

one time. But the counselor’s concerns about visitation were based on her ongoing

                                           15
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

observations of, and interactions with, S.G. After working with S.G. for more than a

year, she determined that visiting mother would traumatize S.G.

       {¶44} The court was in the best position to observe the witnesses and was

entitled to believe all, some, or none of the witnesses’ testimony. See In re A.C., 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-180088, 2019-Ohio-2891, ¶ 12, citing In re Brown, 98 Ohio

App.3d 337, 648 N.E.2d 576 (3d Dist.1994); In re A.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

180056, 2019-Ohio-2359, ¶ 12, citing In re L.S., 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-17-021, 2018-

Ohio-4758, ¶ 28. The testimony and exhibits support the juvenile court’s finding that

mother consistently failed to visit the children. Mother even admitted in her testimony

that she lost her visitation due to her own lack of responsibility.

       {¶45} Mother next argues that she completed case-plan services, was sober for

months, attended mental-health treatment, worked full-time, and took accountability

for her actions.

       {¶46} The evidence shows that mother had begun participating in case-plan

services and we commend mother for her efforts. But even when a parent completes

all case-plan services, full compliance with a case plan is not dispositive of whether a

juvenile court should deny JFS’s motion for permanent custody. See In re A.F., 1st

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200230 and C-200231, 2020-Ohio-5069, ¶ 26 (“[T]he

dispositive issue is not whether the parents have complied with the case plan, but

whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that led to the children’s

removal.”); In re J.G.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180611, 2019-Ohio-802, ¶ 39 (“A

parent’s compliance with the case plan does not preclude a trial court from awarding

custody to a children services agency, as long as it in the child’s best interest.”).

                                            16
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶47} There was competent, credible evidence showing that awarding

permanent custody to JFS was in the children’s best interest. Other than on one

occasion, mother’s drug screens were positive for multiple illicit substances. Mother

failed to complete a DAF for most of the pendency of the case, which prevented her

from obtaining the services that she needed to alleviate the issues that led to the

children being removed. Her housing at the time of trial did not permit children to live

with her full-time.

       {¶48} Significantly, the evidence about the children’s trauma caused by

mother’s behavior supports the trial court’s conclusion that awarding JFS permanent

custody was in their best interest. A JFS caseworker testified about B.H.’s fear and

anxiety about safety stemming from mother shooting her boyfriend in front of the

children. The GAL testified that after visits with mother, B.H. would become physically

sick. S.G.’s counselor testified that S.G. had posttraumatic stress disorder due to the

trauma of experiencing “quite a few incidents in the home.” For that reason, the

counselor believed it was not in S.G.’s best interest to even visit mother, much less live

with her. The trial court was not bound to return the children to mother simply

because she had participated in services when there was evidence that doing so would

cause the children more trauma.

       {¶49} The juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody to JFS was

supported by sufficient clear and convincing evidence and was not contrary to the

manifest weight of the evidence. Mother’s first assignment of error and father’s sole

assignment of error are overruled.

                                           17
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

           2. The GAL performed her duties as required under Sup.R. 48

       {¶50} Mother’s second assignment of error asserts that a GAL violates Sup.R.

48.03 when the GAL does not observe the parent with the child. She asserts that

because the record does not show that the GAL observed the children with their

parents or at their proposed residence, the GAL did not make an informed

recommendation about the children’s best interest.

       {¶51} Mother failed to raise this issue at trial. Therefore, mother has waived

all but plain error. See In re T.K.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190020, 2019-Ohio-

5076, ¶ 26; Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv).

       {¶52} Sup.R. 48.03(D) governs a GAL’s duties. Those duties include observing

the child with each parent and visiting the child at the residence or proposed residence.

And Sup.R. 48.06, which governs GAL reports, requires a final GAL report to

“affirmatively state that responsibilities have been met and shall detail the activities

performed, hearings attended, persons interviewed, documents reviewed, experts

consulted, and all other relevant information considered by the guardian ad litem.”

       {¶53} At trial, the GAL testified about her investigation and what she

discovered through that investigation. She testified about the children’s educational,

health, and mental-health needs, ongoing efforts to meet those needs, the children’s

relationships with foster parents, siblings, and extended family members, the GAL’s

efforts to identify potential kinship caregivers, the GAL’s participation in school

meetings, and B.H.’s wishes as expressed to her. She discussed her attempts to contact

mother and her inability to do so because she did not have accurate contact

information for mother. She testified about mother’s unstable housing throughout the

case. And she testified that mother was unresponsive to the GAL and the JFS.

                                           18
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶54} We do not find plain error. First, the GAL explained why she did not

observe the children with mother and her explanation was not disputed at trial.

Moreover, even if we found that the GAL did not comply with her duties, the trial

court’s judgment was not based solely on the GAL’s testimony or report. Rather, the

trial court based its judgment on substantial, competent evidence that the mother had

not consistently visited the children, did not have housing appropriate for children,

had tested positive for illicit substances, and had not remedied the issues that caused

the children to be removed from her care. Even without the GAL’s testimony and

report, the juvenile court’s judgment terminating mother’s parental rights was

supported by substantial clear and convincing evidence.

       {¶55} We overrule mother’s second assignment of error.

                                 III.   Conclusion

       {¶56} We have no doubt that mother loves her children, and we commend her

for her efforts at gaining sobriety and changing her life. But we find that the juvenile

court’s judgment was based on substantial clear, competent, and credible evidence.

The juvenile court did not err in finding that awarding JFS permanent custody of the

children was in their best interest. We affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note:

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

                                          19