Court Opinion

ID: 9960692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 20:08:47.168021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:45.755010
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.D., 2024-Ohio-1443.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY

In re J.D.                                        Court of Appeals No. L-23-1280

                                                  Trial Court No. JC 23294088

                                                  DECISION AND JUDGMENT

                                                  Decided: April 12, 2024

                                            *****

        David T. Rudebock, for appellee.

        Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

                                            *****

        SULEK, P.J.

        {¶ 1} In this expedited appeal, appellant-maternal grandmother N.O. appeals the

judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which denied

N.O.’s third-party complaint for custody of the minor child J.D. and awarded permanent

custody of that child to appellee Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”). For the

reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
                    I. Factual Background and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} J.D. was born on February 14, 2022, to mother J.C. No father was ever

identified. LCCS became involved immediately because J.D. tested positive for narcotics

at birth. A safety plan was implemented whereby J.D. was placed in the home of

maternal cousin A.C. On March 9, 2022, LCCS filed a complaint in dependency, abuse,

and neglect in light of mother’s struggles with substance abuse. The trial court

adjudicated J.D. a dependent and neglected child on April 21, 2022, and placed him in

the temporary custody of LCCS.

       {¶ 3} Shortly before the adjudication, on April 19, 2022, LCCS placed J.D. with

maternal cousin M.B. due to concerns with A.C.’s stability and her ability to pass a home

study. A.C. had identified M.B. as a backup care provider, and LCCS learned that as of

April 19, 2022, A.C. had already left J.D. in M.B.’s care for approximately one week.

       {¶ 4} The case progressed with LCCS providing case plan services to mother

towards the goal of reunification. Tragically, mother passed away on March 17, 2023.

On April 19, 2023, N.O. filed a third-party complaint for custody of J.D. Approximately

one month later, on May 12, 2023, LCCS moved for permanent custody.

       {¶ 5} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for permanent custody and

on the third-party complaints on September 26, 2023.1 Over the repeated objection of

1
  A.C. also filed a third-party complaint for custody that was considered by the trial court.
A.C., however, has not filed an appeal from the trial court’s judgment, therefore facts and
issues pertaining to her third-party complaint are not before this court and will not be
discussed.

2.
LCCS, N.O. was permitted to participate in the hearing and to cross-examine each of the

witnesses.

       {¶ 6} At the hearing, LCCS caseworker Laura Rubley testified that when J.D. was

born, LCCS contacted N.O. to inquire about placement because N.O. was already caring

for two other children that had been removed from mother. According to Rubley’s

review of LCCS’s records, N.O. declined to accept placement at that time. Rubley also

spoke with her about taking placement of the child in April 2022, and again N.O.

declined. Rubley testified that N.O. did not raise the issue of placement again until

February 2023.

       {¶ 7} Rubley also testified that N.O. has not had any visits with J.D., and that she

recommended that M.B. not allow the type of visits that N.O. was requesting. N.O.

would seek to pick up J.D. or have him dropped off at her house for unsupervised visits

for hours at a time. While generally such a request is not unusual from a grandparent, in

this case Rubley felt it was inappropriate because J.D. has no relationship with N.O. and

does not know who she is. Further, Rubley had concerns that N.O. was allowing mother

to babysit her other children while mother was in active addiction. Rubley testified that

the last visitation attempt occurred in February 2023, when N.O. was scheduled to go to

M.B.’s house. Unfortunately, a tree fell on M.B.’s house, so she contacted N.O. to make

alternative arrangements to either meet at N.O.’s house, meet somewhere else, or go to

dinner together. In response, N.O. blocked M.B.’s messages. N.O. did not contact

Rubley about setting up official visitations until July 2023.

3.
       {¶ 8} When asked why LCCS was seeking permanent custody and not pursuing

granting custody to N.O., Rubley testified that while N.O. expressed her love for J.D., she

does not know him and appears to not have taken any meaningful action to get to know

him. Rubley further explained that some of the relatives were harassing M.B. and she felt

that an award of permanent custody would mitigate some of that harassment.

Specifically, she testified that N.O. was demeaning to M.B. by making statements that

M.B. was not actually family and that it was as if J.D. was in foster care.

       {¶ 9} M.B. indicated that she is willing to foster relationships between J.D. and the

rest of the family. M.B. maintains strong relationships with the maternal grandfather’s

side of the family through family gatherings, events, and vacations together.

Additionally, M.B. had arranged frequent visits with A.C. until LCCS recommended that

they stop. M.B. testified that she is also willing to facilitate visits with N.O., but on the

approximately three to five occasions where they have scheduled something N.O. simply

would not appear. M.B. explained that she has had difficulty since she accepted

placement of J.D., because A.C. and N.O. now no longer consider her to be part of the

family even though she is a maternal cousin through adoption.

       {¶ 10} N.O. testified that shortly after J.D. was born, LCCS contacted her about

taking placement of the baby. The LCCS worker would not tell her why though, and said

that she should talk with mother. Mother initially lied to N.O., and N.O. believed that for

the first few days mother was staying with J.D. at A.C.’s house where she could get some

assistance. N.O. did not think that mother was using drugs at the time. It was only later

4.
that N.O. learned that mother tested positive for drugs and J.D. had been removed from

her at the hospital and placed with A.C. for that reason.

       {¶ 11} N.O. stated that she then contacted LCCS to ask about getting custody of

J.D., but was never able to speak with the caseworker. Between March and April 2022,

N.O. attempted to contact LCCS at least nine or ten times without any success. During

this time, N.O. had frequent visits with J.D. through her relationship with A.C. But since

J.D. was placed with M.B., she has not had any visits with him even though she

attempted to coordinate visits with M.B. through Facebook messenger. The last time that

N.O. saw J.D. was at mother’s funeral in March 2023.

       {¶ 12} The final witness to testify was Brittney Ramos, the court-appointed special

advocate (“CASA”). Ramos testified that although she learned immediately upon her

involvement about N.O.’s care for mother’s other children, she did not contact N.O.

because she was told that N.O. was not interested in taking placement of J.D. Further,

when she did speak with N.O. during her investigation, she was concerned that N.O.

remarked on several occasions that if J.D. were removed from M.B.’s care he would be

fine because he was a baby and would eventually forget about it. Ultimately, Ramos

concluded that J.D. was receiving excellent care with M.B., that he was strongly bonded

to her having spent the vast majority of his life with her, and that it would be in his best

interest to award permanent custody to LCCS to pursue his adoption by M.B.

5.
       {¶ 13} Following the hearing, in its November 15, 2023 judgment, the trial court

awarded permanent custody of J.D. to LCCS, and denied N.O.’s third-party complaint for

custody.

       {¶ 14} Regarding the award of permanent custody, the trial court found that R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied and that J.D. could not be placed with mother within a

reasonable period of time or should not be placed with mother because mother “failed

continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be

placed outside the child’s home” as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Alternatively, the

trial court found that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied in that J.D. “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.”

Further, the trial court found that permanent custody to LCCS was in the best interest of

J.D. upon consideration of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). Specifically, it

found that J.D. has been placed with maternal cousin M.B. for nearly his entire life and is

thriving in her care, that M.B. has made attempts to foster familial relationships, that

M.B. has expressed interest in adopting J.D., and that his environment with M.B. offers

him security, stability, and consistency.

       {¶ 15} Regarding the denial of N.O.’s third-party complaint, the trial court

reasoned that M.B. was a maternal relative, that J.D. has been in her care for

approximately 17 months at the time of the permanent custody hearing and is thriving in

that environment, and that it would be detrimental to J.D.’s well-being to change his

6.
placement. Further, it found that N.O. failed to demonstrate that M.B. is an unfit

caretaker and also found that N.O. contributed to the discord in the family by making

unfounded accusations against M.B.

                                 II. Assignments of Error

       {¶ 16} N.O. timely appealed the trial court’s November 15, 2023 judgment and

asserts two assignments of error for review:

              1. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied maternal

       grandmother’s Complaint for Third Party Custody in the face of evidence

       that the agency’s chosen caregiver was not committed to facilitating a

       relationship between the child here and his sibling.

              2. The trial court abused its discretion by finding that neither parent

       had substantially remedied the problem(s) which caused the child to be

       placed outside the home, because there was no testimony as to why the

       child was initially removed, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) because there

       was no evidence presented as to why the child was removed in the first

       place (sic).

                                       III. Analysis

       {¶ 17} Under her first assignment of error, N.O. challenges the trial court’s denial

of her third-party complaint for custody of J.D. “Where a child has been adjudicated

dependent, a trial court may award legal custody to a nonparent where it finds, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that legal custody is in the child’s best interests.” In re

7.
A.D., 6th Dist. Erie Nos. E-16-059, E-16-060, E-16-061, 2017-Ohio-6913, ¶ 31, citing In

re B.L., L.L., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1030, 2016-Ohio-738, ¶ 7. The trial court’s legal

custody determination is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id., citing In re

K.V., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1087, 2012-Ohio-190, ¶ 19. An abuse of discretion

connotes that the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

       {¶ 18} In making a legal custody determination, “courts have looked to the best

interest factors of R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), a combination of the two, or

general notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the [child].”

In re A.D. at ¶ 32, quoting In re A.K., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26291, 2012-Ohio-4430, ¶

25.

       {¶ 19} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) instructs the trial court to consider a non-exhaustive

list of factors when determining the best interest of the child, which include:

              (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) 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;

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

       been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services

8.
       agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a

       consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *;

              (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.

       {¶ 20} Here, N.O. argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not giving

primary importance to the relationship between J.D. and his sibling that is under her care.

She contends that she is the person in the best position to foster that relationship. She

further argues that M.B. is not an appropriate kinship placement because M.B. has

refused to pursue a relationship with J.D.’s sibling due to a family feud.

       {¶ 21} In its decision, however, the trial court did not focus solely on J.D.’s

potential relationship with his sibling, but also considered J.D.’s actual and well-bonded

relationship with M.B., his relationship with the maternal grandfather’s family, his

placement with M.B. for 17 of the 19 months of his life, and the CASA’s

recommendation that J.D. remain with M.B. on the path towards adoption. Further, the

trial court considered that N.O. declined opportunities to accept J.D.’s placement with

her, has not followed through on visits with J.D., does not presently have a relationship

with J.D., and has contributed to the discord in the family by making unfounded

accusations against M.B. In light of these considerations, the trial court’s decision was

neither arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Therefore, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion when it denied N.O.’s third-party complaint for custody.

9.
       {¶ 22} Accordingly, N.O.’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.

       {¶ 23} In her second assignment of error, N.O. argues that the trial court erred

when it found that mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the

conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home as set forth in R.C.

2151.414(E)(1) where no evidence was presented as to the reason why J.D. was initially

removed.

       {¶ 24} In order to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a

child to a public services agency under R.C. 2151.414, the juvenile court must find two

things by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that one of the enumerated factors in R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) that permanent custody is in the best interests of the

child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Clear and convincing evidence is that which is sufficient to

produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to

be established. In re T.J., 2021-Ohio-4085, 180 N.E.3d 706, ¶ 36 (6th Dist.), citing Cross

v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

The clear and convincing standard requires more than a preponderance of the evidence,

but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross at paragraph three of the

syllabus.

       {¶ 25} “A trial court’s determination in a permanent custody case will not be

reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re A.H.,

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, citing In re Andy-Jones, 10th

Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-1167, 03AP-1231, 2004-Ohio-3312, ¶ 28. “Reversal is proper

10.
only where its determined, after weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences

including the credibility of the witnesses, that the juvenile court clearly lost its way and

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed.” In re

S.S., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1219, 2023-Ohio-1663, ¶ 27, citing In re T.J., 2021-Ohio-

4085, 180 N.E.3d 706, ¶ 40 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,

387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

       {¶ 26} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) provides that a trial court may grant permanent

custody of a child to the agency if it finds that, in addition to the placement being in the

best interest of the child,

               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, * * * 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.

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a trial court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of

the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if

any of sixteen factors are met.

11.
       {¶ 27} Here, the trial court found that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applied to mother.

That section states,

                Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and

       notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency

       to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to

       be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and

       repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be

       placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the parents have

       substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental

       utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and

       rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to

       the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to

       resume and maintain parental duties.

       {¶ 28} Contrary to N.O.’s assertion, testimony from the permanent custody

hearing reveals that J.D. was removed from mother’s care because of substance abuse

concerns. Mother then died without having completed her substance abuse treatment.

Therefore, the trial court’s finding that J.D. could not be placed with mother within a

reasonable time or should not be placed with mother is not against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

       {¶ 29} Accordingly, N.O.’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.

12.
                                     IV. Conclusion

       {¶ 30} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. N.O. is ordered to pay the costs of this

appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                      Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See
also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                          ____________________________
                                                        JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
                                              ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J.                                  JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                              ____________________________
                                                        JUDGE

       This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
  Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
       version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

13.