Court Opinion

ID: 9882454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:10:03.598914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:26.794713
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re J.H., 2023-Ohio-3183.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 IN RE: J.H., L.H., C.H.                          :
                                                  :
                                                  :   C.A. No. 29697
                                                  :
                                                  :   Trial Court Case Nos. G-2015-001837-
                                                  :   0k,0M,0S; G-2015-001838-0L,0N,0T,
                                                  :   G-2020-002205-0I, 0J, 0Q
                                                  :
                                                  :   (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
                                                  :   Juvenile Division)

                                            ...........

                                            OPINION

                                    Rendered on September 8, 2023

                                            ...........

KYLE WENNING, Attorney for Appellant

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Attorney for Appellee, MCCS

AMY E. BAILEY, Attorney for Mother

                                           .............

HUFFMAN, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant-Father appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court, which

granted the motions of Montgomery County Children’s Services (“MCCS”) for a first and

second extension of temporary custody of his three children, denied Father’s motion for
                                                                                        -2-

legal custody of the children, and dismissed Father’s emergency motion to prevent the

children’s removal to Georgia to live with Paternal Grandmother as moot. Father also

objects to the juvenile court’s failure to admit two exhibits.

       {¶ 2} Because the first and second extensions of temporary custody have expired

and the children remain in the temporary custody of MCCS pending disposition of the

motions for custody filed by Paternal Grandmother and MCCS, we conclude that Father’s

argument that the court erred in granting the extensions of temporary custody is moot.

Father’s argument that the juvenile court erred in failing to hear his emergency motion in

a timely manner is also moot. Father did not complete his case plan objectives, and the

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for legal custody.

Finally, Father waived any objection to the juvenile court’s exclusion of two exhibits

relating to his drug testing and income, and plain error is not demonstrated.        The

judgments of the juvenile court are affirmed.

                                 Procedural History

       {¶ 3} Some of the procedural history is taken from this Court’s prior opinion

affirming the grant of temporary custody of the three children to MCCS. In re J.H., L.H.,

C.H., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29126, 2021-Ohio-3846, ¶ 2-9.

       {¶ 4} MCCS became involved with the family after Mother gave birth to L.H. in

prison in February 2015. J.H., who had been born in 2013, was in Father’s care while

Mother was incarcerated. In March 2015, Mother and L.H. were terminated from the

prison’s nursery program. After an investigation, MCCS determined that Father was

struggling to provide for J.H. and that he would not be able to care for L.H. MCCS filed
                                                                                         -3-

a dependency complaint on behalf of J.H. and L.H., and both boys were placed in

protective supervision through December 25, 2015.

       {¶ 5} Mother gave birth to C.H. in April 2016. She was no longer incarcerated at

that time. In January 2020, MCCS again became involved with the family. MCCS

moved to have C.H. declared a dependent child and for temporary custody of all the

children, or, alternatively, for protective supervision.

       {¶ 6} On July 5, 2020, MCCS took emergency custody of the children.             The

following day, MCCS filed an amended complaint regarding C.H. alleging abuse and

dependency and an amended motion for temporary custody regarding J.H. and L.H. The

magistrate granted interim temporary custody of all three children to MCCS.

       {¶ 7} Following an August 19, 2020 hearing on MCCS’s motions, the magistrate

found the children to be dependent; no objections were filed to the magistrate’s decision,

and the court adopted it.

       {¶ 8} The magistrate held a dispositional hearing on October 21, 2020, and

thereafter awarded temporary custody of the children to MCCS. Father filed objections

and supplemental objections. On April 27, 2021, the court overruled Father’s objections,

finding that temporary custody was in the children’s best interest.        We affirmed the

juvenile court’s judgment on October 29, 2021.             In re J.H., L.H., C.H., 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 29126, 2021-Ohio-3846.

       {¶ 9} On December 2, 2021, MCCS filed amended motions for a first and second

extension of temporary custody, noting that temporary custody was set to expire on June

25, 2022. MCCS noted that a possible relative placement with Paternal Grandmother
                                                                                      -4-

had been found in Georgia.

      {¶ 10} On March 2, 2022, Father filed a motion for legal custody. He argued that

he had completed two mental health assessments with no additional recommendations

and had completed parenting classes in 2017. He asserted that he was employed at a

property management company and that “a copy of employment verification” would be

provided through “discovery/email.” Father stated that he lived with Mother in Dayton

and visited with the children on Tuesdays from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the visitation center.

He asserted that a grant of legal custody to him was in the children’s best interest. On

March 10, 2022, Father filed a for motion for an emergency hearing to stop the children

from moving to Georgia to live with Paternal Grandmother, arguing that Paternal

Grandmother had been abusive to him and his siblings when they were children.

      {¶ 11} On April 20, 2022, after a hearing, the magistrate denied Father’s motion

for legal custody and granted MCCS’s motions for extensions of temporary custody. On

May 4, 2022, Father filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that the

extension of temporary custody was not in the children’s best interest. He also argued

that no timely hearing had been held on his emergency motion to prevent the children’s

removal to Georgia, but that when the parties appeared before the magistrate on April 15,

2022, the magistrate determined that the issue was moot because the children were

already in Georgia.   He noted the magistrate’s written decision did not mention his

emergency motion.

      {¶ 12} On June 7, 2022, MCCS filed motions for legal custody to Paternal

Grandmother. On October 17, 2022, MCCS filed motions for permanent custody to
                                                                                        -5-

MCCS; these motions asserted that Paternal Grandmother was no longer a placement

option for the children and that Father had been evicted from his home in August and was

homeless.

      {¶ 13} On November 17, 2022, Father supplemented his objections.                 He

reasserted his objection to the children’s moving to Georgia to live with Paternal

Grandmother, noting that the court had failed to address his concerns that he would be

unable to regularly visit his children in Georgia and that it had not provided for “some

structure and requirement of reasonable visitation” with him. Father argued that the

magistrate had erred by not considering the issue before the children moved to Georgia,

despite his timely ex parte motion, and by stating that the issue was moot at a subsequent

hearing (although that finding was not included in the order).

      {¶ 14} On December 21, 2022, the juvenile court filed an order that resolved

several issues. It dismissed Father’s emergency motion to prevent taking the children

to Georgia as moot. After considering the factors set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the

court found that MCCS had made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children

from their home, to eliminate the continued removal of the children from their home, or to

make it possible for the children to return home, yet neither Mother nor Father had

successfully demonstrated that reunification was in the children's best interest. The

court found that neither parent had made significant progress to warrant reunification, but

that their progress had been significant enough to warrant a first and second extension

of temporary custody. The court overruled Father’s objection as to the first and second

extensions of temporary custody.
                                                                                        -6-

        {¶ 15} The court sustained Father’s objection regarding the magistrate’s failure to

specify a parenting time schedule and included a parenting time order that it found to be

in the children’s best interest.   The court denied Father’s motion for legal custody.

Father filed a notice of appeal in each case on January 11, 2023.

        {¶ 16} On appeal, Father raises three assignments of error: that the juvenile court

abused its discretion in granting the first and second extensions of temporary custody

and denying his motion for custody, that the court erred in failing to consider his

emergency motion prior to the children’s relocation to Georgia and in finding it moot, and

that the magistrate erred in not admitting two of his exhibits at the hearing.

                                    Mootness

        {¶ 17} On May 16, 2023, MCCS filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot,

because the children were no longer in the temporary custody of the agency pursuant to

the extensions of temporary custody to which Father objects in this appeal; rather, they

were in MCCS’s custody “by operation of law until the motions for legal and permanent

custody can be resolved.” As such, MCCS argues that there are no issues of law or fact

raised on appeal that concern an “actual legal controversy.” According to MCCS, the

temporary orders have expired, and the juvenile court must rule on the pending motions

for legal and permanent custody, which it cannot do while this appeal is pending.

        {¶ 18} With respect to “actual controversies,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has

held:

              The “role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue

        judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, Ohio Sup. Ct.
                                                                                       -7-

      Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d

      13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970). Thus, when the parties to an action “ ‘lack

      a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,’ [the] case becomes moot.”

      Id., quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23

      L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Conversely, “if an actual controversy exists because

      [the] court [can] grant the requested relief, [then] the case is not moot, and

      a consideration of the merits is warranted.” State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v.

      Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728, ¶ 11.

      An “appellate court need not consider an issue, and will dismiss [an] appeal,

      when [it] becomes aware of an event that has rendered the issue moot * * *.”

      Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 103 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-

      Ohio–5466, 816 N.E.2d 238, ¶ 15, citing Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 238,

      92 N.E. 21 (1910); see also Townsend v. Antioch Univ., 2d Dist. Greene

      No. 2008-CA-103, 2009-Ohio-2552, ¶ 8, citing Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57

      Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991).

State ex rel. City of Englewood v. Red Carpet Inn, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27590, 2018-

Ohio-1224, ¶ 6.

      {¶ 19} R.C. 2151.353(G) states:

      Any temporary custody order issued pursuant to division (A) of this section

      shall terminate one year after the earlier of the date on which the complaint

      in the case was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, except

      that, upon the filing of a motion pursuant to section 2151.415 of the Revised
                                                                                       -8-

      Code, the temporary custody order shall continue and not terminate until

      the court issues a dispositional order under that section. In resolving the

      motion, the court shall not order an existing temporary custody order to

      continue beyond two years after the date on which the complaint was filed

      or the child was first placed into shelter care, whichever date is earlier,

      regardless of whether any extensions have been previously ordered

      pursuant to division (D) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code.

      {¶ 20} While it is true that the extended grant of temporary custody expired in this

case, temporary custody was continued by operation of R.C. 2151.353(G) until

disposition. Therefore, we agree with MCCS that any argument regarding the allegedly

improper grant of the first and second extensions is moot.       Moreover, we need not

consider the merit of the argument that the juvenile court erred in failing to promptly

address Father’s emergency motion regarding the removal of the children to Georgia; no

remedy is available to Father as to this argument, and it is moot.

      {¶ 21} However, Father’s argument that the court abused its discretion in denying

his motion for legal custody is not moot. An actual legal controversy remains as to the

denial of Father’s motion for legal custody.      Therefore, MCCS’s motion to dismiss

Father’s appeal is denied.

                                        Custody

      {¶ 22} Father’s first assignment of error is as follows:

             THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A FIRST AND SECOND

      EXTENSION OF INTERIM TEMPORARY CUSTODY TO [MCCS], AND
                                                                                               -9-

       ITS DECISION TO DENY REUNIFICATION AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE

       OF DISCRETION.

       {¶ 23} Based upon our determination above that the arguments related to the

juvenile court’s temporary orders are moot, our analysis of Father’s first assignment of

error will be limited to the court’s denial of his motion for legal custody of his children.

       {¶ 24} R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) provides that if a child is adjudicated a dependent

child, the court may award legal custody of the child “to either parent or to any other

person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of

the child[.]” An award of legal custody “vests in the custodian the right to have physical

care and control of the child and to determine where and with whom the child shall live,

and the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline the child and to provide the child

with food, shelter, education, and medical care, all subject to any residual parental rights,

privileges, and responsibilities.” R.C. 2151.011(B)(19).

       {¶ 25} In In re C.W., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28781, 2020-Ohio-6849, we

observed:

              When a juvenile court makes a custody determination under R.C.

       2151.353, it must do so in accordance with the “best interest of the child”

       standard set forth in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). See In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d

       211, 594 N.E.2d 589, 1992-Ohio-144, paragraph two of the syllabus, and

       R.C. 2151.23(F)(1) (requiring a juvenile court to exercise its jurisdiction in

       accordance with R.C. 3109.04 as well as other sections of the Ohio Revised

       Code). The factors a court must consider in determining a child's best
                                                                                           -10-

      interest include such things as the parents’ wishes; the child's wishes, if the

      court has interviewed the child; the child's interaction with parents, siblings,

      and others who may significantly affect the child's best interes[t]; adjustment

      of the child to home, school, and community; and the mental and physical

      health of all involved persons. R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c). * * *

             “[W]hen determining whether or not to grant an individual or couple

      legal custody of a dependent child, a court can do so if it finds by a

      preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interes[t] of the

      concerned child. Preponderance of the evidence simply means ‘evidence

      which is of a greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is

      offered in opposition to it.’ ” (Internal citations omitted.) In re A.W., 2d Dist.

      Montgomery No. 21309, 2006-Ohio-2103, ¶ 6, citing [In re K.S.], 2d Dist.

      Darke No. 1646, 2005-Ohio-1912.

             We review the trial court's judgment for an abuse of discretion. See

      In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 83, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 48

      (applying abuse of discretion standard to trial court's findings under R.C.

      2151.414); In re A.M., 2d Dist. Greene No. 2009 CA 41, 2009-Ohio-6002,

      ¶ 9. Abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude was unreasonable,

      arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,

      219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

Id. at ¶ 6, quoting In re D.S., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-51, 2014-Ohio-2444, ¶ 8-11.

      {¶ 26} The following testimony was adduced before the magistrate on April 15,
                                                                                       -11-

2022:

        {¶ 27} Tairya Fields testified via Zoom; she was a former MCCS caseworker and

had been assigned to the children’s case from January 2020 until she left MCCS on April

9, 2022. She testified that the children were removed from the home in July 2020 due

to concerns of domestic violence and substance abuse, and they were initially placed in

foster care. The children were then placed with Paternal Grandmother in Georgia in

March 2022 under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”), and

they were doing well there. According to Fields, prior to their placement with Paternal

Grandmother, the children had visits with Paternal Grandmother, which they really

enjoyed. Paternal Grandmother would come to visit them, spend time with them, and

take them to a museum and out to eat. There were no concerns raised in Paternal

Grandmother’s home study, and Fields expressed no concerns about the placement.

        {¶ 28} Fields testified that a case plan was created for the family. Fields noted

that there was a concern about “ongoing domestic violence” between Mother and Father.

She noted that Mother’s drug screen was also positive for “high levels of

methamphetamine and amphetamine.” Fields stated that Mother had disclosed to her

that she “really has an issue with alcohol” more so than drugs. Prior to the hearing,

Mother advised Fields that she was pregnant.

        {¶ 29} According to Fields, Father’s case plan objectives required him to complete

a mental health assessment, a drug and alcohol assessment, and a parenting and

psychological assessment, and to follow the recommendations of all three assessments.

He was required to meet with a caseworker monthly, sign releases of information, visit
                                                                                       -12-

his children on a regular basis, submit to regular and random drug screens, and maintain

suitable housing and income.

       {¶ 30} Fields stated that Father and Mother resided together. Fields had not seen

the inside of their home since April or May 2021, and she had been told they were living

in their car. Fields testified that she was unaware if Father was employed; she was never

provided with any verification of his employment, such as pay stubs or bank statements.

She stated that Father indicated to her that he “donates plasma.”

       {¶ 31} Fields testified that Father had completed a mental health assessment at

Samaritan Behavioral Health, and there were no further recommendations. She was not

aware whether Father had completed a drug and alcohol assessment, although she had

referred him to OneFifteen Outpatient Clinic (“OneFifteen”) to do so. Fields stated that

Father had not completed his parenting and psychological assessment because he “had

some legal issues,” was arrested, and missed three scheduled appointments. According

to Fields, the provider was no longer willing to complete the assessment due to the missed

appointments, and Fields gave Father a list of alternative providers at least twice. She

did not have any verification that he attempted to contact the alternatives.

       {¶ 32} Fields testified that Father had submitted to one random drug screen and

was “positive for high levels of methamphetamine and amphetamines”; Father was

unwilling to discuss the results of the drug screen with her.

       {¶ 33} Fields further testified that Father had failed to meet regularly with MCCS,

and she had attempted unsuccessfully to meet with Mother and Father at their home

multiple times. Prior to the children’s move to Georgia, Fields also attempted to meet
                                                                                         -13-

with both parents at their weekly two-hour monitored visitation at MCCS. The parents

were required to arrive one hour early for visitations due to having been late or not having

shown up for visits. According to Fields, the parents were consistent with visitation

initially, but within the most recent six months, they had not been consistent and had

stopped showing up for visits.

       {¶ 34} Fields recounted that at one visitation, she informed Father that Paternal

Grandmother had been identified as a potential placement for the children, and he

became verbally aggressive towards her. Father called Fields a “stupid ‘A-B’” and told

her he was going to beat her “A.” Fields stated that sheriffs had to get involved, and it

was made very clear to Father that his behavior was inappropriate.

       {¶ 35} After the children moved to Georgia, Mother and Father were to visit once

a month, with Paternal Grandmother bringing the children to Dayton; the parents were

also permitted to schedule time on Zoom to visit.            Fields stated that Paternal

Grandmother advised her that there had been no virtual visitation; Paternal Grandmother

had reported that Father “sent the police to her home” but otherwise had not had any

contact with the children. When Fields left her employment at MCCS, she had ongoing

concerns regarding Father’s mental health, anger management, substance abuse, and

parenting practices.

       {¶ 36} On cross-examination by Father’s attorney, Fields testified that she went to

the family’s home three times a month in 2022.     When asked if she was able to contact

the parents, Fields responded “once * * * they were outside and were * * * posting a picture

in their vehicle, yes. They were living in their vehicle” in the spring of 2021. Fields
                                                                                       -14-

subsequently made announced and unannounced visits to the home. In 2022, whenever

Fields went to the home, Mother and Father either were not there or did not answer the

door. According to Fields, she did not communicate with them via cell phone because

they did not maintain the same phone number, and if she confirmed her visits to the home

with the parents via email, nine out of ten times they were not home when she arrived.

      {¶ 37} Fields stated that Father had not signed releases of information and told her

to get any of his records from his attorney. She had not seen the assessment from

Samaritan Behavioral Health and did not know if it was done for both mental health and

substance abuse. Fields stated that after Father tested positive for drugs, she referred

him again to OneFifteen per agency policy. Fields last asked Father to verify his income

in January 2022.

      {¶ 38} Jaskiran Kaur, a supervisor at MCCS, testified that she took over the

family’s case on April 7, 2022. She stated that MCCS was seeking a first and second

extension of custody, and that the children remained with Paternal Grandmother in

Georgia, where they were doing very well. According to Kaur, Paternal Grandmother’s

home was appropriate, and an ICPC had been approved through the State of Georgia;

approval on the ICPC involved an investigation into the potential placement’s prior

involvement with Children Services or criminal history, and no concerns had arisen about

Paternal Grandmother. She stated that the children were enrolled in school and all their

needs were being met.

      {¶ 39} Kaur testified that, since April 7, 2022, she had tried unsuccessfully three

times to observe the inside of the family’s home, and she had not been able to confirm
                                                                                           -15-

that they had safe and appropriate housing. Father also had not provided verification of

income to her; when she asked Father for employment verification at a meeting in March

2022, he had refused to speak to her and told her any questions she had should go

through his attorney.       Kaur testified that Father had not completed a mental health

assessment or a drug and alcohol assessment, and he had also refused to speak to her

about these matters.

       {¶ 40} Since Kaur took over the case, Father had not met with MCCS consistently,

despite Kaur’s attempts to maintain contact with him through unannounced and

announced home visits and phone calls. With respect to visitation with the children, Kaur

testified that since April 7, 2022, the children had visited via Zoom twice with their parents

from Georgia; during these calls, the parents told the children that they were in Georgia

temporarily only, which confused the children as to what was going on.               Paternal

Grandmother was scheduled to bring the children to Dayton on April 20 or 21, 2022, for

a visit with the parents.

       {¶ 41} Kaur testified that the first and second extensions of temporary custody

sought by MCCS were in the children’s best interest because the parents had not made

much progress with their case plans and the concerns that led to the children’s removal

had not been rectified. She testified that the children were stable, had safe housing, their

basic needs were being met, and the extensions would allow the parents to continue to

work on their case plans.

       {¶ 42} Kaur stated that Father had not completed his case plan objectives and that

the agency had concerns about drug abuse, mental health, lack of stable housing, and
                                                                                           -16-

domestic violence.    Kaur stated that there were concerns about arguments and an

alleged past incident of domestic violence, and that MCCS intended to refer the parents

to the Artemis Domestic Violence Center for classes. She stated that Father had acted

in an aggressive manner with her and walked away or referred her to his attorney when

she attempted to talk to him. Kaur noted that Mother had failed to provide any verification

of prenatal care.

       {¶ 43} On cross-examination, Kaur acknowledged that Father had not been

convicted of domestic violence and that no charges had been filed during MCCS’s

involvement with the family. She stated that MCCS wanted to add Artemis classes

“because it has been a concern in the past and needs to be addressed based on the

aggressiveness of the parents’ interactions and how they interact with the [case]workers.”

She testifed that Father had shared concerns that Paternal Grandmother had not been a

good parent to him and had put him in “some kind of a camp,” but that these allegations

had been looked into and none of the information was found to be “credible or concerning

where it affects her ability to care for these boys.” Kaur stated that Paternal Grandmother

also had custody of Father’s oldest daughter.

       {¶ 44} In support of his motion for legal custody of the children, Father testified that

he had safe and appropriate housing on Eichelberger Avenue, where he had lived for the

last seven or eight years; he stated that Miami Valley Housing Opportunities provided the

rent, and he and Mother paid the utilities. He stated the home had three bedrooms, but

that the couple needed to get a new home in six months because Mother was pregnant

with twins. Father testified that he has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity
                                                                                      -17-

disorder (ADHD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

      {¶ 45} Father stated that he had signed a release of information in March 2021,

when he completed the mental health and substance abuse assessment, and that he was

willing to sign a new one. He stated that he had had mental health and substance abuse

assessments in both March and September 2021 at OneFifteen; he identified a March

12, 2021 assessment bearing his name from One Fifteen (Defendant’s Exhibit 1). He

stated that neither assessment made any recommendations regarding mental health or

substance abuse. Father stated that he had been on a waiting list since January 2022

to engage in mental health services at Samaritan Behavioral Health after being unable to

attend and missing appointments due to the pandemic. According to Father, there was

a long waiting list to resume mental health services.

      {¶ 46} When asked if he had done additional drug screens after testing positive for

drugs in March 2021, Father stated that he had done two drug screens a month at Five

Rivers Family Health Center and the emergency room. Father acknowledged that he

had not provided the results of the screenings to the caseworker, but instead gave them

to his attorney to give to the prosecutor. Father stated that he had accessed the results

of the screens through a MyChart portal and had printed them out; he presented them as

Defendant’s Exhibit 2. Father indicated that he would be willing to print his screenings

going forward to give to MCCS.

      {¶ 47} Father testified that he did subcontracting work for SJK Properties, namely

painting houses, cutting grass, and minor construction work. Father stated that he was

paid by Anthony Kunzelman, the owner of SJK Properties, by means of a Form 1099.
                                                                                     -18-

Father stated that he had provided his attorney with correspondence from Kunzelman in

early 2022 to turn over to the prosecutor, which he identified as Defendant’s Exhibit 3.

According to Father, the exhibit showed that he had worked for SJK Properties for two

years. He also testified that he had provided bank statements to counsel reflecting

deposits into his account from his employment, and he identified the bank statements

(Defendant’s Exhibit 4). Father stated that he had sufficient income to provide for the

children’s needs.

      {¶ 48} Father acknowledged that he had not completed a parenting and

psychological assessment. He stated that no one on the list of providers provided to him

by Fields had been willing to do the assessment, but that he was willing to work with

MCCS to complete it. Father stated that he had missed his first appointment due to

being on probation for resisting arrest and that he had successfully completed probation

through Dayton Municipal Court in January 2022. Father stated that he missed the

second appointment because he was incarcerated, but that the charges were later

dropped.

      {¶ 49} Father testified that Paternal Grandmother had been “mentally and

physically abusive” to him and that Children Services had been “in and around” his life

his entire childhood. He stated that Paternal Grandmother had “talked her way out of

every Children Services case” she ever had.

      {¶ 50} Father stated that he and Mother “were attempting to” attend all their

monitored visitations, but if they were even five minutes late, they were turned away.

Father did not have reliable transportation, and there were times when he ran out of gas
                                                                                         -19-

on his way to visitation. He stated that Fields told him that she would provide bus passes

to him and Mother at their home, but she never did. Father stated that he had not had

any virtual visitation with the children in Georgia. According to Father, he and Mother

had tried contacting the agency, but the agency never returned any of their phone calls;

when he attempted to phone or text Paternal Grandmother, she refused to respond.

Father stated that he wanted MCCS to help ensure that visitation was consistent and that

he only learned at the hearing about the upcoming in-person visit with the children.

       {¶ 51} Father testified that he had not spoken to Kaur since she became the

caseworker and had not “received an e-mail, phone call, * * * [or] a knock on [his] door.”

notwithstanding being home “every single day waiting to try to find anything out.” He

stated that he had tried to initiate contact with Kaur without success.

       {¶ 52} Father stated that he had not used drugs since he tested positive on March

22, 2021, and that he even quit taking his mental health medication, Ritalin, because it

“comes up as a false positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines.” He stated if

he were to be tested at the hearing, the test would be negative.

       {¶ 53} Father asked the court to return the children to his care because he had

provided an “ample amount of information and proof” that he had done everything MCCS

had asked, and reunification with him was in the children’s best interest. Father asserted

that he had “done the case plan to the best of [his] ability.” He stated that, prior to MCCS

removing the children, he had been “an excellent father” and bonded to the children.

       {¶ 54} Father acknowledged that he had been discharged from Samaritan

Behavioral Health in 2021 for missed appointments and that he had not been involved in
                                                                                        -20-

mental health services since then. Father stated that he did not see a problem with

stopping his ADHD medication to pass a drug screen. Father stated that, prior to the

children’s move to Georgia, they did not know or have a relationship with Paternal

Grandmother, and that he had “made it a point” to not have his children know his mother.

       {¶ 55} In response to questions by the magistrate, Father stated that Fields had

not been to his home since October 2021; he stated that he let Fields into the home once,

and then she never came back. Father stated that Kaur had never been to his home

and that he had been there every day. When the magistrate asked how he could have

been at home every day if he was working, he responded: “I have been, but here lately,

I’ve been waiting for this job to come through. * * * We can go two weeks, three weeks

without a job, but at the same time, we have enough income because we get paid in one

large lump sum at a time.”

       {¶ 56} In response to further cross-examination about his income, Father

acknowledged that Exhibit 4 covered a period from October to December 2021 and

showed a balance of $5,000. When asked about running out of gas multiple times on

the way to visitation, Father stated that that “was prior,” when he was “in between work

and stuff like that,” and that he had to make sure his utilities were paid and his vehicle

was maintained. Father stated that he last ran out of gas on the way to visitation in

February 2022.

       {¶ 57} In its decision extending temporary custody and denying Father’s motion

for custody, the juvenile court thoroughly considered the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) factors and

the best interest of the children. The court noted that Mother did not testify and that the
                                                                                      -21-

children had not been interviewed in chambers.

      {¶ 58} The juvenile court found it significant that Fields and Kaur had been unable

to verify that Father’s home was suitable for the children and that Father had refused to

talk to them. The court noted that, while Father did not want Paternal Grandmother to

care for the children, MCCS had no concerns about her ability to do so after the home

study was completed, and the children were adjusted to her home, where their needs

were being met. The court also noted Father’s diagnoses of ADHD and PTSD, and that

Mother had disclosed to Fields that alcohol was a problem for her. The court discussed

MCCS’s ongoing concerns about both parents’ substance abuse and mental health and

about Mother’s pregnancy and whether she was receiving prenatal care.

      {¶ 59} Regarding the case plan, the court found it significant that Fields and Kaur

had not received any verification of Father’s completion of his mental health assessment,

although Father indicated that he had.     The court found that Father had not been

involved in mental health services since early 2021. The court further found that Father

had not completed a parenting/psychological assessment after missing multiple

appointments, and that he had not completed a drug and alcohol assessment despite

receiving a referral. The court noted that Father had referred the caseworkers to his

attorney instead of cooperating with them to complete his case plan. The court found

that Father had not provided any income documentation to MCCS, and Defendant’s

Exhibit 3 (from Kunzelman) was not admitted into evidence.

      {¶ 60} The juvenile court’s order denying Father’s motion for legal custody was

supported by clear and convincing evidence. The record reflects that Father did not
                                                                                     -22-

complete his case plan objectives. He was not consistent with visitation before the

children moved to Georgia, did not cooperate with the caseworkers and repeatedly

evaded their attempts to visit the home, and behaved in an aggressive and inappropriate

manner toward them. There was concern about his and Mother’s interactions, including

domestic violence, which Kaur testified necessitated a referral to Artemis House. Father

asserted in his motion that he had previously completed parenting classes and allegedly

did so in 2017, but he had not completed the parenting classes required by the current

case plan.   Although Father testified that his housing was safe and appropriate, the

condition of his housing was unverified, and he acknowledged that the family would need

a new home with more room when the twins arrived.

      {¶ 61} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for

custody. Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                  Emergency Hearing

      {¶ 62} Father’s second assignment of error states:

             THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HEAR

      FATHER’S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION, AND IT ERRED IN

      FINDING THAT ISSUE MOOT.

      {¶ 63} We discussed this issue above and found this issue to be moot.

Accordingly, Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                        Exhibits

      {¶ 64} Father’s third assignment of error states:

             THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT ENTER
                                                                                            -23-

       DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS 2 AND 3 INTO THE RECORD.

       {¶ 65} Exhibit 2 was identified as Father’s drug screen results that he printed from

his MyChart patient portal.     Exhibit 3 was correspondence from Father’s employer,

Kunzelman, regarding Father’s income via an IRS 1099 Form. MCCS objected to the

admission of Exhibits 2 and 3. MCCS asserted that Exhibit 2 contained no identifying

information establishing where the drug screen was conducted and was not a certified

medical record, and it objected to Exhibit 3 because Kunzelman was not called to testify

as to the work that Father had done for him under the 1099.

       {¶ 66} The court refused to admit the exhibits, reasoning:

              * * * Exhibits 2 and 3 are not admissible. I mean, * * * there’s nothing

       on here that - - normally, we have, you know, letterhead and just - -

       something. * * * I’ve never - - it refers to a 1099, and there’s no 1099. Uh,

       the drug screen past results, there’s no - - this isn’t certified. It doesn't give

       me anything. So I can’t - - they’re not authenticated. * * *

       {¶ 67} Father asserts that he authenticated the exhibits via his own testimony.

Although Father objected to the exclusion of the exhibits at the hearing before the

magistrate, he did not further raise the issue in his objections to the magistrate’s decision.

Thus, the juvenile court did not address the exclusion of the exhibits, and Father has

waived all but plain error with respect to this issue. Clayburn v. Clayburn, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 274776, 2017-Ohio-7193, citing Cox v. Cox, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos.

18345, 18350, 2000 WL 1838266, *4 (Dec. 15, 2000); Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “Plain error

is an obvious defect in the trial proceeding that affects substantial rights. * * * The alleged
                                                                                           -24-

error must have ‘substantially affected the outcome of the trial,’ * * * such that ‘but for the

error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise[.]’ * * *.” State v. Cepec,

149 Ohio St.3d 1185, 2016-Ohio-8076, 75 N.E.3d 1185, ¶ 67.

       {¶ 68} Father has not demonstrated plain error. There were legitimate concerns

about the exhibits, and we are unpersuaded that, even if they had been admitted, they

would have affected the outcome of the proceeding in light of MCCS’s multiple and

ongoing concerns and Father’s failure to complete his case plan. Accordingly, Father’s

third assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 69} The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

                                       .............

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.