Court Opinion

ID: 9405384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 13:14:22.293296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.671135
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re E.M., 2023-Ohio-2141.]

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

 IN RE: E.M.                             :        APPEAL NO. C-220481
                                                  TRIAL NO. F-16-0601Z
                                         :

                                         :            O P I N I O N.

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 28, 2023

Barr, Jones & Associates, LLP, and Monica L. Welker, for Appellant Mother,

Alex van der Zee, for Appellee Father.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

WINKLER, Judge.

       {¶1}   Appellant mother appeals the judgment of the juvenile court

terminating an order of shared parenting between mother and appellee father and

granting custody of their child, E.M., to father.

                                         Background

       {¶2}   Mother gave birth to E.M. in July 2015. Mother and father agreed to a

shared-parenting plan in August 2017. In July 2018, father moved to modify the

shared-parenting plan and for the appointment of a guardian ad litem (“GAL”). In

October 2018, the magistrate entered an order reflecting that mother had reported

father to child-protective services for alleged sexual abuse of E.M., and that mother

also attempted to take E.M. to the Mayerson Center for an examination, but the staff

declined to interview E.M. The magistrate ordered that neither parent subject E.M. to

an interview, counseling, or therapy without first permitting the GAL to investigate.

       {¶3}   In June 2019, father filed a motion to terminate shared parenting on the

basis that mother had repeatedly made false sexual-abuse allegations against him

regarding E.M. In November 2019, the GAL filed a report, which recommended

custody to father. In general, the GAL’s report outlined that mother had an ongoing

concern about sexual abuse of E.M. occurring at father’s home, despite authorities’

investigation concluding that no abuse had occurred. The GAL determined that

mother’s preoccupation with father’s alleged sexual abuse of E.M. interfered with

mother’s ability to honor shared parenting. The GAL also believed that mother had an

attachment issue regarding E.M. as evidenced by mother’s co-sleeping with and

breastfeeding of E.M., and a report from a psychological evaluation of mother.

                                            2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶4}   The matter proceeded to trial before a magistrate in November 2019

with the testimony of an investigator from the Hamilton County Department of Job

and Family Services (“HCJFS”) and a police officer, both of whom had investigated the

abuse allegations mother made against father in June 2019. Mother reported to

investigators that E.M. had told her that father “sucked and licked her vagina.” Father

cooperated with investigators, and both HCJFS and the police determined that the

allegations were unsubstantiated.

       {¶5}   Mother testified that she first suspected abuse in July 2018 after she

noticed that E.M. had redness in her vaginal area. Mother reported concerns to E.M.’s

pediatrician, who told mother that if she had concerns to call the Mayerson Center.

Mother reportedly called the Mayerson Center, but the staff did not conduct an

interview of E.M. Mother reported concerns to the Mayerson Center again in October

2018. This time mother reported redness in E.M.’s vaginal area and also reported that

she saw a black hair in E.M.’s underwear or diaper. No interviews were conducted.

Mother called the Mayerson Center in February 2019, and again, E.M. was not

interviewed. In May 2019, mother took E.M. to the pediatrician, because of the

ongoing redness and soreness in E.M.’s vaginal area. The pediatrician did not note

anything unusual during E.M.’s exam. Mother testified that she called the Mayerson

Center again in June 2019, after E.M. told her that her father had inappropriately

touched her, which instigated investigations by HCJFS and police.

       {¶6}   The juvenile court continued the trial on father’s custody motion, but

before the trial could resume, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred. The trial on father’s

motion did not resume until November 2020 with additional testimony from the

HCJFS investigator and father’s mother.

                                          3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶7}   The juvenile court then continued the custody trial again until April

2021. The trial proceeded with testimony from the court-appointed GAL. The GAL

testified that she maintained her recommendation that father have custody of E.M.

The GAL based her recommendation on mother’s reports of sexual abuse, mother’s

delay in exchanging E.M., mother’s attachment issues related to E.M., and the

psychological report of mother, which showed that mother had resentment and

distrust of father. The GAL reported that mother breastfed E.M. as late as the fall of

2020, when E.M. was five years old, and that mother and E.M. slept in the same bed.

The GAL also reported that mother had issues with stable housing. Mother’s home

was currently in foreclosure, although the proceedings had been stayed during COVID,

and mother had six eviction actions against her between 2009 and 2016. The GAL

also believed that E.M. was bonded to father, and the GAL had no concerns regarding

his parenting ability or his ability to uphold any court-ordered parenting time with

mother.

       {¶8}   The magistrate continued the matter for decision. In October 2021, the

magistrate entered his decision finding that E.M.’s best interest would be served by

granting father’s custody motion and terminating shared parenting. Mother filed

objections.   In August 2022, the juvenile court overruled mother’s objections,

conducted a best-interest analysis, and adopted the decision of the magistrate. Mother

appeals.

                                   Delay in Proceedings

       {¶9}   In mother’s first assignment of error, she argues that the juvenile court

erred in deciding father’s custody motion four years after it was filed.

                                           4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶10} Mother acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted court

operations from March 2020 through July 2020, and that the pandemic caused a

backlog of cases in the juvenile court. Mother asserts that, after July 2020, the juvenile

court “was unprepared and without resources” to hear custody cases, and, as a result,

mother lost custody because of actions that occurred two years prior. Mother argues

that by the time of the final trial hearings, mother no longer breastfed or co-slept with

E.M., and she no longer believed that father was sexually abusing E.M.

       {¶11} Mother relies on the Ohio Rules of Superintendence, which provide a

90-day timeline for a court’s determination after a trial, and a 120-day timeline for a

court’s ruling on a submitted motion. See Sup.R. 40. Sup.R. 40 does not carry the

force of law. “In general, the Ohio Rules of Superintendence are ‘purely internal

housekeeping rules which do not create substantive rights in individuals or procedural

law.’ ” In re K.A., 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2021 CA 00004, 2021-Ohio-1773, ¶ 45,

quoting Elson v. Plokhooy, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-10-24, 2011-Ohio-3009.

       {¶12} Mother never objected in the juvenile court to the delay in the trial

proceedings, presumably because any delay in the trial proceedings maintained the

status quo of shared parenting from which mother benefitted, and therefore mother

has waived all but plain error. See Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv); In re A.M., 12th Dist.

Clermont Nos. CA2022-12-092 and CA2022-12-093, 2023-Ohio-1523, ¶ 17.

       {¶13} The delay in this case was extraordinary, but so was the COVID-19

pandemic. In granting father custody of E.M., the juvenile court considered the age of

the GAL’s report by the time of trial, and the court weighed it accordingly. The juvenile

court did not find that mother still breastfed or co-slept with E.M., but instead, the

juvenile court found that mother’s lack of trust and abuse accusations towards father

                                            5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

damaged mother and father’s shared-parenting relationship, and the juvenile court

weighed that heavily in awarding custody to father. Mother cannot demonstrate that

the juvenile court’s continuances of trial and decision on father’s custody motion

constituted an error that prejudiced her.

       {¶14} We overrule mother’s first assignment of error.

                              Best-Interest Determination

       {¶15} In her second and third assignments of error, mother argues that the

juvenile court erred in awarding custody to father by relying on “stale evidence” that

no longer related to E.M.’s best interest, and in relying on mother’s breastfeeding and

co-sleeping with E.M.

       {¶16} According to mother, the juvenile court awarded father custody based

on the GAL’s 2019 report. The GAL faulted mother for E.M.’s difficult transitions,

even though the GAL had observed only one transition. Mother also takes issue with

the juvenile court’s reliance on mother’s prior breastfeeding of and co-sleeping with

E.M., which had not occurred for years by the time of the juvenile court’s decision in

2022. Mother also argues that the psychological evaluation and mother’s reports

regarding father’s alleged sexual abuse had not occurred for two years prior to the

juvenile court’s decision. Finally, mother argues that breastfeeding and co-sleeping

should not be considered in the best-interest analysis, and those decisions should be

left to parents and pediatricians.

       {¶17} In determining custody matters, the juvenile court must determine the

best interest of the child, and in doing so, must consider the statutory factors in R.C.

3109.04(F)(1). Davidson v. Hodge, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220241, 2023-Ohio-

1638, ¶ 13. R.C. 3109.04(F) provides:

                                            6
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

(1) In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section,

whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and

responsibilities for the care of children or a modification of a decree

allocating those rights and responsibilities, the court shall consider all

relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

(a) The wishes of the child’s parents regarding the child’s care;

(b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers pursuant to

division (B) of this section regarding the child’s wishes and concerns as

to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning the

child, the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court;

(c) The child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents,

siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s

best interest;

(d) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community;

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the

situation;

(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved

parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights;

(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments,

including all arrearages, that are required of that parent pursuant to a

child support order under which that parent is an obligor;

(h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of either

parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any

                                    7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an

       abused child or a neglected child * * *;

       (i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a

       shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other

       parent’s right to parenting time in accordance with an order of the court;

       (j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to

       establish a residence, outside this state.

       {¶18} In this case, mother wished to continue shared parenting, so the

juvenile court also considered whether shared parenting is in E.M.’s best interest by

considering the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(2):

       (a) The ability of the parents to cooperate and make decisions jointly,

       with respect to the children;

       (b) The ability of each parent to encourage the sharing of love, affection,

       and contact between the child and the other parent;

       (c) Any history of, or potential for, child abuse, spouse abuse, other

       domestic violence, or parental kidnapping by either parent;

       (d) The geographic proximity of the parents to each other, as the

       proximity relates to the practical considerations of shared parenting;

       (e) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem of the child, if the

       child has a guardian ad litem.

       {¶19} This court reviews the juvenile court’s custody determination for an

abuse of discretion. Davidson at ¶ 12.

       {¶20} The juvenile court analyzed the best-interest factors in R.C.

3109.04(F)(1) in determining that E.M.’s best interest would be served by granting

                                            8
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

custody to father. The juvenile court determined that mother wished to continue

shared parenting, father wanted legal custody, and E.M.’s wishes had not been

expressed to the court. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(b). The juvenile court determined

that mother’s actions in repeatedly conducting invasive physical exams had affected

E.M.’s best interest, and that mother had reported that E.M. did not want to go to

father’s home for visits, but that the GAL did not witness such behavior and found

E.M. was bonded with father. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(c)-(d). The juvenile court found

that father would be more likely to honor parenting time or visitation, and although

the juvenile court did not elaborate, the evidence presented at trial showed that

mother repeatedly failed to have E.M. ready for father’s visits and that mother failed

to comply with the October 2018 order of the court to inform the GAL and allow the

GAL to investigate prior to subjecting E.M. to interviews. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f).

       {¶21} The juvenile court then discussed the best-interest factors in R.C.

3109.04(F)(2) regarding shared parenting. The juvenile court determined that mother

had an extreme distrust of father, and that she had made numerous allegations of

sexual abuse against father, all of which had been unsubstantiated. Mother continued

to make allegations against father even after a court order prohibiting mother from

making such allegations without speaking to the GAL.         The juvenile court also

determined that mother had admitted to the GAL that she put a listening device in

E.M.’s belongings to eavesdrop on father’s parenting time. Finally, the juvenile court

considered the GAL’s recommendation to award custody to father. The juvenile court

considered that the GAL’s report had been completed in 2019, nearly three years prior,

and that the GAL had spent limited time with the parties in person. The court noted

that the GAL testified at trial, and that the GAL did not change her recommendation.

                                          9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶22} The juvenile court’s analysis is supported by the evidence at trial. Other

than a brief reference to the GAL’s report, the juvenile court did not rely on “stale”

evidence. The juvenile court specifically noted that it had considered the age of the

GAL’s report and gave the report its appropriate weight. The juvenile court gave little

weight to mother’s co-sleeping with or breastfeeding of E.M. in its decision by only

mentioning in its recitation of the evidence that mother is very attached to E.M. as

shown by mother breastfeeding E.M. until she was over four years old, and allowing

E.M. to sleep in her bed, which resulted in late bedtimes. Ultimately, the juvenile court

weighed mother’s lack of trust and accusations towards father most heavily in

terminating shared parenting and awarding custody to father. This was not an abuse

of discretion.

       {¶23} We overrule mother’s second and third assignments of error.

                         Overruling Mother’s Objections

       {¶24} In mother’s fourth assignment of error, she argues that the juvenile

court erred in overruling her objections without separately analyzing each objection.

       {¶25} In her objections to the magistrate’s decision, mother filed 17 separate

and lengthy objections, all of which challenged the magistrate’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law after trial. Mother admits that the juvenile court overruled her

objections, but she argues that the juvenile court should have separately considered

each objection.

       {¶26} Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) states, in pertinent part, that “[i]f one or more

objections to a magistrate’s decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those

objections. In ruling on objections, the court shall undertake an independent review

                                           10
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the

factual issues and appropriately applied the law.”

       {¶27} Nothing in Juv.R. 40 or the case law requires the juvenile court to

provide a separate, written analysis when overruling each objection. The juvenile

court’s decision complies with Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d)—it contains an independent review

of the evidence presented at the custody trial, and it also contains an independent,

thorough analysis of the best-interest factors with a conclusion that E.M.’s best

interest would be served by granting father’s custody motion.

       {¶28} Because the juvenile court did not fail to rule on mother’s objections, we

overrule mother’s fourth assignment of error.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶29} Having overruled mother’s assignments of error, we affirm the

judgment of the juvenile court.
                                                                     Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:

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

                                           11