Court Opinion

ID: 9948349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 20:13:51.871584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:28.497530
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re M.A., 2024-Ohio-808.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

IN RE: M.A.                                            C.A. No.      30781

                                                       APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                       ENTERED IN THE
                                                       COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                       COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
                                                       CASE No.   DN 21 08 0688

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 6, 2024

        HENSAL, Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her child in the legal custody of the maternal grandparents

(“Grandmother,” “Grandfather,” and collectively “Grandparents”). This Court affirms.

                                                  I.

        {¶2}     Mother and Father are the biological parents of M.A., born May 17, 2021. The

parents were never married. Father is a convicted sexual offender and was not permitted to have

contact with any children as a condition of his parole. Accordingly, he has never developed a

relationship with the child. He has not appealed the juvenile court’s judgment.

        {¶3}     Mother tested positive for marijuana at the child’s birth and exhibited some mental

health concerns which brought the child to the attention of Summit County Children Services

Board (“CSB” or “the agency”). Although M.A. was discharged into Mother’s care upon his

release from the hospital, CSB implemented three successive in-home safety plans to address
                                                  2

concerns for the child’s well-being. After the third in-home safety plan failed, the agency

implemented an out-of-home safety plan whereby M.A. stayed in Grandparents’ home and Mother

was allowed to visit with the child but not spend the night. Ultimately, CSB filed a complaint

alleging that the child was dependent and sought an emergency order of temporary custody to

Grandparents under the protective supervision of the agency.

         {¶4}   Mother and Father appeared at shelter care, waived their rights to a hearing, and

stipulated to a finding of probable cause for the child’s removal from their custody. They agreed

to emergency temporary custody to Grandparents under CSB’s protective supervision. The

juvenile court granted Mother supervised visitation.

         {¶5}   Following an adjudicatory hearing, the magistrate found that M.A. was a dependent

child, citing Mother’s serious mental health issues, including hallucinations; and the failure of

three safety plans because of Mother’s inattention to the child in circumstances that put him at risk.

Mother did not file an objection, and the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision as its

order.

         {¶6}   Mother and Father waived their rights to the initial dispositional hearing. They

stipulated to the agency’s use of reasonable efforts. They further agreed to the child’s placement

in the temporary custody of Grandparents under CSB’s protective supervision and to the juvenile

court’s adoption of the agency’s case plan as an order. Mother’s case plan objectives included

basic needs, mental health, and parenting education components.

         {¶7}   Neither parent attended the first review hearing, although each was represented by

counsel. The magistrate found that both the caseworker and guardian ad litem proposed more

intensive and hands-on parenting instruction to address Mother’s lack of parenting skills. Mother

did not object to that factual finding. The juvenile court maintained the child’s custody status.
                                                 3

       {¶8}    After the second review hearing, the magistrate found that Mother was participating

in mental health counseling but had not engaged in the recommended parenting education, did not

have suitable housing, and had missed a substantial number of visits during the prior two months.

M.A. remained in Grandparents’ temporary custody under the agency’s supervision.

       {¶9}    Eleven months into the case, CSB moved for legal custody to Grandparents.

Mother filed a motion for legal custody, or, alternatively, for a six-month extension of temporary

custody. Father did not file a motion regarding the child’s custody.

       {¶10} After a three-day dispositional hearing, the magistrate found that Mother had not

made significant progress on her case plan objectives and that it was in the child’s best interest to

be placed in Grandparents’ legal custody and terminate CSB’s protective supervision. Mother

filed a timely objection, challenging the magistrate’s factual findings.        CSB responded in

opposition.

       {¶11} The juvenile court overruled Mother’s objection, finding that Mother had failed to

prove by clear and convincing evidence the statutory factors required to grant an extension of

temporary custody. The trial court found that awarding legal custody of M.A. to Grandparents

and terminating the agency’s protective supervision was in the best interest of the child. Mother

was granted supervised visitation with M.A. Mother timely appealed and raises one assignment

of error for review.

                                                 II.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO
       GRANT A FIRST SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OR LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE
       CHILD TO MOTHER AND INSTEAD GRANTED LEGAL CUSTODY TO
       MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS BECAUSE THAT DECISION WAS NOT IN
       THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
                                                 4

       OF THE EVIDENCE, AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE
       OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶12} Mother argues that the juvenile court’s judgment that denied her dispositional

motions and instead awarded legal custody of M.A. to Grandparents is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. This Court disagrees.

Manifest weight: legal custody

       {¶13} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight

of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the

credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]

must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence,

this Court “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.

       On appeal, an award of legal custody will not be reversed if the judgment is
       supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence
       entails the greater weight of the evidence, evidence that is more probable,
       persuasive, and possesses greater probative value. In other words, when the best
       interest of the child is established by the greater weight of the evidence, the trial
       court does not have discretion to enter a judgment that is adverse to that interest.

(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) In re M.F., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010823, 2016-

Ohio-2685, ¶ 7.

       {¶14} “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse, the juvenile court’s

determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a parent or a relative is based

solely on the best interest of the child.” In re K.H., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27952, 2016-Ohio-1330,

¶ 12. The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or

set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal
                                                   5

custody on the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-

7994, ¶ 18, quoting In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard,

the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in Revised Code Section

2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-

5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17.

       {¶15} The best interest factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the child,

the child’s wishes, the custodial history of the child, the child’s need for permanence, and whether

any of the factors in Section 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) are applicable. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see

also In re B.C., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26976 and 26977, 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 16. In addition, the

juvenile court may also look to the best interest factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In

re K.A., 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010850 and 15CA010860, 2017-Ohio-1, ¶ 17. While some

factors overlap with those above, others include the child’s adjustment to his or her environment;

the mental and physical health of all persons involved; the parents’ history of providing support

and honoring companionship orders; certain indicia of violence, abuse, or neglect in any household

involved; and whether a parent plans to or has established a residence outside of Ohio. R.C.

3109.04(F)(1).

       {¶16} CSB removed M.A. from Mother’s custody the month following the child’s birth.1

M.A. resided with Grandparents since he was about ten days old. He was 15 months old when the

legal custody hearing commenced. During that time, Mother visited only sporadically with the

child, preventing her from progressing beyond the need for supervision during her interactions

with the child.

       1
           The agency’s first case was dismissed and refiled due to statutory time restrictions.
                                                 6

       {¶17} M.A. shares a strong bond with Grandparents. The child is happy and comfortable

in their care, in the only home he has effectively ever known. The child is also bonded to Mother

whose interactions with him are generally appropriate. The caseworker testified that Mother

remains uneasy or uncomfortable, however, when the child is fussy or requires soothing.

       {¶18} Due to the child’s young age, the guardian ad litem made a recommendation for

custody in the child’s best interest. She opined that legal custody to Grandparents was appropriate

to meet the child’s needs. The guardian ad litem did not support an extension of temporary custody

given Mother’s inconsistency and lack of progress on her case plan objectives.

       {¶19} Because M.A. has spent his entire life in custodial limbo, the child requires

permanence. He has some special needs, including two club feet and speech delays, which

Grandparents have addressed consistently and appropriately. Moreover, Grandparents provide a

safe, financially secure, and stable home for M.A.

       {¶20} On the other hand, Mother has struggled throughout the case to address the

concerns underlying the child’s removal from her care.          Mother engaged in mental health

counseling but was terminated after failing to maintain contact with the mental health provider.

Although she reestablished contact and reengaged with her counselor, she had not gained the

insight or developed the coping skills necessary to mitigate the impact that her mental health issues

had on her ability to provide a safe and stable home environment for M.A.

       {¶21} Mother struggled to meet her own basic needs during the pendency of the case.

During those 15 months, Mother moved six times. Although Father was prohibited from having

contact with any child due to his status as a child sexual offender, Mother lived in two homes with

Father during the case. She most recently lived with a male friend and his child, while she

continued to look for independent housing. Although she testified that her friend would allow her
                                                 7

to live with him as long as necessary, Mother hoped to find an apartment closer to where she was

working because she did not have a car and relied on public transportation. At the time of the

hearing, Mother did not have the financial resources to secure such housing.

        {¶22} Although Mother claimed to work throughout the case, she never provided

verification of employment or income to the agency. The caseworker and guardian ad litem both

understood that Mother virtually provided spiritual readings through an online company, although

they believed that Mother did not earn a significant income from that work. In addition, Mother

worked at one point at an entertainment club, but it appeared that she was later only providing such

services virtually.

        {¶23} Mother began working at a bar and claimed she was earning more than $100 per

hour, although she did not testify as to how many hours she worked each week. The caseworker

was not aware that Mother had started working at a bar, and Mother admitted she had not told the

caseworker about her recent employment. By the third day of the hearing, Mother testified that

her employment had changed again. While she claimed she was still working at bars, it appeared

she was involved with a consortium of various establishments that allowed her to choose where

she would work at any given time. Mother provided no verification of income but testified that

she had made $600 the prior weekend. Notwithstanding Mother’s claim of lucrative employment,

she testified that she could not yet afford to pay rent, buy a car, or even purchase a new pair of

sneakers she needed.

        {¶24} Mother testified that she worked evenings. She believed that a friend in another

city would be willing to provide childcare for M.A. during that time, but that would necessitate

Mother’s relocation to that city. Although she was looking for an apartment there, she could not

yet afford to move.
                                                  8

       {¶25} Mother had not prioritized visiting with M.A. During the last three months of the

case, Mother attended only three visits when she was scheduled to have at least 24. She testified

that the prospect of seeing Grandfather during visits made her ill because he had abused her as a

child. She also testified that she suffered abuse at the hands of both Grandparents. Mother

provided no details regarding the abuse. CSB investigated those allegations early in the case and

found them to be unsubstantiated. The guardian ad litem testified that Mother had mentioned an

incident involving the shower but also reported that Grandfather had not touched her

inappropriately. Nevertheless, Mother made vague references to “gross things that nobody should

do to people that are their kid” and excused her failure to visit because seeing Grandfather triggered

her trauma. The juvenile court, with agreement from the agency, admitted a letter from Mother’s

counselor into evidence based on Mother’s assertion that it clarified her diagnoses and the progress

she was making in treatment. The letter made no reference to Mother having been abused by her

parents as a child.

       {¶26} Initially, Grandmother supervised Mother’s visits. Grandfather began supervising

when Grandmother no longer felt safe around Mother. While Mother testified that her rift with

Grandmother began when Grandmother commented during a visit that Mother was not prioritizing

the child’s needs, Grandmother testified that it arose when Mother brought Father to a visit at a

park and attempted to hide him in her car. Grandmother called the caseworker and guardian ad

litem to ask what she should do because Father was not allowed to have contact with the child.

Both testified that they told her to end the visit. After she did, Mother began harassing and

threatening Grandmother, indicating that she wanted to kill Grandmother. Both the caseworker

and guardian ad litem testified that they had seen Mother’s texts to Grandmother and posts on

social media referencing Mother’s desire to see Grandmother dead.
                                                 9

        {¶27} Mother later refused to allow Grandfather to supervise her visits and insisted that

they be moved to a private visitation center. The caseworker made a referral to Common Ground.

Grandfather immediately completed his intake there, while Mother delayed completing hers,

further delaying some visits.

        {¶28} Grandmother and Grandfather testified that they understand that Mother’s residual

parental rights include the right the reasonable visitation with the child. Both explained the

opportunities they have offered for Mother to visit with M.A. twice a week. They testified that

they have and will continue to facilitate Mother’s visitation with the child, including expanding

visits to encompass longer periods of time a couple weekends a month. While Grandfather did not

think that Mother should have to pay to visit with the child, he would respect Mother’s choice to

visit at Common Ground. Grandparents also agreed that a friend Mother identified was appropriate

to supervise visits.

        {¶29} The agency required Mother to participate in parenting education. Although she

argues that the case plan did not specify the need for intensive parenting classes, Mother testified

that she was aware of that requirement, and she never objected. The caseworker made a referral

to Ohio Guidestone upon Mother’s request, but Mother did not pursue that referral in a timely

manner. When she finally did contact Ohio Guidestone, they had a waiting list for services. The

caseworker made a referral to Ever Well but when she realized there was a waiting list there too,

she made a referral to Bellefaire where Mother could start parenting classes immediately. Mother

waited three months to contact Bellefaire which, by that time, had a waiting list. The caseworker

then made a referral to The Bair Foundation which could have assigned Mother a parenting

instructor at that time. After Bair attempted to contact Mother on multiple occasions without

success, it sought help from CSB to facilitate contact. The caseworker told Mother that Bair was
                                                  10

trying to set up her intake appointment. By the time Mother reached out to Bair, that provider too

had a waiting list.

        {¶30} Within a month, Bair was able to offer Mother services. By the time of the hearing,

Mother had completed her intake but had not begun any one-on-one sessions involving the child.

        {¶31} Based on a thorough review of the record, this is not the exceptional case in which

the trier of fact clearly lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of justice by awarding

legal custody of M.A. to Grandparents. The preponderance of the evidence established that

Grandparents are willing and able to provide a safe and stable home for the child, as they had since

M.A. was less than two weeks old. They were meeting all the child’s basic and special needs.

Grandparents also demonstrated their commitment to facilitating visitation between Mother and

the child.

        {¶32}    Mother had neither consistently addressed her mental health issues nor developed

the insight or coping skills to overcome the impact those issues had on her ability to attain stability.

She failed to establish safe and stable housing, planning to move a seventh time when she could

afford to leave her friend’s home. Mother changed jobs regularly without keeping the caseworker

or guardian ad litem apprised of her current situation. She never provided verification regarding

employment and income despite ongoing requests by the caseworker.

        {¶33} Despite concerns underlying the child’s removal that Mother lacked the skills to

parent the child on a regular, fulltime basis and manage both M.A.’s basic and special needs,

Mother did not pursue the intensive parenting education she knew was requested. She waited

months on occasion to contact service providers to initiate classes. By the conclusion of the three-

day hearing, Mother had not yet begun parenting sessions involving the child.
                                                     11

        {¶34} As the child is in a safe and secure home with the only caregivers he ever knew, his

needs are fully met, Mother has the opportunity for regular and reasonable visitation, and Mother

has neither made progress on her case plan objectives nor demonstrated the ability to provide an

appropriate permanent home for M.A., the juvenile court’s finding that an award of legal custody

to Grandparents is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Six-month extension of temporary custody

        {¶35} Mother further argues that the juvenile court erred by not granting a first six-month

extension of temporary custody to allow her additional time to continue to work on her case plan

objectives. As previously stated, the juvenile court must resolve a motion for legal custody solely

in consideration of the best interest of the child. In re K.H., 2016-Ohio-1330, at ¶ 12. It is well

settled that “‘[w]here the trial court finds that it is in the best interest of a child to be placed in legal

custody as a permanent disposition, the trial court must necessarily deny any extension of

temporary custody.’” In re B.C., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26976 and 26977, 2014-Ohio-2748, ¶ 22,

quoting In re C.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24380, 2009-Ohio-943, ¶ 24. As legal custody of M.A.

to Grandparents is in the child’s best interest, an extension of temporary custody necessarily is not.

        {¶36} Moreover, before the juvenile court may grant a first six-month extension of

temporary custody, it must find by clear and convincing evidence not only that the extension is in

the best interest of the child, but also that there has been “significant progress” on the case plan

objectives, and there is reasonable cause to believe reunification would occur within the extension

period. R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). As explained above, Mother made very limited progress in

addressing her case plan objectives. Her housing remained unstable, and her income was

unverified. Although she was participating in mental health counseling, she did not appear to

recognize its purpose or importance, testifying that it is “helpful for what it is, but I don’t think it’s
                                                12

an end all be all.” She had not begun to address her allegations of childhood abuse with her

counselor, leaving the juvenile court with unconfirmed evidence of Mother’s claims of impropriety

in contravention of the agency’s finding after investigation that Mother’s allegations were

unsubstantiated. Finally, Mother had not engaged in the required parenting education when the

hearing began. By the third day of the hearing, she had completed her intake appointment but had

not yet scheduled any sessions including the child.

       {¶37} Given the supported finding that legal custody to Grandparents is in the child’s best

interest, coupled with Mother’s lack of significant progress in addressing her case plan objectives

to remedy the conditions underlying the child’s removal, the juvenile court did not err by denying

Mother’s motion for an extension of temporary custody. For the above reasons, Mother’s

assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶38} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
                                                13

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                     JENNIFER HENSAL
                                                     FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, P. J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JAYSEN W. MERCER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

HOLLY FARAH, Guardian ad Litem.