Court Opinion

ID: 9370500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 21:08:01.458969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.795086
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re G.H., 2023-Ohio-420.]

                                           COURT OF APPEALS
                                         LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 IN THE MATTER OF: G.H. & J.M.                     JUDGES:
                                                   Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
                                                   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                   Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

                                                   Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA
                                                   00062, 2022 CA 00074, & 2022 CA
                                                   00075

                                                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                         Appeal from the Licking County Court of
                                                   Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
                                                   Nos. F2019-0697 & F2019-0698

 JUDGMENT:                                         Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                           February 10, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Licking County Job & Family Services For Mother C.M.

 JENNY WELLS                                       ROBIN LYN GREEN, ESQ.
 Licking County Prosecuting Attorney               P.O. Box 157
                                                   Newark, Ohio 43058
 J. BRANDON PIGG, ESQ.
 ROBERT N. ABDALLA                                 For Father J.M.
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney’s
 20 S. Second Street                               JERMAIN L. COLQUITT
 Newark, Ohio 43055                                33 W. Main Street – Suite #109
                                                   Newark, Ohio 43055
 Guardian ad Litem

 CAROLYNN FITTRO
 193 Town Center Loop
 Pataskala, Ohio 43062
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &               2
2022 CA 00075

Hoffman, P.J.
      {¶1}      Appellant-mother, C.M., and Appellant-father, J.M., appeal the August 16,

2022 judgment entries of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, Juvenile

Division, terminating their parental rights and granting permanent custody of their two

children to appellee, Licking County Job and Family Services.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      {¶2}      On December 9, 2019, Appellee removed two children, G.M., born May

2018, and J.M., born November 2019, from their Parents' care pursuant to emergency ex

parte orders of removal. Parents were involved in a domestically violent relationship and

the home was in a deplorable condition. Parents each have developmental issues. By

orders filed December 10, 2019, the children were placed in Appellee's emergency shelter

care custody.

      {¶3}      On December 10, 2019, Appellee filed complaints alleging the children to

be dependent. Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings before a magistrate were held on

February 26, 2020. By decisions and judgment entries filed February 27, 2020, the trial

court found the children to be dependent, and placed the children in Appellee's temporary

custody.

      {¶4}      On May 7, 2021, Appellee filed motions for permanent custody of the

children. Hearings before a magistrate were held on September 2, and 30, and November

29, 2021. By decisions filed December 30, 2021, the magistrate granted the motions for

permanent custody. Mother filed objections, Father did not. By judgment entries filed

August 16, 2022, the trial court denied Mother's objections and adopted the magistrate's
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &               3
2022 CA 00075

decisions with a modification to terminate all visitation and contact between Parents and

the children.

       {¶5}     Mother and Father each filed two appeals, one for each child, and this

matter is now before this Court for consideration.

       {¶6}     Mother's assignment of error in Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061 and 2022 CA

00062 is as follows:

                "THE   TRIAL   COURT'S      ENTRY      GRANTING    PERMANENT

       CUSTODY TO THE AGENCY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF

       THE EVIDENCE."

       {¶7}     Father's assignments of error in Case Nos. 2022 CA 00074 and 2022 CA

00075 are as follows:

                I. "LCDJFS DID NOT ENGAGE IN "REASONABLE CASE

       PLANNING"        AND     "DILIGENT     EFFORTS"       IN    FACILITATING

       REUNIFICATION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO

       CONDUCT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BEFORE FILING FOR

       PERMANENT          CUSTODY,      AND     AFTER       CONDUCTING       THE

       PSYCHOLOGICAL           THE   AGENCY          DID   NOT    FOLLOW     THE

       RECOMMENDATION."

                II. “THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT

       CUSTODY OF J.M. AND G.M. IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &                    4
2022 CA 00075

       CONVINCING EVIDENCE.             THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE THAT

       GRANTING THE MOTION WAS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST."

       {¶8}   These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered

in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

                                      MOTHER'S APPEALS

       {¶9}   In her sole assignment of error, Mother claims the trial court's decision to

grant permanent custody of the children to Appellee is against the manifest weight of the

evidence. We disagree.

       {¶10} At the outset, we note Mother has failed to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7).

Said rule requires the brief of the appellant to include "[a]n argument containing the

contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review

and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes,

and parts of the record on which appellant relies." In her one-page argument at page four

of her brief, Mother argues in conclusory fashion, "The Appellant believes that portions of

the transcript show that not all the essential elements of this case were found against her.

The manifest weight of the evidence is in the favor of Appellant and thus the trial court's

decision should be reversed." (Emphasis sic). Mother does not point to any portions of

the transcript nor specify which element(s) have not been found against her.

       {¶11} Mother further argues at page four: "It is the Appellant's request that The

Fifth District Court of Appeals review the entire record and transcript of the cases and

determine independently as to whether the lower Court's Entry granting permanent

custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial." It is this Court's
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &                    5
2022 CA 00075

function to review the record before us in order to consider the arguments presented by

the parties. Mother’s "argument" is a broad generalization without any specifics. "If an

argument exists that can support this assignment of error, it is not this court's duty to root

it out." Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18349, 1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6,

1998).

         {¶12} Notwithstanding the failure to follow App.R. 16(A)(7) and provide this Court

with substantive argument and support, we find the trial court's decision is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Said section states

permanent custody may be granted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing

evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child and "[t]he child 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 *

* *. For the purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), "a child shall be considered to have entered

the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated

pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the

removal of the child from home."

         {¶13} The children were removed from the home on December 9, 2019, sixty days

following removal was February 7, 2020, the children were adjudicated and placed in

Appellee's temporary custody on February 27, 2020, and the motion for permanent

custody was filed on May 7, 2021. As found by the trial court, the children have been in

Appellee's custody for over twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &                   6
2022 CA 00075

sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No.

2008 CA 00118, 2008-Ohio-5458, ¶ 45.

       {¶14} As for best interests pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), the trial court's findings

are amply supported in the record. T. at 266-282, 376, 429-432.

       {¶15} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the

trial court's decision to terminate Mother's parental rights and grant Appellee permanent

custody of the children.

       {¶16} Mother's sole assignment of error is denied.

                                      FATHER'S APPEALS

       {¶17} In his first assignment of error, Father claims Appellee did not engage in

reasonable case planning and diligent efforts in facilitating reunification.

       {¶18} In his second assignment of error, Father claims the trial court's decision to

grant permanent custody of the children to Appellee is not supported by clear and

convincing evidence and Appellee did not prove the best interests of the children would

be best served by granting permanent custody to Appellee.

       {¶19} We disagree with both assignments of error.

       {¶20} At the outset, we note Father failed to object to the magistrate's decision.

Juv.R. 40 governs magistrates. Subsection (D)(3)(b)(iv) states: "Except for a claim of

plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual

finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or

conclusion of law under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding

or conclusion as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)."
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &                      7
2022 CA 00075

       {¶21} Plain error is defined in Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679

N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus, as "error, to which no objection was made at the trial court,

seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process,

thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself."

       {¶22} Father did not make any arguments claiming plain error. "Appellant's failure

to argue plain error at this juncture is fatal as we are constrained to review the trial court's

actions for plain error only and appellant has failed to cite legal authority and develop an

argument as to the existence of an obvious defect in the proceedings that affected

appellant's substantial rights." A.A. v. F.A., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAF 10 0079,

2019-Ohio-1706, ¶ 22, citing State v. Benitez-Maranon, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26461,

2014-Ohio-3575, ¶ 7.

       {¶23} As found in Mother's appeal, the children have been in Appellee's temporary

custody for over twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.                   R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d). In addition, the trial court's findings as to best interests pursuant to

R.C. 2151.414(D), are amply supported in the record.

       {¶24} We do not find either of Father's assignments of error to rise to the level of

plain error.

       {¶25} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the

trial court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights and grant Appellee permanent

custody of the children.
Licking County, Case Nos. 2022 CA 00061, 2022 CA 00062, 2022 CA 00074, &     8
2022 CA 00075

      {¶26} Father's Assignments of Error I and II are denied.

      {¶27} The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio,

Juvenile Division are hereby affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Delaney, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur