In re T.L.W. , 2019 Ohio 3118 ( 2019 )

[Cite as In re T.L.W., 2019-Ohio-3118.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
:
:
IN RE T.L.W. and L.W. : Appellate Case No. 28363
:
: Trial Court Case Nos. 2015-2394
: 2015-2396
:
: (Juvenile Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 2nd day of August, 2019.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH E. HUTNIK, Atty. Reg. No. 0095900, Montgomery
County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301
West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
CHARLES W. SLICER, Atty. Reg. No. 0059927, 426 Patterson Road, Kettering, Ohio
45419
Attorney for Mother
.............
HALL, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} The Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, Children
Services Division (MCCS), appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry sustaining
appellee Mother’s objections to a magistrate’s decision regarding the disposition of her
two minor children, L.W. and T.W.
{¶ 2} MCCS advances four assignments of error. First, it contends the trial court
erred in sustaining Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision awarding MCCS
permanent custody of L.W. MCCS argues that the trial court improperly rejected the
magistrate’s decision “without conducting the statutorily required best interest analysis.”
Second, MCCS claims the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate’s
decision awarding MCCS permanent custody of L.W. Third, MCCS asserts that the trial
court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate’s decision awarding legal custody
of T.W. to Mother’s cousin T.B. 1 Fourth, MCCS argues that the trial court erred in
terminating the agency’s temporary custody of L.W. and T.W. and returning legal custody
to Mother “without conducting additional hearings.”
{¶ 3} The record reflects that MCCS filed separate neglect and dependency
complaints in April 2015 with regard to Mother’s children, L.W. and T.W. At the time of
the complaints, L.W. was two months old, and T.W. was 15 months old. The complaints
alleged that Mother was unable to care for her children’s basic needs as she lacked
income and appropriate housing. 2 MCCS obtained interim temporary custody in May
1On appeal, MCCS refers to Mother’s cousin as T.W.’s “maternal aunt.” For purposes of
our analysis herein, we will refer to her as “Mother’s cousin,” which is how she identified
herself below. (Hearing Tr. at 56, 58).
2The father of L.W. and T.W. has been incarcerated at all relevant times and is not a
party to this appeal.
-3-
2015. The following month, both children were adjudicated dependent. MCCS was
granted temporary custody of L.W., and Mother’s cousin was granted temporary custody
of T.W. First and second extensions of temporary custody were granted in both cases.
Thereafter, in March 2017, MCCS moved for permanent custody of L.W. and for legal
custody of T.W. to be granted to Mother’s cousin. In April 2017, Mother moved to have
legal custody returned to her in both cases. The case proceeded to a January 2018
hearing before a magistrate. Based on the evidence presented, the magistrate awarded
MCCS permanent custody of L.W. and awarded Mother’s cousin legal custody of T.W. In
separate March 8, 2018 decisions, the magistrate found (1) that L.W. had been in MCCS’
temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and that
awarding the agency permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and (2) that
awarding Mother’s cousin legal custody of T.W. was in the child’s best interest.
{¶ 4} Mother filed objections and supplemental objections to both of the
magistrate’s decisions. Following briefing, the trial court resolved the objections in an April
19, 2019 decision and judgment entry. With regard to L.W., the trial court agreed with the
magistrate’s determination that the child had been in MCCS’ temporary custody for 12 or
more months of a consecutive 22-month period. However, the trial court rejected the
magistrate’s best-interest determination. Based on its own review of the record, the trial
court found it in L.W.’s best interest to be reunited with Mother. As a result, the trial court
sustained Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, overruled MCCS’ motion for
permanent custody, and sustained Mother’s motion for legal custody. With regard to T.W.,
the trial court again rejected the magistrate’s best-interest determination and found it in
the child’s best interest to be reunited with Mother. Consequently, the trial court overruled
-4-
Mother’s cousin’s motion for legal custody and sustained Mother’s motion for legal
custody. The trial court also granted MCCS six months of protective supervision. This
appeal by MCCS followed.
{¶ 5} In its first assignment of error, MCCS contends the trial court failed to conduct
“the statutorily required best interest analysis” before denying its motion for permanent
custody of L.W. MCCS notes that R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) obligated the trial court to
“consider” all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute, when determining
whether an award of permanent custody to the agency was in L.W.’s best interest. MCCS
also notes that while the trial court “need not specifically enumerate each of the R.C.
2151.414(D)(1) factors in its decision, ‘there must be some indication on the record that
all of the necessary factors were considered.’ ” In re K.T.1, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-
170667, et al., 2018-Ohio-1381, ¶14, quoting In re G.B., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-
1024, 2005-Ohio-3141, ¶ 17. Here MCCS asserts that the trial court merely summarized
the evidence as it pertained to each statutory best-interest factor. MCCS argues that this
was insufficient, as a matter of law, to demonstrate that the trial court “considered” the
best-interest factors as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). MCCS argues that the trial
court’s analysis and holding did not mention the best-interest factors, focusing instead on
other issues. Therefore, MCCS urges us to reverse the trial court’s decision based on an
error of law, namely a failure to “truly consider” the best interest of L.W.
{¶ 6} Upon review, we find MCCS’ argument to be without merit. It is nearly
impossible to read the trial court’s opinion and conclude that it did not “consider” the best-
interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Near the outset of its ruling (which was 22
single-spaced pages), the trial court stated that it would determine whether it was in the
-5-
best interest of L.W. to grant permanent custody to MCCS. (Montgomery C.P. No. 2015-
2396, Doc. # 4 at 4).3 The trial court then stated that it would consider all relevant factors,
including those identified in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). (Id.). Following that statement, the trial
court devoted nine single-spaced pages to identifying each best-interest factor and
detailing the evidence as it pertained to each factor. (Id. at 4-12). This exercise by the trial
court, alone, persuades us that it satisfied its statutory responsibility to “consider” the
best-interest factors. But the trial court did more. In the pages that followed, it explicitly
engaged in a best-interest analysis. Among other things, it found that Mother substantially
had completed her case-plan objectives. The trial court recognized that this fact was not
dispositive but found it to be a relevant best-interest consideration. (Id. at 12-13). The trial
court also specifically analyzed the best-interest factor in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)
regarding L.W.’s need for a legally secure placement and whether it could be achieved
without awarding permanent custody to MCCS. (Id. at 14). The trial court’s analysis then
took into consideration “the significant time the child has been in Agency custody and in
the placement of the current foster family, as well as the relationship that the child and
foster family have built.” (Id. at 15).These considerations implicated at least two additional
statutory best-interest factors. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) and (c). Finally, the trial court
explained that it was considering what would “best promote the care, protection, and
mental and physical development” of L.W. (Id. at 16). This statement embodied the
concerns underlying all of the best-interest factors.
3The trial court filed the same April 19, 2019 opinion under separate case numbers in
LW.’s case and in T.W.’s case. For convenience, we will reference the trial court’s
decision as “Doc. # 4” in Montgomery C.P. No. 2015-2396 throughout this opinion. We
note, however, that the same opinion exists as “Doc. # 5” in the companion case,
Montgomery C.P. No. 2015-2394.
-6-
{¶ 7} Having reviewed the record, we find no support for MCCS’ assertion that the
trial court failed to “consider” the statutory best-interest factors or to conduct the required
best-interest analysis.4 Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 8} In its second assignment of error, MCCS argues that trial court abused its
discretion in sustaining Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision regarding the best
interest of L.W. Specifically, MCCS claims the trial court disregarded overwhelming
evidence that awarding the agency permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
{¶ 9} To obtain permanent custody and terminate Mother’s parental rights, MCCS
was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that such a disposition was in
L.W.’s best interest and that the child had been in the agency’s temporary custody for at
least 12 of the preceding 22 months. In re J.N., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28247, 2019-
Ohio-1800, ¶ 13. We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court’s resolution
of the best-interest issue. In re L.T., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26922, 2016-Ohio-605,
¶ 4. The phrase “abuse of discretion” implies a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary,
or unconscionable. Id. Therefore, we may not reverse the trial court’s decision based on
a mere difference of opinion or substitution of our judgment for that of the trial court. With
these standards in mind, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination
that awarding Mother legal custody of L.W. was in the child’s best interest. As a result,
the trial court did not err in declining to award MCCS permanent custody.
{¶ 10} In determining what is in the best interest of a child, a trial court must
4 MCCS’ real argument appears to be that the trial court analyzed the best-interest factors
incorrectly, overemphasizing reunification, Mother’s parental rights, and her case-plan
progress. We will address these issues under MCCS’ second assignment of error, which
challenges the trial court’s best-interest determination as an abuse of discretion.
-7-
consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, (1) the interaction and
interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers,
and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s
guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
been in the temporary custody of public or private children services agencies for 12 or
more months; and (4) the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and
whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody.
R.C. 2151.414(D).5
{¶ 11} In its decision, the trial court detailed the evidence as it pertained to each of
the foregoing factors. (Doc. # 4 at 4-12). With regard to L.W.’s interaction and
interrelationship with others, the trial court noted that the child was well bonded with a
foster family that had cared for him since April 2015. The trial court also found that L.W.
was bonded with Mother, who had maintained regular visits. The trial court noted that
L.W. sometimes asked to stay with Mother after visits were completed. The trial court also
recognized that the foster parents had treated L.W. for pink eye, reflux, and asthma.
Additionally, the trial court noted that L.W. had undergone counseling for anxiety-related
issues that manifested themselves while in the foster family’s care. The trial court
observed that L.W. had special “sensory” toys such as a trampoline, bean bags, and a
blanket.
5 The statute also instructs a trial court to consider “[w]hether any of the factors in
divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.” See R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(e). The parties do not dispute the inapplicability of any of these additional
factors here.
-8-
{¶ 12} As for L.W.’s wishes, the trial court noted that the child was only two years
old at the time of the permanent custody hearing. As a result, the child’s wishes had not
been ascertained or explored. With regard to L.W.’s custodial history, the trial court
recognized that L.W. had been under MCCS’ care for 12 or more months of a consecutive
22-month period.
{¶ 13} The trial court then turned to L.W.’s need for a legally secure permanent
placement and whether that type of placement could be achieved without granting MCCS
permanent custody. The trial court devoted significant attention to this factor. It first noted
that MCCS had become involved in the case based on an allegation of abuse that
ultimately was not substantiated. In the course of its investigation, however, the agency
developed concerns about Mother’s housing and income. As a result, MCCS obtained
temporary custody of Mother’s children and a case plan was initiated. The case-plan
objectives included (1) obtaining and maintaining suitable housing and income, (2)
completing parenting/psychological evaluations and following recommendations, (3)
completing anger management and parenting education classes, and (4) maintaining
visitation.
{¶ 14} The trial court thoroughly reviewed the evidence pertaining to the foregoing
objectives. It specifically noted a caseworker’s testimony that Mother had maintained
clean and suitable housing since March 2017, which was 10 months before the custody
hearing. With regard to income, the trial court noted testimony that Mother had worked
three different places but had not always verified her income. The trial court also noted,
however, that the caseworker was unaware of any “gaps” in Mother’s employment. The
trial court then cited Mother’s testimony that she was never unemployed and that she quit
-9-
one job because it was seasonal and switched from one home-health-care job to another
one to obtain more consistent hours.
{¶ 15} With regard to parenting and psychological evaluations, the trial court noted
that Mother had undergone two of them. The first was by Dr. Richard Bromberg in
February 2016, and the second was by Dr. Daniel Hrinko in August 2017. Dr. Bromberg
diagnosed various psychological disorders and made several recommendations,
including drug testing, therapy, anger management, and parenting classes. Dr. Bromberg
also opined that Mother lacked the ability to effectively parent her children consistent with
their best interest at that time. Eighteen months later, however, Dr. Hrinko evaluated
Mother and found that she exhibited no inappropriate behaviors. He noted that she had
undergone some counseling and had made “significant progress.” Dr. Hrinko found no
evidence of any severe or significant “clinical syndromes” or of any “severe personality
pathology.” Dr. Hrinko also noted that Mother’s clinical scales revealed no evidence of
“any significant elevations that was to be associated with significant mental health or
psychological problems.” He further opined that the problems that brought Mother to
MCCS’ attention appeared to have been resolved. He recommended that Mother’s
children be returned to her and that she continue with mental-health counseling to assist
her in coping with the challenges of independent parenting. In its decision, the trial court
noted that MCCS did not dispute the fact that Mother had been attending counseling
regularly. The trial court also noted that the agency had no concerns about any drug use
by Mother.
{¶ 16} As for the requirement of anger management and parenting classes, the
trial court noted that Mother had satisfied these case-plan objectives. Finally, with regard
-10-
to visitation, the trial court cited a caseworker’s testimony that Mother’s visitation had
been consistent. The trial court referenced one disputed incident in December 2016 when
Mother allegedly cursed at a caseworker and another incident that month when Mother
returned the child with a dirty diaper and a swollen eye that appears to have been the
result of a traffic accident involving Mother’s car. Mother admitted the accident and
explained that she did not report it to MCCS because she was “scared about being non-
compliant.”
{¶ 17} After reviewing the evidence related to the statutory best-interest factors,
the trial court found that Mother substantially had completed her case-plan objectives.
She had obtained and maintained suitable housing and employment. She had completed
evaluations, undergone counseling, and visited L.W. consistently. Mother’s substantial
satisfaction of her case-plan objectives was particularly relevant to the best-interest factor
found in R.C. 2151.414(D)(4), namely L.W.’s need for a legally secure placement and
whether that type of placement could be achieved without a grant of permanent custody
to MCCS. On that issue, the trial court highlighted Dr. Hrinko’s most recent evaluation,
which found no reason, from a mental-health standpoint, why Mother should not be
reunited with her children. In fact, the trial court found that MCCS had agreed, as far back
as September 2017, to have L.W. returned to Mother’s legal custody before changing its
mind based on a purported “lack of cooperation” by Mother at that time and her failure to
verify income. The trial court found little evidence, however, of any real lack of cooperation
on Mother’s part.
{¶ 18} On the other hand, the trial court recognized that L.W. had been under
MCCS’ care for more than 12 months of a 22-month period and that the child had bonded
-11-
with the foster family. These observations by the trial court demonstrated its consideration
of the best-interest factors found in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (3). The only other
potentially applicable factor, the wishes of the child, did not apply due to L.W.’s young
age.
{¶ 19} Ultimately, the trial court concluded that MCCS “did not meet the burden of
proof in showing clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody of the child is in
the best interest of the child.” (Doc. # 4 at 14). To the contrary, the trial court held: “The
Court finds it to be in the child’s best interest to be reunified with Mother as separating
the child is not necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety. Further,
the Court finds that Mother parenting her own child will best promote the care, protection
and mental and physical development of the child as Mother has demonstrated her
commitment and ability to do so safely and appropriately.” (Id. at 16).
{¶ 20} On appeal, MCCS argues that the trial court overemphasized reunification,
Mother’s parental rights, and her case plan progress. MCCS asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion by disregarding other issues such as L.W.’s “medical, social, and
developmental needs.” MCCS notes that L.W. had been diagnosed with pink eye, reflux,
and asthma while in foster care and that the child used medications for asthma, including
an inhaler and a nebulizer. MCCS also notes that L.W. underwent counseling to help with
anxiety and dealing with new situations. MCCS suggests that Mother did not attend the
counseling sessions and, in fact, had been unaware of the child’s need for counseling.
MCCS also argues that Mother had been unaware of L.W.’s “sensory dysfunction” or his
need for “special toys” including soft pillows, bean bags, and a blanket. MCCS asserts
that there is no evidence Mother will be able to administer the asthma medicine or
-12-
maintain L.W.’s behavioral therapy. MCCS also notes that Mother never brought these
“special toys” to visits, suggesting that she may not have them.
{¶ 21} When reviewing the evidence as it related to the best-interest factors,
however, the trial court recognized each of the foregoing issues. Although the trial court
did not explicitly reference them in its analysis, it plainly was aware of them. The trial court
reasonably may have believed that Mother, as a functional adult, could help L.W. use an
inhaler, arrange his counseling sessions, and obtain any necessary “special toys”
including pillows, bean bags, or a blanket. We note that the trial court granted MCCS six
months of protective supervision, subject to a potential extension, during which the
agency could assure itself that the child’s needs were being met.
{¶ 22} MCCS further argues that L.W. had lived with the foster family for most of
his life, whereas Mother had visited regularly but had not parented the child full-time for
more than two years. MCCS also questions Mother’s parenting skills and suggests that
the record overwhelmingly supports permanent custody to the agency. MCCS questions
whether Mother really had satisfied her case plan objectives. The agency notes that
Mother had maintained her apartment for only nine months.6 It also asserts that she
lacked stable income at the time of the hearing because income from one employer was
paid in cash and because Mother had not consistently verified income. Finally, MCCS
asserts that Mother did not substantially complete her mental-health objective. MCCS
notes that Mother had not yet completed the full 24 months of counseling recommended
by Dr. Bromberg. The agency also suggests that Dr. Hrinko’s subsequent evaluation was
6 In her own testimony, Mother explained that she had another apartment prior to the
current one. She voluntarily gave it up so she could obtain her present housing, which is
a larger, two-bedroom apartment to accommodate her children. (Hearing Tr. at 156-158).
-13-
flawed and less reliable.
{¶ 23} In our view, the trial court reasonably found substantial compliance with the
case-plan objectives. As set forth above, Mother had maintained suitable housing for
many months prior to the hearing. Although she did fail to verify income at times, the
record supports a finding that she never was unemployed and that she changed jobs only
when she found a better one. Finally, as for the mental-health issue, the trial court acted
within its discretion in relying on Dr. Hrinko’s more recent evaluation.
{¶ 24} Notably, at the time of the custody hearing, MCCS caseworkers Brande
Knight and Tawanda Thompson admitted that Mother had competed her case-plan
objectives with the exception of income verification. (Hearing Tr. at 104, 126). When
asked why MCCS did not believe Mother should be reunited with her children, Knight said
nothing about L.W.’s medical or developmental needs. Nor did she reference Mother’s
mental health or any inadequacies with regard to Mother’s housing or employment.
Instead, she mentioned only “concerns about mother’s history of stability” or “just general
instability.” (Id. at 105). But these non-specific concerns were mitigated by the trial court’s
decision to grant MCCS protective supervision for an extendable six-month period during
which the agency could maintain contact with Mother and assure the well-being of her
children.
{¶ 25} Based on our examination of the record, we see no abuse of discretion in
the trial court’s refusal to award MCCS permanent custody. The trial court thoughtfully
reviewed the evidence and considered the appropriate statutory factors when determining
that returning L.W. to Mother’s legal custody was in the child’s best interest. The trial
court’s resolution of the best-interest issue was supported by the record and was not
-14-
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, the second assignment of error
is overruled.
{¶ 26} In its third assignment of error, MCCS challenges the trial court’s decision
to grant Mother legal custody of T.W. The agency contends the trial court abused its
discretion in not finding an award of legal custody to Mother’s cousin to be in the child’s
best interest.
{¶ 27} Because an award of legal custody to a relative would not terminate
Mother’s parental rights, MCCS needed only to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that such a disposition was in T.W.’s best interest. In re A.K., 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
27575, 2017-Ohio-8100, ¶ 7. The trial court concluded, however, that returning legal
custody to Mother was in the child’s best interest. Once again, we review that
determination for an abuse of discretion. Id.
{¶ 28} In its decision, the trial court recited the appropriate best-interest factors
under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), which applies to legal custody determinations. In particular, the
trial court noted that the pertinent factors included, but were not limited to, “the wishes of
the parents; the child’s interactions and interrelationships with parents, siblings, and other
persons who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; the child’s adjustment to
home, school and community; and the mental and physical health of all persons involved
in the situation.” (Doc. # 4 at 17).
{¶ 29} The trial court then reviewed the evidence as it pertained to the foregoing
factors. (Id. at 17-19). It noted, among other things, that Mother desired to parent T.W.
full time, that she had continued to visit the child throughout the pendency of the case,
and that she had substantially completed her case-plan objectives and had resolved the
-15-
issues that originally led to the removal of her children. The trial court also recognized,
however, that Mother’s cousin wanted to keep T.W. as her own and considered the child
part of her family. The trial court also acknowledged evidence that T.W. had a good
relationship with Mother’s cousin’s family. In addition, the trial court noted testimony from
Mother’s cousin that T.W. had “special or medical needs” including “sickle-cell trait” and
possibly asthma. Mother’s cousin also testified that the child had some “separation
anxiety” or “reactive attachment disorder” that was getting better. She testified that
“hugging” him seemed to help. As for other assistance that T.W. needed, Mother’s cousin
stated that he largely got it through a special day care, which he attended 45 to 50 hours
per week. MCCS caseworker Brande Knight testified that, to the agency’s knowledge,
T.W. did not have any special or medical needs. (Id. at 103). The trial court also noted
that T.W. had exhibited some “behavioral issues” while in Mother’s cousin’s home. The
trial court reviewed Mother’s testimony that she had asked her cousin to help care for
T.W., before MCCS became involved, because she needed assistance at that time.
{¶ 30} After reviewing the evidence, the trial court reasoned:
The Court finds that Mother’s actions over the last four years have
supported her testimony that she wants to parent T.W. full time and is able
to do so in a healthy manner. Mother has continued to visit with the child
throughout the case, despite barriers, evidencing a continued and strong
commitment to the child, contrary to the findings that Mother “continues to
vacillate” about her intent to parent T.W. Alternatively, [Mother’s cousin]
appears intent to keep the child as her own, and testified that her family has
always considered the child to be theirs. As discussed in the preceding
-16-
section, Mother has substantially completed her case plan and has largely
resolved the issues that led to the removal of both of the children from her
care.
The Court finds that Mother initially relied on [her cousin] because
she stated that she was homeless, without a job, and not in a “good place.”
Mother therefore made an appropriate safety plan for her child and placed
T.W. voluntarily with [her cousin]. At the time of the legal custody hearing
for T.W., Mother had independent housing, displayed an ability to meet the
needs of the child and herself financially, and had engaged in mental health
counseling successfully for an extended period of time. Mother’s visits with
the child have been consistent and reportedly have gone well, albeit in a
severely limited fashion for two hours at the Agency.
It was stated that Mother was consistent with her visitation. A
caseworker stated that [her cousin] was cooperative with bringing the child
to visits “most of the time.” The testimony suggests there were a number of
occasions throughout the pendency of this case that the child was not made
available for the scheduled visitations. Visitation time was altered in
September to better conform to [Mother’s cousin’s] school schedule. Mother
does not believe that the Agency was as accommodating with her schedule,
as there were times she would have to leave work to visit with the children.
The Court again finds that parents have a basic fundamental right,
which is paramount to anything other than a child’s best interest and safety,
to raise their child. Although a grant of legal custody does not divest Mother
-17-
of her parental rights as fully as a grant of permanent custody would, the
Court does not find it to be in the child’s best interest to be deprived of being
raised by their Mother given the circumstances of this case, the child’s
reactive attachment disorder and the progress that Mother has made over
time.
After a review of the available record and consideration of the best
interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a-j), as well as the best interest
factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a-e), the Court concludes it is also in the
best interest of T.W. to return to the legal custody of Mother. * * *
(Doc. # 4 at 20).
{¶ 31} On appeal, MCCS argues that the trial court’s decision “completely
disregarded” T.W.’s “special needs” including sickle-cell trait and reactive attachment
disorder. MCCS also stresses the child’s longstanding relationship with Mother’s cousin’s
family. MCCS reiterates its prior arguments about Mother’s case-plan progress and her
attempts to remedy the agency’s concerns. For these reasons, MCCS contends the trial
court erred in finding an award of legal custody to Mother to be in T.W.’s best interest.
{¶ 32} Based on our review of the record, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s decision to award Mother legal custody of T.W. With regard to T.W.’s special
needs, MCCS caseworker Knight claimed the agency was unaware of any special needs.
In any event, Mother’s cousin testified that the reactive attachment disorder was
improving and that the best remedy was “just to hug” T.W. As for the sickle-cell trait, the
record does not reveal what treatment, if any, was necessary. Although Mother’s cousin
testified that T.W. attended “special needs day care,” nothing in the record suggests that
-18-
such attendance could not continue if necessary. With regard to T.W.’s lengthy and
positive relationship with Mother’s cousin and her family, the trial court considered it. The
trial court also considered Mother’s own relationship with her children as well as her
satisfaction of her case-plan objectives. As we explained in our analysis above, the record
supports the trial court’s finding that Mother substantially complied with her case plan.
We note again that the trial court tempered its decision to reunite Mother with her children
by granting MCCS an extendable six-month term of protective supervision during which
the agency could ensure that both children’s needs were being met. The trial court’s
resolution of the best-interest issue with regard to T.W. was supported by the record and
was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The third assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 33} In its fourth assignment of error, MCCS contends the trial court erred in
terminating the agency’s temporary custody of L.W. and T.W. and returning legal custody
to Mother “without conducting additional hearings.” MCCS reasons that “if the trial court
was in doubt of the manifest weight of the evidence, it should have conducted additional
evidentiary hearings instead of immediately sustaining Mother’s objections.” In particular,
MCCS complains that the magistrate failed to allow the agency to make an adequate
record regarding L.W.’s “health concerns.” Therefore, MCCS asserts that “if the trial court
had additional questions about L.W.’s care, it should have requested additional
testimony[.]” MCCS also suggests that the trial court should have requested additional
testimony regarding the psychological reports submitted by Dr. Bromberg and Dr. Hrinko.
MCCS reasons that “[i]f the trial court is going to disregard one psychological report in
favor of the other, the record must contain evidence to support such a judgment.” Because
-19-
the trial court relied primarily on Dr. Hrinko’s report without taking additional evidence,
MCCS asserts that it acted unreasonably and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶ 34} Upon review, we find MCCS’ arguments to be unpersuasive. We recognize
that a trial court is authorized to hear additional testimony when reviewing objections to a
magistrate’s decision. Here, MCCS does not identify anywhere in the record where it
asked the trial court to take additional testimony regarding L.W.’s health. In addition,
nothing in the trial court’s decision suggests that it thought additional testimony would
have been necessary or even helpful. Contrary to the implication of MCCS’ appellate
brief, the trial court did not indicate that it was in doubt regarding the manifest weight of
the evidence as to L.W.’s health. As for the reports submitted by Dr. Bromberg and Dr.
Hrinko, we note that Dr. Bromberg’s March 2016 report made numerous psychological
diagnoses and recommended 24 months of counseling. Dr. Hrinko conducted his
psychological evaluation nearly 18 months later, after Mother had undergone a number
of counseling sessions. Dr. Hrinko found “no indications of ongoing, significant personality
disorders” and “no indications that [Mother] would place her children in any risky situation
or harm at this time.” One reasonable explanation for the differing findings of Dr.
Bromberg and Dr. Hrinko is that Mother underwent counseling and her mental condition
improved by the time Dr. Hrinko evaluated her. In any event, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by failing to order additional hearings concerning Mother’s mental condition
or any other issue. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 35} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
.............
-20-
FROELICH, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Sarah E. Hutnik
Charles W. Slicer
Michael Morton
Brent Rambo
L.W.
T.B.
Hon. Helen Wallace