In re B.P. , 2015 Ohio 5445 ( 2015 )

[Cite as In re B.P., 2015-Ohio-5445.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
IN RE:
CASE NO. 8-15-07
B.P. (1)
DEPENDENT CHILD
OPINION
[GAYLEEN P. - APPELLANT].
IN RE:
CASE NO. 8-15-08
B.P. (2)
DEPENDENT CHILD
OPINION
[GAYLEEN P. - APPELLANT].
Appeals from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Family Court - Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 14-CS-0017 and 14-CS-0018
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 28, 2015
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Natasha R. Wagner for Appellee
Case No. 8-15-07
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Mother-appellant, Gayleen P., appeals the July 10, 2015 judgments of
the Logan County Family Court overruling her Motion for Custody of her two
teenaged daughters, and granting the Motion for Legal Custody filed by Logan
County Children Services (the “Agency”) designating Gayleen’s adult daughter
and son-in-law as the legal custodians of the minor children. On appeal, Gayleen
claims the Agency failed to use reasonable efforts throughout the case to reunify
her with the children, and she further argues that the trial court’s judgment was not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On February 18, 2014, the Agency filed complaints alleging BP(1)
and BP(2), twin girls born in 1998, to be dependent children as defined by R.C.
2151.04(B) and (C). The complaints were based upon an investigation by the
Agency after a Civil Protection Order was filed by the children’s older sister,
Amber P., on their behalves due to claims that domestic violence had occurred in
the home. The information provided during the investigation indicated that
incidents of domestic violence had taken place between Gayleen and her
boyfriend, Bitler Noble, in front of the minor children. There was further
indication that domestic violence had also occurred between Gayleen, Mr. Noble,
and the children. As a result of the proceedings relating to the Civil Protection
-2-
Case No. 8-15-07
Order, BP(1) and BP(2) were placed in the temporary custody of their adult sister
and brother-in-law, Cristen and Chad W. The Agency also learned of ongoing
concerns regarding Gayleen’s untreated mental health issues which it claimed
impaired her ability to parent and to provide a loving and nurturing home for the
girls.
{¶3} The same day, the Agency filed a motion for temporary orders
requesting the trial court designate Cristen and Chad as the children’s temporary
legal custodians and grant Gayleen parenting time. The children were appointed a
guardian ad-litem (“GAL”) and the Agency submitted a case plan pending the trial
court’s review of the complaints and motion for temporary orders. The case plan
provided for objectives addressing Gayleen’s mental health issues and limiting the
children’s contact with Mr. Noble.
{¶4} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Agency’s
motion and heard the testimony from numerous witnesses. Based on the evidence
submitted, the trial court determined that there were serious concerns with respect
to Gayleen’s mental health and concluded it was in the children’s best interest to
remain in the temporary custody of Cristen and Chad. Accordingly, in its April 2,
2014 judgment entry, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion to designate
Cristen and Chad as the children’s temporary legal custodians. Gayleen was
granted parenting time as approved and arranged by the Agency. The trial court
-3-
Case No. 8-15-07
also found that the Agency had made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal
and/or to return the children to their home with Gayleen. The trial court further
ordered Gayleen pay the sum of $1,100.00 per month to the Agency to be
distributed to Cristen and Chad for the children’s support, which was
approximately half the amount of the social security death benefits paid to
Gayleen on the children’s behalves as a result of their father’s death in 2006. The
trial court permitted Gayleen to keep the other half of the benefits to maintain her
household while the case was ongoing. In addition, Gayleen was ordered to
complete mental health and substance abuse assessments and to submit to a
psychological evaluation.
{¶5} On April 9, 2014, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on the
complaints filed by the Agency and heard the testimony of several witnesses. The
trial court found by clear and convincing evidence the children to be dependent
pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C). The record indicates that at this time
Gayleen had not complied with any of the case plan objectives addressing her
mental health and continued to maintain contact with Mr. Noble.
{¶6} On April 23, 2014, the GAL filed his report recommending the
children remain in the temporary legal custody of Cristen and Chad. He also
stated reunification should be considered delete if Gayleen took the appropriate
-4-
Case No. 8-15-07
steps to address her mental health issues and terminated her relationship with Mr.
Noble.
{¶7} On May 14, 2014, the trial court held a dispositional hearing where
the testimony of several witnesses was presented. At the conclusion of the
evidence, the trial court informed Gayleen that she needed to address her mental
health issues before it would consider reunification. Accordingly, in its May 16,
2014 judgment entry, the trial court continued the designation of Cristen and Chad
as the children’s temporary legal custodians and awarded Gayleen parenting time
as arranged by the Agency. The trial court also approved the Agency’s case plan
and the objectives addressing the concerns with Gayleen’s mental health and plans
for treatment. The trial court further found that the Agency continued to use
reasonable efforts to prevent the removal and/or to return the children to their
home with Gayleen. Specifically, the trial court noted the Agency had made the
appropriate referrals for Gayleen and had arranged to pay the expense of her initial
psychological evaluation.
{¶8} On May 27, 2014, Gayleen completed a psychological evaluation. In
his forensic opinion, the reviewing psychologist found that Gayleen suffered from
“significant mental health problems primarily in the form of difficulties with
boundaries, relationships, and emotional regulation.” (Hrinko Rpt. June 17, 2014
at 10). He further concluded that Gayleen had “significant problems being able to
-5-
Case No. 8-15-07
recognize her limitations, her contributions to the difficulties she has experienced,
and persists in blaming others inappropriately.” (Id.). The psychologist opined
that “[t]hese qualities have made it difficult for [Gayleen] to be able to establish
and maintain healthy, supportive relationships instead resulting in her clinging to
inappropriate relationships, as evidenced by her first marriage and her current
relationship with [Mr. Noble], at the expense of the stability of those around her.”
(Id.). He recommended that Gayleen engage in intensive individual therapy and
be seen by a psychiatrist “to evaluate the possibility she could benefit from
psychotropic medications.” (Id.).
{¶9} On August 7, 2014, Gayleen filed a “Motion for Reallocation of
Parental Rights and Responsibilities and to Terminate Legal Custody.”
{¶10} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Gayleen’s motion
where several witnesses testified. The testimony revealed that even though
Gayleen appeared to have terminated her relationship with Mr. Noble, she had
failed to take the steps necessary to complete the objectives in the case plan
addressing her mental health. The evidence indicated that Gayleen had completed
the psychological evaluation but had only sporadically attended scheduled
counseling sessions. Gayleen had also expressed her resistance to completing a
psychiatric evaluation based on her belief one was not warranted.
-6-
Case No. 8-15-07
{¶11} On the record after hearing the evidence, the trial court overruled
Gayleen’s motion for custody. The trial court attempted to impress upon Gayleen
the imperative nature of her compliance with the case plan objectives addressing
her mental health to facilitate the reunification with her minor children.
{¶12} On April 6, 2015, the Agency filed a “Motion for Order Pursuant to
Sections 2151.353 and 2151.42,” requesting the trial court designate Cristen and
Chad as the children’s legal custodians. As a basis for the motion, the Agency
argued Gayleen had failed to remedy the conditions causing the children’s
removal from her home—i.e., her untreated mental health issues which impaired
her ability to parent the children and her continued contact with Mr. Noble.
{¶13} On May 28, 2015, Gayleen filed a second “Motion for Reallocation
of Parental Rights and Responsibilities and to Terminate Legal Custody.” In her
motion, Gayleen claimed that she had substantially complied with the case plan
objectives but could not complete the psychiatric evaluation due to “reasons
beyond her control.” (Doc. No. 104).
{¶14} On July 9, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on both the
Agency’s and Gayleen’s motion for custody. Several witnesses testified,
including the Agency’s ongoing caseworker, the GAL, Cristen and Chad, and
Gayleen. The trial court also conducted an in-camera interview with the children.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court announced its decision to award
-7-
Case No. 8-15-07
legal custody of BP(1) and BP(2) to Cristen and Chad. Much of the testimony
focused on Gayleen’s lack of effort in complying with the case plan objectives.
The trial court then made its findings on the record that it was in the children’s
best interest to designate Cristen and Chad as their legal custodians.
{¶15} In its July 10, 2015 judgment entries, the trial court journalized its
decision to overrule Gayleen’s motion for custody and to grant the Agency’s
motion designating Cristen and Chad as the legal custodians of BP(1) and BP(2).
The trial court further found that the Agency had made reasonable efforts towards
reunification throughout the case by attempting to assist Gayleen with completing
the case plan objectives. The trial court also terminated Gayleen’s right to receive
any social security death benefits distributed on the children’s behalves.
{¶16} Gayleen filed this appeal, asserting the following assignments of
error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION IS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. APPELLEE DID
NOT PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT THE COURT SHOULD GRANT ITS MOTION TO
GIVE LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO
APPELLANT’S OLDER DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION
FOR CUSTODY WHEN IT PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON
APPELLANT’S MENTAL HEALTH AND RELIED ON THAT
-8-
Case No. 8-15-07
AS THE BASIS FOR DEPRIVING APPELLANT CUSTODY
OF HER MINOR CHILDREN.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLEE USED
REASONABLE EFFORTS FOR REUNIFICATION
THROUGHOUT THE CASE.
Discussion
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶17} Gayleen’s first and second assignments of error address the evidence
relied upon by the trial court to overrule her motion for custody and to grant the
Agency’s motion to designate Cristen and Chad as the children’s legal custodians.
Due to the fact these assignments of error are intertwined, we elect to address
them together.
Evidence Supporting the Trial Court’s Decision
{¶18} At the outset we note that the award of legal custody is “not as
drastic a remedy as permanent custody.” In re L.D., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-985,
2013-Ohio-3214, ¶ 7. See also In re N.F., 10th Dist. No. 08AP–1038, 2009-Ohio-
2986, ¶ 9. This is because the award of legal custody does not divest parents of
their residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities. In re C.R., 108 Ohio
St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, ¶ 17. Since the granting of legal custody does not
divest a parent of his or her fundamental parental rights, the parent can generally
petition the court for a custody modification in the future. In re L.D. at ¶ 7.
-9-
Case No. 8-15-07
{¶19} In such a case, a parent’s right to regain custody is not permanently
foreclosed. In re M.J.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94130, 2010-Ohio-1674, ¶ 12.
For this reason, unlike in a permanent custody proceeding where a juvenile court’s
standard of review is by clear and convincing evidence, the standard the trial court
uses in making its determination in a legal custody proceeding is the less
restrictive “preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at ¶ 9, citing In re Nice, 141 Ohio
App.3d 445, 455 (7th Dist.2001). “Preponderance of the evidence” means
evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value. In
re C.V.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98340, 2012-Ohio-5514, ¶ 7. In a dispositional
hearing involving legal custody, the focus is on the best interest of the child. In re
C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191; In re P.S., 5th Dist.
No.2012CA00007, 2012-Ohio-3431.
{¶20} In considering a disposition of legal custody, R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)
does not list specific factors a court should consider in deciding what is in the
child’s best interest. See In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110,
¶ 23, citing In re Fulton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2002-09-236, 2003-Ohio-5984,
¶ 11. Although there is no “specific test or set of criteria” that must be followed in
determining what is in a child’s best interest in a legal custody case, other
appellate courts have held that the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors may be “instructive.”
See, e.g., In re Howland Children, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00113, 2015-Ohio-
-10-
Case No. 8-15-07
3862, ¶ 7; In re D.T., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 100970, 100971, 2014-Ohio-4818,
¶ 20. These factors include: the interaction of the child with the child’s parents,
relatives and caregivers; the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child
or through the child’s guardian ad litem; the custodial history of the child; and the
child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement. R.C. 2151.414(D).
{¶21} The trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for legal custody
is within its sound discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of
discretion. In re M.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22158, 2005-Ohio-10, ¶ 11. An abuse
of discretion implies that the court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶22} The record establishes that there were two primary concerns
underlying the initial removal of BP(1) and BP(2) from Gayleen’s home. The first
was Gayleen’s tumultuous relationship with Mr. Noble and the second involved
concerns regarding Gayleen’s mental health. The Agency included objectives in
its case plan to assist Gayleen with remedying these issues, in particular it
attempted to provide Gayleen with services and support to seek counseling and
treatment so she could be reunified with BP(1) and BP(2).
{¶23} With regard to her mental health, the record demonstrates that the
Agency’s primary concern stemmed from a pattern of erratic behavior and
unstable temperament exhibited by Gayleen. In its judgment entry adjudicating
-11-
Case No. 8-15-07
BP(1) and BP(2) dependent, the trial court discussed testimony from law
enforcement officers with the Bellefontaine Police Department recounting their
numerous contacts with Gayleen and the family. The nature of these calls, which
were made by Gayleen, included her concerns regarding thefts and possible
burglaries based upon her belief that someone was watching her home,
vandalizing her home, and entering her home to remove or move her possessions
or to leave suspicious items. There were also accounts of Gayleen turning off her
cell phone and television out of fear she was under someone’s surveillance.
Notably, none of these claims were ever substantiated by law enforcement.
{¶24} Gayleen’s long-time counselor also provided testimony discussing
Gayleen’s diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and
Borderline Personality Disorder. Her counselor further stressed that Gayleen was
in need of extensive counseling to address her ongoing mental health issues.
BP(1) and BP(2) also reported similar bizarre behavior by Gayleen to service
providers. Each girl independently relayed repeated accounts of argument and
conflict with Gayleen and provided specific examples of Gayleen “getting in their
face” in an effort to provoke them to hit her so she could send them to the juvenile
detention center.
{¶25} The record demonstrates that throughout the case, Gayleen showed
reluctance in taking the necessary steps to address the concerns prompting the
-12-
Case No. 8-15-07
children’s removal from her home. Nearly five months passed after the initiation
of the case before Gayleen was willing to complete the first step of a
psychological evaluation. Notably, Gayleen attributed the delay in achieving this
objective to her claim that someone entered her home and removed pages from her
phone book with the listings for local psychologists in an attempt to thwart her
compliance with the case plan. The psychological assessment was completed only
after the Agency made the referral and paid for the evaluation.
{¶26} The psychologist recommended that Gayleen be evaluated by a
psychiatrist and begin “intensive” individual therapy and eventually participate in
family therapy with BP(1) and BP(2). The primary goal of these
recommendations was to assist Gayleen in recognizing the negative effects of her
relationship with Mr. Noble and to help her repair her relationship with BP(1) and
BP(2). However, months passed with Gayleen only sporadically attending
counseling sessions and with Gayleen continuing to have contact with Mr. Noble.
Gayleen was also adamant throughout the case about her resistance to taking any
psychotropic medication which contributed to her refusal to be even evaluated by
a psychiatrist. Notably, the case plan only required Gayleen to follow the
treatment recommendations which included submitting to a psychiatric evaluation
to explore the “possibility” of psychotropic medication. There was never any
specific requirement in the case plan that Gayleen be placed on medication.
-13-
Case No. 8-15-07
{¶27} Nevertheless, after almost eighteen months Gayleen feigned a
willingness to complete the psychiatric evaluation on the stand at the final hearing.
However, she blamed her noncompliance on the Agency for not finding her a
psychiatrist who took her insurance. Testimony from the ongoing caseworker
revealed that early on in the case the Agency had arranged for Gayleen to be seen
by a local psychiatrist and she was put on a waitlist for evaluation. However,
Gayleen told the service provider numerous times that she would refuse to take
psychotropic medication if any were to be prescribed by the psychiatrist. As a
result, she was placed as a low priority on the waitlist due to her preemptive
unwillingness to cooperate with potential treatment options.
{¶28} It should be noted that Gayleen focuses on this issue on appeal by
arguing that the trial court’s decision was erroneous due to her claim that she
“completed” all the case plan objectives with the exception of submitting to a
psychiatric evaluation. However, even though Gayleen appeared to heed the trial
court’s warnings to show compliance with the case plan objectives regarding her
mental health concerns, there were signs that Gayleen’s genuine willingness to
address the situation was questionable. Gayleen’s counselor reported to the GAL
that Gayleen was often very agitated at the therapy sessions. The counselor
described Gayleen as only focused on “venting” during the sessions and seldom
taking her advice, therefore undermining the effectiveness of the treatment.
-14-
Case No. 8-15-07
Gayleen also continued to deny that she suffered from any mental health issues,
despite at least two professional opinions to the contrary. The counselor also
confirmed that Gayleen continued to have contact with Mr. Noble which also
impeded her progress with treatment.
{¶29} The ongoing case worker provided similar testimony at the final
hearing regarding his interactions with Gayleen. He described conversations with
Gayleen which revolved around her discussing incidents that occurred ten years
ago and were of no consequence to the case. He recalled that in these
conversations Gayleen often characterized herself as a perpetual victim. He also
recalled Gayleen admitting to seeing Mr. Noble in May of 2015, two months
before the final hearing, and acknowledging the negative impact he had on her.
However, Gayleen told the caseworker that she continued the relationship simply
because she was lonely. (7/9/15 Hrg., Tr. at 39).
{¶30} Throughout the case there was also evidence that the conduct
underpinning the concerns with Gayleen’s mental health had appeared to escalate
rather than ameliorate. According to reports from law enforcement, the ongoing
caseworker, the GAL, and her counselor, Gayleen continued to exhibit a pattern of
bizarre behavior which appeared to be premised on her belief that someone was
breaking into her home and/or car to move or steal her possessions or to leave
threatening items. She also made accusations that someone had entered her home
-15-
Case No. 8-15-07
while she slept and shaved her eyebrow and dyed her hair. The children reported
to the GAL and the caseworker that, despite the passage of time and their removal
from her home, during visitations Gayleen continued to make paranoid comments,
attempted to provoke them and threatened them with juvenile detention. Several
months later just before the final hearing in this case, Gayleen purchased an ad in
the local newspaper offering a $5,000.00 reward for information leading to the
identification and arrest of the individual she believed was breaking into her home.
{¶31} Contrary to Gayleen’s claims on appeal, the evidence and the trial
court’s decision was not solely focused on her mental health issues. During the
approximately eighteen-month period the case was pending, the record reveals that
Gayleen demonstrated a pattern of placing the case as a low priority to other things
in her life. Gayleen’s attorney twice filed a motion to withdraw from her
representation citing Gayleen’s refusal to meet with her and generally being
uncooperative in assisting her with the case.1 Counsel informed the court on the
record that Gayleen claimed not to have time to meet with her. Counsel also
reported exchanges with Gayleen during which Gayleen commanded counsel to do
things that were ethically suspect and when counsel refused Gayleen responded by
yelling at counsel telling her that she must do what Gayleen says as the client.
1
Notably, one of these motions was made at the beginning of the final hearing on the Agency’s Motion for
Legal Custody. Gayleen’s counsel expressed exasperation with her efforts to get Gayleen to participate in
the case. She claimed that every conversation with Gayleen deteriorated into Gayleen screaming at her
over the phone. Counsel agreed to proceed with the hearing at Gayleen’s behest provided that her concerns
were placed on the record.
-16-
Case No. 8-15-07
{¶32} With regard to Gayleen’s visitations, the record indicated that
Gayleen had weekly unsupervised visitations with the girls for a few hours a week.
There was testimony from the caseworker and the GAL, which were corroborated
by reports from BP(1) and BP(2), that Gayleen did not take advantage of her
opportunities to visit with the girls and often cut visitations short or cancelled
them to meet with friends or to attend exercise classes. The children reported that
in some instances they were en route to a visitation and received a phone call from
Gayleen cancelling at the last minute. The girls expressed to the GAL that this
conduct made them feel like Gayleen did not value her time with them. The
caseworker also stated that he had difficulty meeting with Gayleen to complete
monthly home visits and she continually gave excuses that she was too busy to
meet. He also testified to BP(1) and BP(2) expressing their beliefs that Gayleen
prioritized her relationship with Mr. Noble higher than spending time with them.
{¶33} The GAL, who was assigned to the case from the beginning and who
had numerous contacts with Gayleen and the children, observed the apparent
discrepancy with Gayleen’s ability to prioritize her life to attend school and earn a
degree during the eighteen-months that the case was pending with her inability to
find the time to meet with her attorney, to show meaningful compliance with the
case plan objectives, and to regularly exercise visitation with BP(1) and BP(2).
Specifically, the GAL characterized Gayleen’s noncompliance with the case plan
-17-
Case No. 8-15-07
as a lack of progress rather than a lack of treatment, and noted that the “treatment
is only as good as the client’s willingness.” (7/9/15 Hrg., Tr. at 135).
{¶34} The trial court echoed the GAL’s observation when it made its
findings of fact on the record after the presentation of the evidence at the final
hearing. Specifically, the trial court stated that it did not appear BP(1) and BP(2)
were a priority in Gayleen’s life and noted it was “appalled” that Gayleen “did not
bend over backwards to assist her attorney” in preparing the case. (7/9/15 Hrg.,
Tr. at 149-50).
{¶35} With respect to the children’s placement with Cristen and Chad the
evidence established that the girls were thriving in their home. The record further
demonstrated that Cristen and Chad complied with the case plan objectives and
assisted the children in attending biweekly counseling sessions. At the time of the
final hearing, the children were approaching their seventeenth birthdays and able
to drive themselves to visitations with Gayleen. Both girls expressed a desire to
remain with Cristen and Chad and to continue to see Gayleen on a regular basis.
Specifically, they relayed to the caseworker that they did not “trust they would be
safe or remain safe if they were returned to their mother.” (7/9/15 Hrg., Tr. at 44).
As a result, BP(1) and BP(2) indicated to individuals involved in the case that they
wanted to continue visitations for a few hours a week and were not opposed to
-18-
Case No. 8-15-07
overnight visits if they could have a car available to them so that they could leave
Gayleen’s home if any issues arose.
{¶36} Even though Cristen admitted to having a strained mother-daughter
relationship with Gayleen, she repeatedly stated throughout the case that she
believed it was important to foster BP(1)’s and BP(2)’s relationship with Gayleen.
The record demonstrated that Cristen followed through with this sentiment by
ensuring the girls arrived at their visitations with Gayleen. As previously
discussed, it was Gayleen who was inconsistent with exercising her visitations
with the girls. Notably, Gayleen expressed no concerns with Cristen facilitating
her visitations with BP(1) and BP(2) without the involvement of Children Services
or a court order. Moreover, she acknowledged that she and Cristen would be
capable of creating a visitation schedule despite their differences.
{¶37} In sum, the evidence before the trial court established that BP(1) and
BP(2) were in need of a legally secure permanent placement and that Gayleen was
not able to provide them with a stable home. Several witnesses testified about the
suitability of Cristen and Chad as legal custodians and their willingness to provide
the children with a permanent home. Consequently, we find that the trial court
reasonably concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was in the best
interests of the children to be placed in the legal custody of their sister and
brother-in-law. Accordingly, we cannot find that the trial court abused its
-19-
Case No. 8-15-07
discretion in granting the Agency’s motion nor can we find its decision to be
against the weight of the evidence. Gayleen’s first and second assignments of
error are overruled.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶38} In her third assignment of error, Gayleen asserts the trial court erred
in finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify her with BP(1) and
BP(2).
{¶39} Section 2151.419(A)(1) of the Revised Code governs reasonable
efforts by a public children services agency “to prevent the removal of the child
from the child’s home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child from the
child’s home, or to make it possible for the child to return safely home.” The
agency has the burden of proving that it has made those reasonable efforts.
{¶40} “ ‘Reasonable efforts means that a children’s services agency must
act diligently and provide services appropriate to the family’s need to prevent the
child’s removal or as a predicate to reunification.’ ” In re H.M.K., 3d Dist.
Wyandot Nos. 16-12-15 and 16-12-16, 2013-Ohio-4317, ¶ 95, quoting In re D.A.,
6th Dist. Lucas No. L–11–1197, 2012–Ohio–1104, ¶ 30. “ ‘Reasonable efforts’
does not mean all available efforts. Otherwise, there would always be an
argument that one more additional service, no matter how remote, may have made
reunification possible.” Id., quoting In re M.A.P., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-
-20-
Case No. 8-15-07
08-164 and CA2012-08-165, 2013-Ohio-655, ¶ 47. “ ‘Nevertheless, the issue is
not whether there was anything more that [the agency] could have done, but
whether the [agency’s] case planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent
under the circumstances of this case.’ ” In re A.M.A., 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-13-
02, 2013-Ohio-3779, ¶ 29, quoting In re Leveck, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-02-52,
5-02-53, and 5-02-54, 2003-Ohio-1269, ¶ 10. “We also note that the statute
provides that in determining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child’s
health and safety is paramount.” Id., citing R.C. 2151.419(A)(1).
{¶41} In the instant case, the trial court made numerous findings throughout
the case after pertinent hearings that the Agency had made reasonable efforts to
prevent the removal and/or to return the children to their home with Gayleen.
Specifically, the trial court found that the Agency made the appropriate referrals
for Gayleen, paid the expense of her psychological evaluation, and assisted the
family with scheduling parenting time and visitation. Nevertheless, it was
Gayleen’s conduct and unwillingness to complete the case plan and to take the
appropriate steps to alleviate the concerns causing the removal of the children
from her home which led to the trial court’s determination that granting legal
custody to Cristen and Chad was in the children’s best interest. Based upon our
review, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s findings that the
-21-
Case No. 8-15-07
Agency fulfilled its duty to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.
Accordingly, we overrule Gayleen’s third assignment of error.
{¶42} For all these reasons, the judgments of the Logan County Family
Court are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
ROGERS, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/jlr
-22-