In re A.Y.C. , 2023 Ohio 4494 ( 2023 )

[Cite as In re A.Y.C., 2023-Ohio-4494.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. : APPEAL NO. C-230496
TRIAL NO. F19-15X
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 13, 2023
Cynthia S. Daugherty, for Appellant Mother,
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Megan E. Busam,
Assistant Public Defender, Attorney for the Guardian ad Litem for A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting
permanent custody of her children, A.Y.C. and E.Y.C., to the Hamilton County
Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). In a single assignment of error,
mother argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting HCJFS’s motion
for permanent custody. Because the trial court’s judgment was supported by both the
sufficiency and the weight of the evidence, we find mother’s argument to be without
merit and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶2} A.Y.C. was taken into HCJFS custody shortly after his birth on April 25,
2020. HCJFS had concerns with domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. Father
was escorted from the hospital after A.Y.C.’s birth for threatening domestic violence
against mother, and there were allegations that father had previously stabbed mother.
HCJFS had additional concerns about the parents’ mental health, the parents’ drug
activity, the safety of the parents’ housing, and mother’s history with HCJFS
concerning her older children. The agency filed a complaint for temporary custody of
A.Y.C. on April 28, 2020, and was granted an interim order of custody that same date.
A case plan was filed for the family establishing goals for reunification and services to
be engaged in.
{¶3} This case was filed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and on
September 22, 2020, the magistrate issued an order continuing the matter for a day-
one hearing and stating that, due to the pandemic, the matter could not be completed
within the 90-day period required by statute. On October 6, 2020, HCJFS dismissed
the complaint filed on April 28, 2020. That same date, it refiled the complaint for
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
temporary custody, as well as a motion for an interim order of temporary custody. The
complaint alleged that A.Y.C. was neglected and dependent. It restated the domestic-
violence allegations from the initial complaint and the allegations that mother had lost
custody of two older children. The complaint additionally stated that both parents
resided with maternal grandmother in a home without a working furnace, a stove or a
refrigerator, and that electricity and water to the home were being shut off due to
nonpayment of bills. And it contained allegations about both parents’ mental health,
stating that mother was diagnosed with ADHD and Bipolar disorder, and that father
likewise had received those same two diagnoses, as well as a diagnosis of Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”).
{¶4} The magistrate conducted a day-one hearing on October 7, 2020, and
granted the motion for an interim order of temporary custody. On November 23,
2020, the magistrate issued an order stating that all parties waived any objection to
completion of the adjudication and disposition within 90 days of the filing of the
complaint.
{¶5} On February 23, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision adjudicating
A.Y.C. dependent and committing him to the temporary custody of HCJFS. The
allegation of neglect was dismissed. On March 17, 2021, HCJFS filed a motion to
extend the temporary custody of A.Y.C., stating that progress was being made on the
case plan. That motion was granted.
{¶6} E.Y.C. was born on June 25, 2021, and on June 29, 2021, HCJFS filed a
complaint for temporary custody alleging that he was dependent. The agency also filed
a motion for an interim order of temporary custody, which was granted after the
magistrate conducted a day-one hearing.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶7} On August 24, 2021, HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody
of A.Y.C. to permanent custody. An amended motion was filed on August 30. A
maternal aunt filed, but later withdrew, petitions for custody of both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.
{¶8} On September 16, 2021, the magistrate issued an order stating that all
parties waived any objection to completion of the adjudication and disposition of
E.Y.C. within 90 days. On November 16, 2021, a decision was issued adjudicating
E.Y.C. dependent and committing him to the temporary custody of HCJFS.
Approximately four months later, on March 11, 2022, HCJFS filed a motion to modify
temporary custody of E.Y.C. to permanent custody.
{¶9} Over the course of a five-month period, a four-day trial was held on both
motions for permanent custody. The foster mother of A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. testified that
both children were placed in her care within days of their births. She discussed their
significant medical issues and needs. Foster mother testified that A.Y.C. has cerebral
palsy and wears braces to assist with bowing in his legs and toe pointing. He has been
able to walk unassisted since September 2022. She explained that A.Y.C. also requires
an extremely high level of supervision because he engages in self-injuring behavior.
He often has to wear a helmet because he purposefully slams his head against a wall
or other surfaces. A.Y.C. receives physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech
therapy, and behavioral therapy for his self-injuring. Several of these therapies require
foster mother to work with A.Y.C. on various skills and exercises outside of the
appointments. A.Y.C. also has a cyst on his brain that requires monitoring via an MRI
every six months.
{¶10} Foster mother testified that E.Y.C. has been diagnosed with failure to
thrive. He has no desire to eat and has a feeding tube in his stomach. He receives a
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
special formula via the feeding tube because he cannot tolerate normal baby food and
is allergic to a protein in cow’s milk. An emergency kit for E.Y.C.’s feeding tube must
be carried at all times.
{¶11} Foster mother stated that both children have undergone genetic testing
and have a genetic mutation connected to the X chromosome that affects their
development. She explained that E.Y.C. also suffers from a condition she referred to
as SMAD6, which can affect the formation of the plates in his head and heart
development.
{¶12} Foster mother kept a list of all of medical appointments that the children
have attended, including whether mother had attended the appointment. According
to foster mother, out of approximately 181 appointments, mother attended 49. Foster
mother stated that she has two biological children that are close in age to A.Y.C. and
E.Y.C., and that she would be willing to adopt the children if it was an option.
{¶13} Abbey Turner, the HCJFS caseworker for A.Y.C. and E.Y.C., testified
about the services that had been offered to mother and mother’s engagement in those
services. Mother completed a Diagnostic Assessment of Functioning (“DAF”) in 2020.
HCJFS implemented a case plan for mother that required her to submit to random
toxicology screens, complete a Department of Development Services (“DDS”)
assessment, engage in parenting classes, attend the children’s medical appointments
and visitation, and obtain stable housing and income. The DAF did not recommend
that mother engage in any mental-health services. But during the pendency of the
action, mother indicated that she wished to engage in therapy for symptoms related to
depression and PTSD, so she completed a second DAF to assist her in obtaining access
to those services. The second DAF resulted in mother being referred to therapy and
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
related services at the Talbert House. While a therapist for mother became available
in September 2021, mother was inconsistent in her attendance until February 2022,
when she began attending therapy regularly.
{¶14} With respect to the random toxicology screens required by the case plan,
Turner testified that mother missed a few screens early on, but was otherwise
consistent. Turner explained that mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on
her first screen. In response to the positive test, mother admitted to using marijuana,
but stated that, unknown to her, it had been laced with cocaine. Mother’s screens
presented no further concern, and mother eventually received a medical marijuana
card. Turner testified that HCJFS has no substance-abuse concerns with mother.
{¶15} Mother engaged in the DDS assessment, but did not qualify for DDS
services. Turner testified that she has concerns about mother’s ability to understand
what is happening in this case, as mother at times struggles to understand how to do
basic things and to retain information. Mother also engaged in parenting classes two
times, but was unsuccessfully discharged on both occasions due to her inability to
understand the children’s needs.
{¶16} Turner testified that while mother had a somewhat stable income from
social security disability, she had concerns about mother’s ability to manage her
finances and live within her means. She also had concerns about mother’s inability to
obtain stable housing. Mother resided four different places during the pendency of this
action. For over a year, mother and maternal grandmother resided in what they
referred to as a “cabin.” According to Turner, not only was the cabin unsafe for
children, but it was generally unhabitable. It had no heat, lacked hot water at times,
and the basement was covered from floor to ceiling in black mold and filled with a
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
layer of trash. During the course of the permanent-custody hearing, mother left the
cabin and was temporarily residing with a friend’s mother while looking for more
permanent housing.
{¶17} According to Turner, mother has never progressed past the facilitated
level of visitation, which is the most restricted level. Mother was scheduled to visit with
the children every Friday, first at the Family Nurturing Center (“FNC”), and then at a
maternal aunt’s house. After mother missed several visits, she had to resume visitation
at the FNC for a period of time. Turner was concerned about the consistency of
mother’s visits, in addition to mother’s inability to independently care for the children
without assistance.
{¶18} Turner testified that Mother was also not consistent in her attendance
at the children’s medical appointments. While mother blamed transportation issues
for many of these missed appointments, Turner testified that she had frequently
provided mother with gas cards to use for transportation. When mother still failed to
attend the appointments, Turner stopped giving her the gas cards for a period of time
because they were not used for the proper purpose. Turner also arranged for
transportation to pick mother up on multiple occasions, but mother still had issues
with missing appointments. While Turner conceded that many of her clients have had
problems with the prearranged transportation not arriving when it was supposed to,
she felt that mother had more issues than most. According to Turner, mother was in
denial for a period of time about the children’s medical needs. One of mother’s case-
plan goals was to help her understand these needs, which made her attendance at the
medical appointments vital.
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶19} Turner testified that HCJFS was recommending terminating mother’s
parental rights based on the agency’s concern for mother’s ability, despite her
participation in services, to consistently and safely parent the children without
assistance given their significant needs and because of concerns with mother’s
housing.
{¶20} Turner also testified about father’s participation in services and the
agency’s concerns about father. Father completed a DAF, which recommended that he
engage in a psychological assessment, parenting education, and random toxicology
screens. Father attended one session of the requested psychological assessment,
resulting in the recommendation of additional services, including outpatient drug
treatment and therapy. Turner stated that father participated in a drug-treatment
program in Indianapolis, where he completed only the in-patient portion of the
program. According to Turner, father was recently incarcerated and placed in the
River City program, where he participated in drug treatment.
{¶21} Father attended only one drug screen, which was positive. Father did
not attend any parenting classes and does not have a stable income. He has not visited
A.Y.C. since sometime in 2020 and has never visited E.Y.C. Turner testified that the
agency was recommending a termination of father’s parental rights due to his failure
to participate in case-plan services and demonstrate a significant behavioral change,
his failure to visit with the children, and his failure to attend their medical
appointments.
{¶22} Mother’s therapist at the Talbert House, Donna Vondrell, testified that
mother suffers from PTSD and has an intellectual disability that impacts her judgment
and cognitive abilities. Vondrell explained that she works with mother on controlling
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
her anger and her reactions, as well as on making better decisions and processing the
traumas that she has experienced. Mother initially missed quite a few appointments
when beginning treatment with Vondrell, but has attended therapy regularly since
February 2022. Vondrell testified that she has seen growth in mother over the past
year, explaining that mother understands more of her purpose in life, including
mother’s role in taking care of maternal grandmother. She stated that mother is eager
to learn and is an active listener and participator in therapy.
{¶23} Lori Hartman, an FNC visitation facilitator, testified about observations
that she made when supervising mother’s visits with A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. Hartman stated
that mother has visitation with the children at a maternal aunt’s house for four hours
every Friday, and that some combination of maternal grandmother, maternal aunt,
maternal uncle, and a cousin were also present at every visit. Mother has never
engaged in a visit with the children by herself. With the exception of a three-week span
where mother was ill, mother has been consistent with her visitation.
{¶24} Hartman explained that mother is working on multitasking with the
children, but often needs to be reminded to follow the children’s schedule. Hartman
stated that she needed to intervene on a few occasions when mother unintentionally
engaged in behavior that could harm the children, including serving A.Y.C. food that
was too hot, giving E.Y.C., who cannot eat, a cupcake with a candle in it, and using a
bleach wipe when changing a diaper. Hartman has also had to direct mother not to use
profanity in front of the children, not to use her cell phone during visits, and to
reengage in visits at times. While Hartman testified that mother does not fully
understand the children’s needs and blames their issues on that the fact that they are
in foster care, she stated that mother is open to suggestions, excels at listening to the
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
nurse, and has learned how to use E.Y.C.’s feeding tube. According to Hartman, there
has been no recommendation to lower the level of supervision of mother’s visits with
the children because she has not shown an ability to take care of them on her own
without support.
{¶25} Mother testified, addressing many of the concerns noted by HCJFS and
addressed in her case plan. With respect to her drug usage, she stated that she has not
used “meth” in over four years, while acknowledging that there was a short period of
time when she abused it. Mother further stated that she has a medical marijuana card
to help her with her PTSD. Mother testified that she has a stable income. As for her
living situation, mother conceded that the “cabin” where she resided for a majority of
the case was not safe for the children and stated that she was looking for alternative
living arrangements. Mother also addressed her mental health, stating that she
engages in therapy at, and receives medication from, the Talbert House, and that the
medication helps her to feel more at peace. She explained that she has consistently
taken her medication, with the exception of a period of time where she was delayed in
getting a refill. Mother testified that she attended parenting classes at Beech Acres and
was told that she had completed the class.
{¶26} When discussing her visitation, mother first stated that she has not
missed a visit with the children. But she subsequently admitted that she missed a few
visits when she was not feeling well because she did not want to get the children sick.
Mother stated that although others are present during visitation, she was the
predominant caregiver for the children. She acknowledged that it can be difficult to
care for E.Y.C. and A.Y.C. at the same time, and stated that she is working on
multitasking. Mother also testified about her frustration with the transportation set
10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
up by her caseworker, stating that it did not always arrive when scheduled, causing her
to miss appointments. Mother also missed appointments because they conflicted with
her care of maternal grandmother and admitted to missing some appointments
because she was “slacking.” She explained that she often feels out of place at the
medical appointments.
{¶27} Mother testified about her knowledge of the children’s special needs.
She explained that A.Y.C. has cerebral palsy and wears leg braces, that he likes to use
sign language but is starting to talk more, that he wears a helmet because he has a
habit of banging his head, and that he attends multiple therapy appointments. Mother
stated that she is able, on her own, to mix the formula for E.Y.C.’s feeding tube. She
also testified that she has five children, but does not have custody of any of them.
{¶28} Father, who was incarcerated at the time, testified via Zoom. He
acknowledged that he had not complied with a majority of the services requested by
HCJFS. He discussed his long-standing issues with drugs, which resulted in multiple
convictions for drug offenses. Father stated that he was engaged in cognitive therapy,
parenting classes, and substance-abuse classes while incarcerated. He testified that he
could not recall when he had last seen A.Y.C. and that he has never had a visit with
E.Y.C. Father testified that he wanted the children to be placed with mother.
{¶29} The magistrate issued a decision on May 18, 2023, granting permanent
custody of both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to HCJFS. The magistrate found that the children
had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive
22-month period, that the children cannot and should not be placed with either
parent, and that father had abandoned the children. He additionally found that a grant
of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
11
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶30} Mother filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision challenging the
weight of the evidence supporting the grant of permanent custody. The trial court
found mother’s objection to be not well-taken and denied it. The trial court approved
and adopted the decision of the magistrate with one modification. It found that only
A.Y.C., and not E.Y.C., had been in the custody of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period. But the trial court agreed with the magistrate’s findings
that the children cannot and should not be placed with either parent in a reasonable
time and that a grant of permanent custody was in the best interest of the children,
and it committed A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to the permanent custody of HCJFS.
II. Permanent Custody
{¶31} In a single assignment of error, mother argues that the trial court erred
as a matter of law in granting HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody. She challenges
both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s
decision.
{¶32} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B), “a trial court may grant permanent
custody if it finds that a grant of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and
that one of the conditions in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) applies.” In re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton
Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, ¶ 15. Here, the trial court found that
A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. cannot and should not be placed in either parent’s care under R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a), and that A.Y.C. had been in HCJFS custody for 12 or more months
of a consecutive 22-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). It further found that
a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
{¶33} A juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence. Id. at ¶ 14. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence
12
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that is sufficient to “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction
as to the facts sought to be established.” Id., quoting In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538,
2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 42.
{¶34} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
grant of permanent custody, this court “must examine the record and determine if the
juvenile court had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the clear-and-convincing
standard.” Id. We must accept any factual determinations made by the trial court if
competent and credible evidence supports them. In re L Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-220601, 2023-Ohio-1346, ¶ 14. When reviewing the manifest weight of the
evidence, “we review the record to determine whether the trial court lost its way and
created such a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicts in the evidence
that its judgment must be reversed.” In re B.J. at ¶ 14.
Cannot and Should not be Placed with Either Parent/Best-Interest
Determination
{¶35} Mother challenges the trial court’s findings that A.Y.C. and E.Y.C.
cannot and should not be placed in her care within a reasonable time and that a grant
of permanent custody was in their best interest.
{¶36} “To determine whether a child cannot or should not be placed with
either parent under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), a juvenile court considers the 16 factors set
forth in R.C. 2151.414(E).” In re K.J.M, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230163, 2023-Ohio-
2457, ¶ 9. In determining whether a grant of permanent custody is the best interest of
the children, the court should consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Id.
at ¶ 11.
13
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶37} In support of the finding that the children could not or should not be
placed with either parent, the trial court found that “Mother did not demonstrate the
necessary behavioral changes and did not make satisfactory progress in the case plan
services.” This finding corresponds to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), which provides that:
Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and
notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the
agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused
the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed
continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions
causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining
whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the
court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric,
psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material
resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of
changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain
parental duties.
The court specifically noted that it was relying on mother’s intellectual delays, her
housing instability, and mother’s inability to competently and independently care for
the children, who have severe medical needs. While the trial court also made findings
that the children cannot or should be placed with father, those findings are not being
challenged on appeal.
{¶38} The trial court also considered the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to find
that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(a) concerns the relationship of the children with, as relevant to this
14
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
appeal, parents, relatives, and foster caregivers. Under this factor, the court noted that
the children have regular visitation with mother, but that father has not seen A.Y.C. in
months and has never visited with E.Y.C., and that the children are very bonded with
each other and their foster family.
{¶39} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), which concerns the wishes of the
children as expressed directly or through a guardian ad litem, the court noted that the
guardian ad litem supported a grant of permanent custody.
{¶40} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) concerns the custodial history of the child. Under
this factor, the court noted that each child had been in agency care since birth, and
that A.Y.C. had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period.1
{¶41} Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), which addresses the children’s need for a
legally secure placement, the court found that the children were in need of a legally
secure permanent placement that could not be achieved without a grant of permanent
custody to HCJFS. It noted that no suitable relatives were identified to care for the
children and that the children’s current caregiver had expressed an interest in
adoption.
{¶42} When considering, as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), whether any
of the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(7) to (11) applied, the court found that father had
abandoned the children.
1 While the magistrate found that both children had been in agency custody for 12 or more months
of a 22-month period, the trial court found that this finding was only applicable to A.Y.C., and that
E.Y.C. had not been in agency care for the requisite amount of time. As explained in the next section
of this opinion, we do not review the merits of the trial court’s 12-of-22 finding.
15
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶43} The trial court’s findings that the children cannot and should not be
placed with mother within a reasonable time and that a grant of permanent custody is
in the children’s best interest are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In
re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, at ¶ 14. At
no point during the course of the proceedings did mother have suitable housing where
the children could reside. Among other problems, the “cabin” that mother resided at
with maternal grandmother for a period of time had no heat and a basement covered
in black mold. Mother conceded that this home was not safe for the children. At the
close of the hearing, mother herself did not have permanent housing, let alone a place
to bring the children, and was residing with a friend’s mother while looking for
housing. Mother’s visitation had to be conducted at maternal aunt’s home because of
mother’s lack of housing.
{¶44} The record further demonstrated that mother was unable to care for the
children and their severe medical needs without assistance. Mother never progressed
past the facilitated level of visitation and never visited the children without the
assistance of a family member. Despite mother’s best intentions and clear affection for
the children, she struggled to care for both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. at the same time and
unintentionally took actions that placed the children at risk of harm, requiring
intervention by others. Mother’s failure to attend a majority of the children’s medical
appointments exacerbated her difficulties in caring for them on her own, as she missed
vital opportunities to learn about their conditions and how to properly care for them.
In fact, mother was twice unsuccessfully discharged from parenting classes due to her
inability to understand the children’s needs.
16
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶45} Both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. have severe medical needs requiring numerous
medical appointments, therapy appointments, and constant care and attention. In
addition to attending the necessary appointments, the children’s caregiver must work
with the children on various skills outside of appointments to help them develop. As
such, the children are indisputably in need of a legally secure permanent placement.
The record supports the trial court’s finding that such placement can only be achieved
through a grant of permanent custody. Father has abandoned the children, and despite
her participation in some of the offered services, mother has not demonstrated an
ability to independently care for the children and manage their needs. Maternal aunt
withdrew her petitions for custody, and no other relatives were identified to care for
the children. Further, the children are bonded with their foster family, where they have
both been placed since birth, and are well cared for in that home.
{¶46} The trial court’s findings concerning the children’s best interest and
whether they cannot or should not be placed with mother were also supported by the
manifest weight of the evidence. The court recognized areas where mother succeeded,
but it also recognized areas where she struggled, and it ultimately determined that
mother was not able to care for the children and that a grant of permanent custody
was in the children’s best interest. In weighing the evidence presented, the trial court
did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice. See In re B.J., 1st Dist.
Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, at ¶ 14.
12-of-22 Finding
{¶47} Mother also challenges the trial court’s finding under R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d) that A.Y.C. had been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period.
17
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶48} “A trial court is only required to find the applicability of one factor under
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).” In re J.R., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190342, 2019-Ohio-3500, ¶
26. Because we have determined that the trial court’s finding under R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a)—that the children cannot or should not be placed with mother—was
supported by clear and convincing evidence, we do not address mother’s challenge to
the court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). See id. at ¶ 26 and 29 (declining to
address a challenge to the trial court’s finding that a child could not or should not be
placed with a parent where the court’s alternate finding that the child had been in
agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period was
supported by clear and convincing evidence).
Mother’s Additional Arguments
{¶49} Mother raises several additional arguments not in an assignment of
error, but in her conclusory paragraph. In her conclusion, she challenges the trial
court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem on her behalf and alleges several
procedural errors in the proceedings below.
{¶50} We decline to address these arguments, as they were not raised in an
assignment of error for our review. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b) provides that an appellate court
shall “[d]etermine the appeal on its merits on the assignments of error set forth in the
briefs.” This rule establishes that “[t]he role of an appellate court is to ‘rule[] on
assignments of error, not mere arguments.’ ” State v. Lear, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
220485, 2023-Ohio-3442, ¶ 17, quoting Mun. Tax Invest. LLC v. Northup Reinhardt
Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19-AP-26, 2019-Ohio-4867, ¶ 24, quoting Huntington
Natl. Bank v. Burda, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-658, 2009-Ohio-1752, ¶ 21.
18
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶51} Mother’s sole assignment of error challenged the sufficiency and the
weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s grant of permanent custody.
Because mother has raised no assignment of error concerning the trial court’s failure
to appoint a guardian ad litem or the alleged procedural errors, we decline to consider
these arguments. See Lear at ¶ 17.
III. Conclusion
{¶52} Having found that the trial court did not err in granting permanent
custody of A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. to HCJFS, we overrule mother’s assignment of error and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
WINKLER and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
19