In re M.R.

[Cite as In re M.R., 2013-Ohio-4460.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: M.R., J.C., and M.R. : APPEAL NO. C-130401
TRIAL NO. F08-1747X
: O P I N I O N.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 9, 2013
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ernest W. Lee,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job
and Family Services,
Paul Hunt, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem,
Phyliss Schiff, for Appellant Tiffany C.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
D E W INE , Judge.
{¶1} This is an appeal by a mother from a decision of the Hamilton County
Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of her three children to the Hamilton
County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). Because we find that the
trial court’s decision was supported by competent and credible evidence, we affirm
the judgment below.
I.
{¶2} Tiffany is the mother of three children, J.C., M.R.1 and M.R.2. Mark
is the father of M.R.1 and M.R.2. The father of J.C. is unknown. J.C., now six years
old, was adjudicated dependant and placed in the temporary custody of HCJFS just
before her second birthday, following separate incidents in which Tiffany overdosed
on antidepressant medications in a suicide attempt and was threatened by an
unidentified person at gunpoint in her home. Repeated exposure to violence
perpetrated on Tiffany by Mark prevented reunification with J.C., and resulted in the
removal of M.R.1, age three, when she was two months old. M.R.2, age two, also was
removed shortly after her birth, following an altercation between Tiffany and her
neighbors, at which time Mark was found in the home in violation of agency
requirements.
{¶3} As a result of Tiffany’s refusal to take appropriate steps to end the
violence involving Mark in the home, HCJFS sought permanent custody of the three
children. Shortly before the permanency proceedings began, Tiffany’s cousin filed a
petition for custody of M.R.1 and M.R.2. Following several days of hearings, the
magistrate recommended a grant of permanent custody of J.C. to HCJFS, and a
grant of legal custody of M.R.1 and M.R.2 to the cousin. The trial court adopted the
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
magistrate’s decision as to J.C., but rejected the magistrate’s decision as to M.R.1 and
M.R.2. Instead, the trial court awarded permanent custody of all three children to
HCJFS.
{¶4} Tiffany argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting
HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody.
II.
{¶5} The termination of parental rights is governed by R.C. 2151.414.
Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights, it must apply a two-pronged
analysis. First, the court must find that it is in the child’s best interest to be placed in
the permanent custody of the moving agency. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (D). The
second prong of the analysis requires the juvenile court to find one of four conditions
listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Both prongs must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. Id. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial
court where some competent and credible evidence supports the essential elements
of the case. See In re W.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110363 and C-110402, 2011-
Ohio-4912, ¶ 46; see also In re E.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-100725 and C-100747,
2011-Ohio-586, ¶ 3.
A.
{¶6} Best Interests. In assessing the best interests of a child, the court
must consider “all relevant factors,” including (1) the child’s interaction with 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 by the
child or the child’s guardian ad litem, (3) the custodial history of the child, (4) the
child’s need for legally secure placement and whether that type of placement can be
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and (5) whether any of the factors
under R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) apply. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e).
{¶7} We find no error in the juvenile court’s conclusion that granting
permanent custody to HCJFS was in the best interests of the children. The court
considered many factors, including the relationships M.R.1 and M.R.2 have with
caregivers and their custodial history. M.R.1 and M.R.2 each have been in foster care
for all but about two months of their lives. And although the record indicates that
M.R.1 and M.R.2 interacted positively with Tiffany during visits, the court was
justified in weighing the inconsistency of those visits and turmoil in Tiffany’s home
against the relationship M.R.1 and M.R.2 have with their foster parents and the
demonstrated abilities of the foster parents to provide for their needs.
{¶8} As to J.C., she had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for four
years at the time the magistrate’s decision was issued. The court reasonably
determined that a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS is the only reasonable
means of providing J.C. with a legally secure placement, given the length of time J.C.
has already spent in HCJFS’s custody and the lack of other appropriate caregivers.
Thus, there is competent and credible evidence in the record to support the trial
court’s findings that permanent custody with HCJFS was in the best interests of all
three children.
B.
{¶9} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Next, we consider whether competent and
credible evidence supports the trial court’s findings that one of the provisions in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1) applies. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) permits a court to grant permanent
custody of a child to a children services agency if (a) the child is not abandoned or
orphaned and has not been in agency custody for 12 months, but cannot be placed
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either
parent, (b) the child is abandoned, (c) the child is orphaned and no relatives are able
to take permanent custody, or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one
or more children services agencies for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
{¶10} It is undisputed that J.C. and M.R.1 have been in the temporary
custody of HCJFS for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, so the condition
under 2151.414(B)(1)(d) has been satisfied as to them.
{¶11} Because HCJFS requested permanent custody as the initial
disposition for M.R.2, the analysis concerning her is slightly different. Under R.C.
2151.353(A)(4), for a court to grant permanent custody of a child to a children
services agency without first seeking reunification, the court must find pursuant to
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a
reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) also
requires that the court base that finding on at least one factor enumerated under R.C.
2151.414(E). Here, the record supports a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that since
the time of removal, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the
conditions initially causing the children to be placed outside of the home. Likewise, a
finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) that the parent is unable to protect the children
from future physical, emotional, or sexual abuse is supported by the record.
{¶12} Violence in the home was an underlying cause of the removal of all
three children, and altercations between Tiffany and Mark have remained prevalent
through the duration of the case. The impact of these altercations was illustrated by
lengthy testimony about J.C.’s treatment for psychological and behavioral conditions
stemming from her exposure to violence and sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by
Mark. Despite Tiffany having obtained a temporary protection order against Mark,
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the record indicates that their relationship has not ended, and police continued to
respond to reports of violence between them even in the months leading up to trial.
III.
{¶13} The trial court’s findings that granting permanent custody to HCJFS
is in the best interests of all three children and that the requirements of R.C.
2151.414(B)(1) have been met are not against the sufficiency and weight of the
evidence. Accordingly, we overrule Tiffany’s assignment of error and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
H ENDON , P.J., and C UNNINGHAM , J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
6