In re R. Children

[Cite as In re R. Children, 2023-Ohio-2144.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: THE R CHILDREN : APPEAL NO. C-220561
TRIAL NO. F19-600X
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 28, 2023
Kimberly V. Thomas, for Appellant Mother,
Mark W. Fidler, for Appellee Grandfather,
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Janice H.
Barr, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County
Department of Job and Family Services,
Sarah A. Barlage, Attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem for the R Children.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
W INKLER , Judge.
{¶1} Mother appeals the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s
judgment awarding legal custody of her children, A.R.1 and A.R.2, (collectively,
“R Children”) to their maternal grandfather (“Grandfather”) after several years
in temporary custody and allowing the parties to work out visitation among
themselves. Because the juvenile court did not err in determining the best
interest of the children, we affirm its judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} In 2019, the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family
Services (“HCJFS”) sought and obtained emergency temporary custody of the
R Children. The juvenile court adjudicated the R Children neglected and
dependent and placed them in the temporary custody of HCJFS.
{¶3} Over the next two years, several motions to place the R Children
with relatives and family followed. The R Children’s maternal grandmother
initially petitioned for legal custody but later withdrew. A.R.1’s father engaged
in supervised visits but did not petition for legal custody. A.R.2’s father initially
petitioned for legal custody, but the juvenile court denied his request because
he did not engage in case-plan services, visit his daughter, or involve himself in
parenting. Neither father is actively involved with the children.
{¶4} HCJFS developed a case plan for Mother, and she made
progress. Mother has secured a stable work schedule, income, and housing.
Mother has attended drug rehabilitation, completing some steps of the
program, but was slow to engage in drug rehabilitation, and relapsed once.
Mother visited with the children during this period under supervision of
Grandfather and at the Family Nurturing Center. However, Mother’s visitation
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
has been inconsistent, and she remains at the supervised level of visitation.
Mother has also been attending therapy and taking medication for her mental
health and intends to continue to do so.
{¶5} In May 2022, Grandfather petitioned for legal custody while
Mother petitioned for a remand of custody. The magistrate determined that
awarding legal custody to Grandfather was in the best interests of the R
Children and left the parents and Grandfather to continue to arrange visitation
on their own. Mother filed objections with the juvenile court, but she did not
object to the collaborative visitation schedule. The juvenile court overruled the
objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and entered a judgment
awarding legal custody of the R Children to Grandfather.
{¶6} Mother now appeals, raising two assignments of error for
review, challenging the court’s best-interest determination and its failure to
specify a visitation schedule.
Analysis
Best-Interest Determination
{¶7} In Mother’s first assignment of error, Mother argues the
juvenile court’s finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant
legal custody to Grandfather was not supported by sufficient evidence and was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. We review a juvenile court’s grant
of legal custody for an abuse of discretion and determine whether the court’s
best-interest determination is supported by competent and credible evidence.
In re D.Z.F., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200260, 2020-Ohio-5246, ¶ 20, citing
In re E.B., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190050, 2019-Ohio-3943, ¶ 13, and In re
F.B.D., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180356, 2019-Ohio-2562, ¶ 11.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶8} When deciding whom to award legal custody, the “juvenile court
should base its determination on the best interest of the child.” In re F.B.D. at
¶ 11. As opposed to permanent custody, the legal-custody version of the best-
interests inquiry does not require the court to consider any specific,
statutorily-mandated factors. See In re A.W. and T.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-140142, 2015-Ohio-489, ¶ 8. Nevertheless, this court has held the best-
interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and 2151.414(D) are instructive. In re
F.B.D. at ¶ 12. Because the factors are instructive and not mandatory, the
juvenile court does not have to make specific findings on each factor. In re
A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102, 184 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 31.
{¶9} The magistrate’s decision and the juvenile court’s judgment
entry show a consideration of multiple nonmandatory statutory best-interest
factors. Under both R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) and 3109.04(F)(1)(c), the
interrelationship of the children with siblings and caregivers is relevant. The
magistrate considered this by saying “both children were bonded to each other,
to their Grandfather and his fiancée, and to the other family members in the
home.” Additionally, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d) lists as a factor the children’s
adjustment to the home and R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) lists the children’s need for
a legally secure placement as factors. The magistrate noted both A.R.1 and
A.R.2 are happy, doing well in the home, and in a stable environment, and that
their needs are met. The magistrate did not abuse her discretion when her best-
interest determination was supported by competent and credible evidence
concerning multiple statutory best-interest factors.
{¶10} Mother argues the magistrate overly focused on the parents and
not the children, but this is not an abuse of discretion by the magistrate.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Rather, it shows the magistrate considered the parents’ role in ensuring the
children’s best interest under the best-interest factors. See In re A.M.Z., 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190292, C-190317 and C-190326, 2019-Ohio-3499, ¶ 9
(noting failures to complete case-plan services, among other things, suggests
the parents are unable to provide a legally secure permanent placement). More
directly, Mother’s ability to honor and facilitate court-appointed visitation is
also a factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f) and her engagement with case-plan
services goes to that factor. The parents’ history with drug and alcohol abuse
and efforts in recovery are relevant under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) and (E)(9).
Thus, the magistrate conducted a proper best-interest analysis, including
consideration of multiple statutory factors, and supported it with competent
and credible evidence. Thus, the award of legal custody was supported by both
the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence.
{¶11} Mother also questions the juvenile court’s independent review
of the magistrate’s best-interest determination. When the record indicates that
a juvenile court, in response to timely-filed objections, has undertaken an
independent review of the record, has acknowledged the applicable statutory
framework, has adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact, and has made the
required conclusions upon clear and convincing evidence, we can only
conclude that the court has satisfied its obligations under Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d).
In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102, 184 N.E.3d 1, at ¶ 40. Here,
the juvenile court stated it had independently reviewed the record, the written
argument on Mother’s objections, and considered all relevant factors, including
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and 3109.04(F)(1), in its determination of the R Children’s
best interest. Although the juvenile court did not restate factual findings from
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the magistrate’s decision, it did hold that the magistrate properly determined
the factual issues after viewing the witnesses’ demeanors and judging their
credibility, and it adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own. The fact that
the juvenile court did not cite any specific part of the transcript or record does
not demonstrate that the court did not conduct an independent review of the
objected to matters. Id. at ¶ 39, citing Giovanni v. Bailey, 9th Dist. Summit
Nos. 28631 and 28676, 2018-Ohio-369, ¶ 21 (applying the analogous Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(d)). Thus, the juvenile court’s review of the magistrate’s decision was
proper.
Visitation
{¶12} In Mother’s second assignment of error, Mother argues the
juvenile court erred when it failed to specify a schedule for visitation. Here, we
review for plain error because Mother waived all grounds of appeal except plain
error when she did not raise the issue of visitation before the magistrate or
when she filed objections to the magistrate’s decision with the juvenile court.
Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(ii); In re H.J.H., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200071,
2020-Ohio-3160, ¶ 7. Plain error in civil cases is rare and is only employed by
the court in instances in which “the error complained of ‘would have a material
adverse [e]ffect on the character and public confidence in judicial
proceedings.’ ” In re I.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180095, 2019-Ohio-1515,
¶ 14, quoting Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223, 480 N.E.2d 802(1985), quoting Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209, 436
N.E.2d 1001 (1982).
{¶13} There was no plain error concerning visitation. A parent who
has lost legal custody of a child because the child was adjudicated abused,
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
neglected, or dependent, but whose parental rights have not been terminated,
retains residual parental rights, including the “privilege of reasonable
visitation.” R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(c). R.C. Chapter 2151 does not address
visitation and multiple districts have held that the statute does not require the
reasonable-visitation order to be specific. In re C.A., 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2014-07-165, 2015-Ohio-1410, ¶ 29; In re C.J., 4th Dist. Vinton No.
10CA681, 2011-Ohio-3366, ¶ 15. Thus, the juvenile court did not commit plain
error by failing to specify visitation when it was under no obligation to do so.
{¶14} Mother’s argument that the court must mandate a visitation
schedule because at some point in the future, Grandfather might slowly start
denying visitation and leave Mother with no recourse is speculative. While
courts have explicitly mandated a visitation schedule when parents are hostile
to each other, courts have also left the visitation schedule to the parties where
the guardian has shown an ability to facilitate the parents’ visitation. Contrast
In re K.D., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28459, 2017-Ohio-4161, ¶ 28 (requiring a
specific visitation order because of long-term hostility between parents) with
In re C.A. at ¶ 29 (upholding a juvenile court’s judgment permitting parties to
arrange reasonable visitation on their own where the parties were cooperative).
Here, Mother, Grandfather and his fiancée are cooperative and friendly, have
successfully arranged multiple community visits with both children and
Mother and with A.R.1 and A.R.1’s father. Mother testified that she had no
cause for concern during those supervised visits. Thus, the court did not
commit plain error in allowing the parties to work out visitation among
themselves.
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Conclusion
{¶15} Having overruled both assignments of error, we affirm the
judgment of the juvenile court.
Judgment affirmed.
Z AYAS , P.J., and B OCK , J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
8