[Cite as In re B.H., 2024-Ohio-423.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: B.H. AND S.G. : APPEAL NOS. C-230530 C-230532 : TRIAL NO. F20-95Z
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 7, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Donita Parrish, Attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem for the children,
Alana Van Gundy, for Appellant Mother,
Jeffrey J. Cutcher, for Appellant Father. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} K.S. (“mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s judgment granting
permanent custody of her children, S.G. and B.H., to the Hamilton County
Department of Job and Family Services (“JFS”). Mother asserts that the court’s
decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Mother further argues that the record does not show that the guardian
ad litem (“GAL”) observed the children with mother in violation of Sup.R. 48.
{¶2} Although B.H.’s1 alleged father (“father”) did not have significant
involvement with B.H. and did not engage in any case-plan services, he has appealed
in support of mother’s arguments. Because he does not make any arguments specific
to the termination of his parental rights, we address mother’s and father’s arguments
together.
I. Relevant Facts and Procedural History
A. Pretrial stipulations, services, and status
{¶3} In January and February 2021, JFS filed a complaint and an amended
complaint with the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, alleging that S.G. and B.H. were
neglected, abused, and dependent.
Mother and father’s stipulations
{¶4} In April 2021, JFS dismissed and refiled its complaint. During a July
2021 adjudicatory hearing, mother and father stipulated to numerous facts alleged in
JFS’s April 2021 complaint:
• In October 2019, maternal grandmother, who lived with mother
and the children, overdosed in the home while the children were
1 S.G.’s father did not participate in the proceedings.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
present. The two oldest children (who are not the subject of this appeal)
reported that maternal grandmother took Xanax and Ativan, displayed
out-of-control behaviors, urinated on herself, got into an altercation
with mother, and later fell and hit her head. The children had to call 911
because mother was asleep. Maternal grandmother later died from
injuries cause by the fall.
• In text messages, mother and maternal grandmother had
discussed obtaining drugs, selling “food stamps,” and other means to
make money.
• In June 2020, JFS received a report of substance abuse in the
home, mother’s “out of control behavior,” mother’s untreated mental
health, and mother’s failure to meet her children’s basic needs. The
children reported to JFS seeing needles and illicit substances around
the home and being used by people in the home. Mother denied
substance use but admitted that her paramour, B.W., used drugs in the
home. As a result, JFS implemented a safety plan with maternal
grandfather.
• In July 2020, mother denied JFS access to her home and the
children as required by the safety plan. She failed to respond to JFS’s
attempts to contact her until an October 2020 telephone call, when she
admitted to her failure to address her anger and mental-health issues.
She continued to refuse JFS access to the home.
• In November 2020, the court granted interim custody of the two
older children, A.G. and L.G., to a relative. Mother failed to comply with
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
court orders to provide the children’s personal belongings and submit
to a hair-follicle toxicology test.
• After the November 2020 custody hearing, JFS interviewed A.G.
and L.G, who reported that there was often no food in the home and
they had witnessed domestic violence between mother B.W. They told
JFS that they had witnessed drug use and drug paraphernalia in the
home, drug trafficking by mother, and needles and blood in the
bathroom. They had seen B.W. under the influence of substances,
exhibit bizarre behaviors, and “nod[] off.” The children were able to
describe what different drugs look like, how drugs are injected, and the
marks left by an injection, which they had seen on B.W.’s arm. They had
observed baggies of white powder and marijuana in the home. L.G. and
A.G. were responsible for cooking, cleaning, bathing, changing, and
supervising the younger three children because mother mostly stayed in
her room and slept.
• JFS received reports that the family home had been robbed
multiple times, with the children present, by people that mother knew.
Mother had obtained two guns.
• JFS discovered that S.G. had a speech delay caused by an
untreated cleft palate.
• Father had a significant criminal history involving drugs and
theft charges. He had an open warrant for his arrest.
• After the court granted JFS interim custody of the children in
January 2021, JFS workers who retrieved the children from mother’s
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
home observed that mother had a black eye. JFS discovered that mother
had posted pictures of herself on social media showing physical injuries,
including a black eye.
Additional allegations
{¶5} Mother and Father did not stipulate to other facts alleged in the April
2021 complaint:
• JFS alleged that in January 2020, it received a report that police
had responded to the home after mother shot B.W. during a domestic-
violence altercation while the children were present. JFS alleged that
B.W. frequently visited the home, had pleaded guilty to drug charges,
and had multiple active warrants. Mother reported that she made
attempts to keep B.W. away from the home, but he continued to return.
• S.G. and B.H. allegedly had never been enrolled in school.
Mother had previously been charged with failing to send L.G. to school.
Case-plan participation and GAL involvement
{¶6} By March 2021, the GAL had made three unsuccessful attempts to
contact mother. She had conducted virtual meetings with B.H. and S.G. twice in
February 2021 and had face-to-face contact with the children in March 2021 at their
foster-home placement. JFS interviewed father in February 2021.
{¶7} Mother’s initial case plan stated that mother spent her money on drugs
and other unnecessary items over providing food and necessities for her children,
permitted unsafe people access to the home, and left the children either unattended or
with these unsafe people. The children were fearful of her due to her outbursts. Mother
had lost her housing. But mother believed there were no safety concerns and saw no
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
need for JFS’s involvement. The case plan required mother to engage in services, such
as a diagnostic assessment of functioning (“DAF”), domestic-violence and parenting
classes, and drug screens. She was also required to visit the children regularly.
{¶8} In April 2021, mother and father agreed with an interim-custody award
to JFS. The court adjudicated the children dependent. In addition to the stipulated
facts, the trial court found that 1) mother had a history with JFS with concerns about
her mental health, substance abuse, and inability to meet the children’s basic needs,
including stable housing and food; 2) mother and grandmother had texted about a lack
of food; 3) B.H. and S.G. were not, and never had been, enrolled in school, causing
significant delays; and 4) mother either shot or attempted to shoot B.W. in the home
with the children present.
{¶9} By July 2021, mother was not participating in any services, was staying
with different friends, and had no stable income. Mother had not consistently visited
the children, causing the Family Nurturing Center (“FNC”) to cancel mother’s
visitation.
{¶10} In December 2021, mother had begun to make some progress in
completing case-plan services. She had completed a visitation intake and was
“somewhat engaged in her parenting classes.” Reunification remained the goal. The
magistrate granted JFS’s first motion to extend temporary custody of the children and
granted mother supervised visitation.
JFS sought permanent custody
{¶11} Approximately 18 months after removing the children from mother’s
care, JFS sought permanent custody of the children.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶12} Though JFS had referred mother for a DAF, substance-abuse treatment,
drug screens, and parenting classes, she failed to engage in substance-abuse and
mental-health treatment and parenting classes. Mother lacked stable housing and
reportedly was seeking employment. Mother’s February 2022 drug screen was positive
for fentanyl, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and opiates. Mother’s visitation
was cancelled again due to her lack of attendance. Mother had pending felony drug
and weapons charges. Father had abandoned B.H.
The children’s counselors recommended no visits with mother
{¶13} A December 2022 letter from B.H.’s counselor reported that B.H. had
been residing with his foster parents for two years and expressed that he wanted to be
adopted by them. Mother had failed to appear for most visits, only visiting B.H. eight
times over ten months. B.H. experienced vomiting and diarrhea within 24 hours of the
visit each time he saw mother, with four instances resulting in a fever of more than 101
degrees. B.H.’s counselor concluded that “somatic symptoms of stress were extreme
and obviously directly correlated with the visits with his mother.” Further, mother’s
visits “caused posttraumatic stress that is too much for a little boy to handle, and it
manifested in physical illness that disrupted his school attendance, holiday, and other
activities.” The counselor concluded that B.H.’s visits with mother were “detrimental
to [B.H.’s] mental and physical health, and that restarting them would set him back
significantly in his emotional and academic progress.”
{¶14} A December 2022 letter from S.G.’s counselor stated that she had
“work[ed] therapeutically with S.G. long enough to have seen her through four foster
and kinship placements.” The counselor was against visitation with mother because
“mother has demonstrated a grossly inconsistent visit pattern in the past and this
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
places a great deal of unnecessary psychological burden on 8 year old [S.G.] including
feelings of abandonment, neglect, shame and self-blame.” The counselor added that
mother had not made any “noted psychological changes” and continued to “express
that [S.G.] was, in fact, safe in her care.” She further opined that mother had
“continued in the same lifestyle choices as when [S.G.] was originally taken into JFS
custody” due to her failure to take accountability for the reasons behind the removal
of her children. S.G.’s counselor recommended suspending mother’s visits until
mother could “show and verbalize significant emotional change and responsibility for
her negative impact on [S.G.’s] emotional and physical wellbeing.”
B. Hearing on the permanent-custody motion
{¶15} The court held a January 2023 hearing on JFS’s permanent-custody
motion. Although Father was not present, he was represented by counsel.
JFS caseworkers’ testimony
{¶16} JFS caseworkers testified that mother had failed to engage in required
services, despite the agency’s referrals. Although JFS referred mother to complete a
DAF, she failed to do so, which prevented JFS from making any treatment
recommendations. Mother appeared at three drug screens and was positive for “a
multitude of things” at the first two. Mother left one JFS caseworker “incoherent”
messages. But a 2023 drug screen came back as negative for illicit substances.
{¶17} Mother did not see the children for months at a time, had lost her
visitation time at FNC due to persistently being late or not attending, and failed to take
advantage of setting up supervised visits at the agency. Mother’s last visit with the
children had occurred in either February or March of 2022. Mother failed to maintain
stable housing. JFS caseworkers testified that mother failed to meet S.G.’s medical
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
needs throughout the case. Further, a caseworker testified about B.H.’s trauma due to
dangers of drug use in the home, break-ins, and mother’s shooting B.W. while the
children were present.
{¶18} By the January 2023 trial, mother had only completed about two of the
approximately 12 parenting classes. Mother was living in a sober-living home and was
working full-time. But a caseworker testified that mother would have been able to
“dive deeper” into her domestic-violence classes had she completed the YWCA
domestic-violence assessment.
{¶19} When asked whether mother had alleviated any concerns that had
caused JFS’s removing the children from her care, a JFS caseworker responded that
“she’s in parenting classes, but that doesn’t indicate any behavioral change.” Mother’s
sober-living home was not considered stable housing because the children could not
reside there with her full-time.
S.G.’s counselor testified about her trauma
{¶20} S.G.’s counselor testified that S.G.’s diagnoses typically present in youth
due to “[t]raumatic experiences, violence, domestic violence, a variety of experiences
that create trauma in the child’s life.” The counselor stated that S.G. had shared “many
traumatic experiences that have occurred with” mother and “frightening” stories. The
counselor noted that S.G.’s “acting out” was a “direct consequence of her trauma.”
Mother testified that she was making progress
{¶21} Mother testified that she did not complete a DAF because a case
manager had told her it was not necessary “right before [she] went to jail” and again
at her sober-living home, and there was already one on file. She asserted that she had
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
not previously completed services because she did not receive the referrals, or when
she did, they were given to her slowly over time to avoid overwhelming her.
{¶22} Mother acknowledged that her children had witnessed events that were
detrimental to their well-being and expressed remorse for what her children had
experienced. She admitted that she avoided communication with JFS, failed to attend
drug screens, visited inconsistently, and lacked responsibility. Mother stated that she
had been sober since August 28, 2022.
{¶23} Mother stated that her visitation at FNC had been terminated four times
due to poor time management, which she had remedied by completing a time-
management class. Mother asserted that she had attended four parenting classes since
her release from jail, but she could not complete the remainder as it required her to be
able to visit with the children and her visits had been revoked. As she could not keep
the children overnight at the sober-living home for more than two nights, mother
suggested that the children could stay with maternal grandfather for the remainder of
each week if she were granted custody.
{¶24} Mother conceded that she was not fully ready to take the children on by
herself at the time of trial. But she testified that she was attending domestic-violence
support groups. She stated that she has been attending mental-health treatment for
five years, worked full-time, voluntarily took a time-management class to help with
her issues with being late, and asserted that she had an entire medical team helping
with S.G.’s medical issues before JFS’s involvement.
GAL’s testimony
{¶25} The GAL had been assigned the children since January 2021. While the
GAL had never spoken to mother one-on-one, she spoke to mother at a team meeting
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
where mother had participated. Further, the GAL had not been able to communicate
with mother because she was not responsive to the GAL’s attempts to contact her.
{¶26} The GAL stated both children were bonded to their respective
placement families. B.H. had expressed that he did not want to see his mother. B.H.’s
foster parents had been coordinating time with his siblings’ custodians and foster
parents so that the siblings could spend time together.
C. The trial court granted JFS’s permanent-custody motion
{¶27} The magistrate awarded JFS permanent custody of the children. Mother
and father objected. Mother’s objection argued that the magistrate’s decision was not
supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Father’s objection argued that there was a less-restrictive option other than permanent
custody to JFS, the magistrate’s decision was against the manifest weight of the
evidence where mother “complied with the case plan to the best of her ability,” and
that he supported the children’s reunification with mother.
{¶28} The juvenile court overruled the parents’ objections, adopted the
magistrate’s decision, and incorporated the decision into its judgment as follows.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) Interactions and Interrelationships
{¶29} The children had not visited mother in several months and both fathers
had abandoned the children. The children’s foster families appropriately cared for the
children, and they were bonded to those families. The children maintained a strong
bond with their biological siblings.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) The Wishes of the Child
{¶30} The GAL favored JFS taking permanent custody of both children.
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c) Custodial History
{¶31} The children had been in the temporary custody of JFS for more than
12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) Child’s Need for Legally Secure Permanent Placement
{¶32} The parents failed to show dedication to caring for the children,
especially regarding their health needs, and the children needed a legally secure
permanent placement, which could not be achieved absent granting JFS permanent
custody of the children.
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) Whether Factors in (E)(7)-(10) Apply
{¶33} The court found that the children’s fathers had abandoned them.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶34} Mother asserts two assignments of error. She argues that 1) the juvenile
court’s decision was based on evidence that was either inadmissible or ambiguous, was
not supported by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to the weight of the evidence;
and 2) the GAL had not performed her duties. Father’s sole assignment of error asserts
that the juvenile court’s decision to grant JFS permanent custody of B.H. was not
supported by sufficient evidence. Father’s arguments only pertain to his child, B.H.,
and he does not ask this court to reverse any findings involving him. Father asked that
“his appeal [] be viewed in the context of support for Mother, as opposed to reversal
of any finding attributed to” father.
A. Standard of Review
{¶35} Courts have described permanent termination of parental rights as “the
family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio
App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991). Because parents have a paramount right
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to the custody of their children, a juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent
custody to an agency must be supported by “clear and convincing” evidence. In re
W.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110363 and C-110402, 2011-Ohio-4912, ¶ 46. Clear
and convincing evidence is sufficient evidence to “produce in the mind of the trier of
fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). When applying a clear-and-
convincing standard, this court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s
where ample competent and credible evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. In
re A.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190027, 2019-Ohio-2028, ¶ 16.
{¶36} A review of the sufficiency of the evidence is different than a review of
the weight of the evidence. In re A.B., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150307 and C-
150310, 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 15. To determine whether sufficient evidence supported a
judgment terminating parental rights, we must determine whether some evidence
exists on each element. Id. at ¶ 15. It is a test for adequacy and is a question of law.
Id. But a weight-of-the-evidence review in permanent-custody cases requires us to
weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the
witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the juvenile
court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
judgment must be reversed. Id. at ¶ 16.
B. Permanent-custody statute
{¶37} Under R.C. 2151.414(B)’s two-pronged test, a trial court may grant an
agency permanent custody of a child only when clear and convincing evidence shows
that 1) under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)’s factors, granting permanent custody is in the child’s
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
best interest, and 2) one or more of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e)’s conditions exist. In
re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373, ¶ 15.
{¶38} R.C. 2151.414(D)’s best-interest standard requires the juvenile court to
consider all relevant factors, including 1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship
with the child’s parents, relatives, foster parents, and other persons who may
significantly affect the child; 2) the child’s wishes, either expressed by the child or
through a GAL; 3) the child’s custodial history, including whether the child has been
in an agency’s custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period; 4) the
child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of
placement can be achieved without granting the agency permanent custody; and 5)
whether any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) are applicable. In re S.J.,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25550, 2013-Ohio-2935, ¶ 14-15.
{¶39} The other prong requires a juvenile court to find, by clear and
convincing evidence, that one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) factors exists: 1) that the child
cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with a parent; 2) the child is abandoned; 3) the child is orphaned, and there are no
relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody; 4) the child has been in
the temporary custody of an agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month
period; or 5) the child has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child
on three separate occasions.
C. Analysis
{¶40} Father’s appeal makes no arguments on his own behalf; instead, his
appeal is solely in support of mother. The Ninth District has held that when both
parents’ rights have been terminated, either parent has standing to assert the other
14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
parent’s rights. In re C. C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24101, 2008-Ohio-3634, ¶ 12. The
analysis for father’s assignment of error is the same as for mother’s first assignment of
error: whether the juvenile court’s judgment was supported by sufficient evidence.
Mother also asserts that the judgment was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
1. The juvenile court’s judgment was supported by credible, competent evidence
a. R.C. 2151.414(B)
{¶41} The trial court correctly determined that the children were in JFS’s
temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
b. Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest
{¶42} Mother argues that the trial court’s judgment was based on “evidence
that was either inadmissible or ambiguous, which does not result in meeting the clear
and convincing standard.” She points to S.G.’s counselor’s testimony, asserting that it
was an expert opinion and that the state failed to establish that she was an expert. But
mother neither assigned as error, see App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A), nor raised to the
trial court any argument that the counselor’s testimony was inadmissible. See State v.
Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747, 2009-Ohio-1370, 910 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.)
(“[E]rrors not raised in the trial court in the first instance may not be considered on
appeal.”). These failures preclude our review of this issue.
{¶43} Next, mother asserts that the state failed to show by clear and
convincing evidence that she did not visit the children; or that she could not visit for
erroneous reasons. She questions the credibility of S.G.’s counselor’s statements
involving whether visitation should continue because the counselor only met mother
one time. But the counselor’s concerns about visitation were based on her ongoing
15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
observations of, and interactions with, S.G. After working with S.G. for more than a
year, she determined that visiting mother would traumatize S.G.
{¶44} The court was in the best position to observe the witnesses and was
entitled to believe all, some, or none of the witnesses’ testimony. See In re A.C., 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-180088, 2019-Ohio-2891, ¶ 12, citing In re Brown, 98 Ohio
App.3d 337, 648 N.E.2d 576 (3d Dist.1994); In re A.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
180056, 2019-Ohio-2359, ¶ 12, citing In re L.S., 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-17-021, 2018-
Ohio-4758, ¶ 28. The testimony and exhibits support the juvenile court’s finding that
mother consistently failed to visit the children. Mother even admitted in her testimony
that she lost her visitation due to her own lack of responsibility.
{¶45} Mother next argues that she completed case-plan services, was sober for
months, attended mental-health treatment, worked full-time, and took accountability
for her actions.
{¶46} The evidence shows that mother had begun participating in case-plan
services and we commend mother for her efforts. But even when a parent completes
all case-plan services, full compliance with a case plan is not dispositive of whether a
juvenile court should deny JFS’s motion for permanent custody. See In re A.F., 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200230 and C-200231, 2020-Ohio-5069, ¶ 26 (“[T]he
dispositive issue is not whether the parents have complied with the case plan, but
whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that led to the children’s
removal.”); In re J.G.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180611, 2019-Ohio-802, ¶ 39 (“A
parent’s compliance with the case plan does not preclude a trial court from awarding
custody to a children services agency, as long as it in the child’s best interest.”).
16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶47} There was competent, credible evidence showing that awarding
permanent custody to JFS was in the children’s best interest. Other than on one
occasion, mother’s drug screens were positive for multiple illicit substances. Mother
failed to complete a DAF for most of the pendency of the case, which prevented her
from obtaining the services that she needed to alleviate the issues that led to the
children being removed. Her housing at the time of trial did not permit children to live
with her full-time.
{¶48} Significantly, the evidence about the children’s trauma caused by
mother’s behavior supports the trial court’s conclusion that awarding JFS permanent
custody was in their best interest. A JFS caseworker testified about B.H.’s fear and
anxiety about safety stemming from mother shooting her boyfriend in front of the
children. The GAL testified that after visits with mother, B.H. would become physically
sick. S.G.’s counselor testified that S.G. had posttraumatic stress disorder due to the
trauma of experiencing “quite a few incidents in the home.” For that reason, the
counselor believed it was not in S.G.’s best interest to even visit mother, much less live
with her. The trial court was not bound to return the children to mother simply
because she had participated in services when there was evidence that doing so would
cause the children more trauma.
{¶49} The juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody to JFS was
supported by sufficient clear and convincing evidence and was not contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence. Mother’s first assignment of error and father’s sole
assignment of error are overruled.
17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
2. The GAL performed her duties as required under Sup.R. 48
{¶50} Mother’s second assignment of error asserts that a GAL violates Sup.R.
48.03 when the GAL does not observe the parent with the child. She asserts that
because the record does not show that the GAL observed the children with their
parents or at their proposed residence, the GAL did not make an informed
recommendation about the children’s best interest.
{¶51} Mother failed to raise this issue at trial. Therefore, mother has waived
all but plain error. See In re T.K.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190020, 2019-Ohio-
5076, ¶ 26; Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv).
{¶52} Sup.R. 48.03(D) governs a GAL’s duties. Those duties include observing
the child with each parent and visiting the child at the residence or proposed residence.
And Sup.R. 48.06, which governs GAL reports, requires a final GAL report to
“affirmatively state that responsibilities have been met and shall detail the activities
performed, hearings attended, persons interviewed, documents reviewed, experts
consulted, and all other relevant information considered by the guardian ad litem.”
{¶53} At trial, the GAL testified about her investigation and what she
discovered through that investigation. She testified about the children’s educational,
health, and mental-health needs, ongoing efforts to meet those needs, the children’s
relationships with foster parents, siblings, and extended family members, the GAL’s
efforts to identify potential kinship caregivers, the GAL’s participation in school
meetings, and B.H.’s wishes as expressed to her. She discussed her attempts to contact
mother and her inability to do so because she did not have accurate contact
information for mother. She testified about mother’s unstable housing throughout the
case. And she testified that mother was unresponsive to the GAL and the JFS.
18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶54} We do not find plain error. First, the GAL explained why she did not
observe the children with mother and her explanation was not disputed at trial.
Moreover, even if we found that the GAL did not comply with her duties, the trial
court’s judgment was not based solely on the GAL’s testimony or report. Rather, the
trial court based its judgment on substantial, competent evidence that the mother had
not consistently visited the children, did not have housing appropriate for children,
had tested positive for illicit substances, and had not remedied the issues that caused
the children to be removed from her care. Even without the GAL’s testimony and
report, the juvenile court’s judgment terminating mother’s parental rights was
supported by substantial clear and convincing evidence.
{¶55} We overrule mother’s second assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶56} We have no doubt that mother loves her children, and we commend her
for her efforts at gaining sobriety and changing her life. But we find that the juvenile
court’s judgment was based on substantial clear, competent, and credible evidence.
The juvenile court did not err in finding that awarding JFS permanent custody of the
children was in their best interest. We affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.