In re C.G.

2025 Ohio 648

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 113968
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re C.G., 2025-Ohio-648.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE C.G., JR., ET AL. :

Minor Children : No. 113968

[Appeal by D.W., Mother] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 27, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD-23907140, AD-23907141, AD-23907142, and AD-23907143

Appearances:

Sylvester Summers, Jr., Co., L.P.A., and Sylvester Summers, Jr., for appellant.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Corbin Finkenthal, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee CCDCFS.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

Appellant D.W. (“mother”) appeals from the judgment entries of the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“juvenile court”), that committed her four minor children, C.G., L.G., J.D., and L.W., to the legal custody

of a relative.1 Upon review, we affirm the decision as to each child.

On June 21, 2023, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and

Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency”) filed a complaint alleging the children

to be abused (J.D.), neglected, and dependent and seeking temporary custody of the

children to CCDCFS. This was the third filing of a complaint in the matter, and the

children had been removed from mother’s care in December 2022. Among other

allegations, the complaint asserted that mother has substance-abuse issues, had

tested positive for cocaine and fentanyl, had a conviction for endangering children

of which one of her children was the victim, and lacks appropriate parenting skills.

The complaint also alleged C.G. and L.G. were previously adjudicated due to

mother’s issues and were in the custody of CCDCFS for over two years before they

reunified with mother. Numerous allegations were set forth pertaining to different

fathers/alleged fathers of the children. The juvenile court committed the children

to the predispositional temporary custody of CCDCFS.

After an adjudicatory hearing was held, the juvenile court issued

journal entries in October 2023, in which C.G., L.W., and L.G. were adjudicated

neglected and dependent, and J.D. was adjudicated abused, neglected, and

dependent. In November 2023, CCDCFS filed motions to modify temporary custody

of C.G., J.D., and L.W. to the legal custody of an aunt, and of L.G. to the legal custody

1 J.D. was listed as J.W. on the complaint, but the child’s name and initials were

later corrected. of an uncle. The aunt and uncle are the respective caretakers for the children.

Following a dispositional hearing, magistrate’s decisions were issued that

recommended the children be so committed. In April 2024, the juvenile court

issued judgment entries that overruled objections, approved and adopted the

magistrate’s decisions, and ordered each child’s respective placement with the

relative caretaker. This court has thoroughly reviewed the testimony and evidence

in the record.

Mother timely appealed. Under her sole assignment of error, she

claims that there was insufficient evidence to support granting legal custody and

that the juvenile court’s decisions were against the weight of the evidence.

“When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of

appeals should affirm a trial court when ‘the evidence is legally sufficient to support

the [trial court’s judgment] as a matter of law.’” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 13,

quoting Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 2007-Ohio-4918, ¶ 3. When reviewing a

manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, “the appellate court must weigh the

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and

determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment

must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing Eastley v. Volkman,

2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20.

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized, “Although parents

have a fundamental right to parent their children, a child has basic rights to adequate care and to be free from abuse and neglect.” In re R.G.M., 2024-Ohio-

2737, at ¶ 16, citing In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331, 335 (1986). Therefore,

“[j]uvenile courts are afforded broad discretion in fashioning a disposition following

the adjudication of a child as being abused, neglected, or dependent, because the

courts are charged with protecting the best interests of children.” Id. at ¶ 16, citing

R.C. 2151.353(A).

In this matter, the juvenile court was to treat the hearing on

CCDCFS’s motion for legal custody “as if the hearing were the original dispositional

hearing.” R.C. 2151.353(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), after a child has

been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, the court may “[a]ward legal

custody of the child to . . . any . . . person who . . . is identified as a proposed legal

custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any

party to the proceedings.”

“When a juvenile court considers an award of legal custody following

an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency, it does so by examining what

would be in ‘the best interest of the child’ based on a preponderance of the evidence.”

(Cleaned up.) In re S.L., 2024-Ohio-1989, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). “‘Preponderance of the

evidence’ means ‘evidence that’s more probable, more persuasive, or of greater

probative value.’” (Cleaned up.) In re Y.F., 2024-Ohio-5605, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.).

“Although R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) does not provide factors the court should consider in

determining the child’s best interest upon a motion for legal custody, the factors

outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D) are instructive.” In re S.L. at ¶ 19, citing In re K.L.V.W., 2023-Ohio-1287, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.). “Legal custody is significantly different from the

termination of parental rights — despite losing legal custody of a child, the parents

of the child retain residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.” In re

Y.F. at ¶ 31, citing R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(c).

Here, the juvenile court engaged in a proper analysis and granted

legal custody of each child to the respective caretaker. The record shows that the

children were removed from mother’s care and custody in December 2022.

Although mother acquired stable and appropriate housing, engaged in mental-

health and substance-abuse treatment, completed anger-management and

parenting services, and was bonded with the children, she had not made significant

progress on her substance-abuse issues and serious concerns remained. There was

testimony that mother submitted for random drug screens and that she tested

positive every month from July to December 2023, which included positive results

for cocaine, marijuana, and fentanyl. Although mother had negative screens while

in a residential treatment program at the Hitchcock Center for Women and had a

negative screen for the agency in January 2024, she did not demonstrate any

significant period of sobriety. As CCDCFS states, in total, mother displayed only one

month of sobriety from the time the children came into custody until the time of the

hearing.2 Additionally, the record reflects that mother was on probation and had a

conviction for child endangering, there previously had been issues with the children

2 Though mother did not test positive in drug testing with the probation department, she tested positive on all but one of her random screens for CCDCFS. attending school while in mother’s care, and concerns remained because of mother’s

substance-abuse issues. There also were valid concerns regarding the

fathers/alleged fathers in the matter.

Further, the record shows the social worker testified that the homes

of the aunt and the uncle were appropriate, the children’s basic needs were being

met, and the children were bonded with the respective caregiver. Though the

children had varying wishes with regard to being returned to mother’s home, the

guardian ad litem (“GAL”) recommended legal custody be granted to the respective

caregivers. Among other concerns, the GAL expressed that this was not the first

time mother had lost custody, that this action was refiled three times, that mother

had been afforded time to get back on track, and that mother has always maintained

she is not a fentanyl user despite her test results. The juvenile court reviewed the

statement of understanding with the aunt and uncle. Other evidence was presented

and reviewed in the matter.

As found by the juvenile court, there had not been significant progress

by either parent in alleviating the cause for the removal of the children from the

home, and their placement with the respective caretakers was appropriate. The

juvenile court recognized mother had been offered mental-health counseling,

substance-abuse treatment, and parenting education; however, “[d]espite Mother’s

participation in services, she continues to test positive for illegal substances.” The

juvenile court’s best-interest determination was supported by a preponderance of

the evidence. While mother argues that the juvenile court should have extended

temporary custody and provided her another six months to complete her case plan,

the record does not support mother’s argument that she should be given more time

to remedy the conditions that led to her children’s removal. Additionally, “[e]ven

where there is ‘time for another extension of temporary custody,’ a juvenile court is

not required to extend temporary custody if it finds that a child’s best interest would

not be served by an extension or there is no reasonable cause to believe the child

would not be reunified with his or her parents within the period of extension.” In re

M.T., 2024-Ohio-3111, ¶ 54 (8th Dist.), citing In re Da.B., 2018-Ohio-689, ¶ 17-18

(8th Dist.); see also R.C. 2151.415(D)(1).

In this matter, the juvenile court properly determined in each case

that the child’s continued residence or return to mother’s home was not in the child’s

best interest, nor was the continued temporary custody of the child. Furthermore,

the record does not support mother’s argument that the evidence did not support a

finding that legal custody was in the best interest of the children or any of her other

arguments.

After carefully reviewing the record herein, we find the juvenile

court’s decision to grant legal custody of each child to the respective caretaker is

supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. The assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR