In re E.S.K.

2020 Ohio 5568
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 7, 2020
DocketCA2020-06-029
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 Ohio 5568 (In re E.S.K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re E.S.K., 2020 Ohio 5568 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

[Cite as In re E.S.K., 2020-Ohio-5568.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

IN RE: :

E.S.K. : CASE NO. CA2020-06-029

: OPINION 12/7/2020 :

:

APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 2016 JC 04876

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee

Ryan L. DeBra, 4010 Executive Park Drive, Suite 240, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241, for appellant

R. Aaron Maus, 10 South Third Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for mother

Zachary Faris, 40 South Third Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, guardian ad litem for mother

Nathan Bell, 2400 Clermont Center Drive, #204A, Batavia, Ohio 45103, guardian ad litem for E.S.K.

Ben Ellis, 52 Marco Lane, Centerville, Ohio 45458, for father

HENDRICKSON, P.J. Clermont CA2020-060-029

{¶1} Appellant, the maternal grandmother ("Grandmother") of E.S.K., appeals a

decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying her

complaint and motion for custody and immediate placement of E.S.K. and granting

permanent custody of the child to appellee, the Children's Services Division of the Clermont

County Department of Job and Family Services ("the Agency"). For the reasons set forth

below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.

{¶2} E.S.K. was born on July 4, 2016, approximately six weeks premature, to

Grandmother's daughter ("Mother"), who is cognitively delayed. The biological father of

E.S.K. was originally unknown, but subsequent genetic testing of E.S.K. led to the discovery

that E.S.K. was born of an incestuous relationship between Mother and her father

("Father"). Father has since been convicted of sexual battery relating to his relationship

with Mother and is imprisoned.

{¶3} Mother resided with Grandmother at the time of E.S.K.'s birth, and she kept

her pregnancy a secret until she went into labor. Mother had not purchased anything in

preparation for E.S.K.'s birth. When E.S.K. was ready to be released from the hospital on

July 12, 2016, E.S.K. could not be released into Mother's care as neither she nor

Grandmother had purchased the items necessary for the child.

{¶4} On July 13, 2016, in Clermont County Juvenile Court Case No. 2016 JG

23028, Grandmother filed a complaint for custody of E.S.K. The following day, in Clermont

County Juvenile Court Case No. 2016 JC 04876, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that

E.S.K. was a dependent child and asking for temporary custody. The juvenile court granted

temporary custody of E.S.K. to the Agency and E.S.K. was placed in foster care. A guardian

ad litem ("GAL") was appointed for E.S.K. Subsequently, on July 28, 2016, following an

admission by Mother, E.S.K. was found to be a dependent child. That same date,

-2- Clermont CA2020-060-029

Grandmother filed a motion for temporary custody or immediate placement of E.S.K. in

Case No. 2016 JC 04876, The juvenile court eventually consolidated the two cases.

{¶5} On February 17 and 28, 2017, a magistrate held a hearing on Grandmother's

complaint for custody and her motion for temporary custody or immediate placement of

E.S.K. At the hearing, Grandmother provided testimony about her employment as a home

health aide, a position she has had for over 20 years, her living and financial situations, and

her visitations and relationship with E.S.K. This testimony indicated that Grandmother

made $9.00 an hour as a home health aide and was living with her parents, E.S.K.'s great-

grandparents ("Great-Grandparents"), in their home in Batavia, as the Agency's case plan

required her to live separately from Mother. Prior to moving in with Great-Grandparents,

Grandmother lived with Mother in a two-bedroom condominium in Cincinnati that

Grandmother rented from her parents for $265 a month, which included rent and utilities.

Great-Grandparents, who are in their 80s, paid the condominium's utilities, monthly condo

fees, and semi-annual real estate taxes and intended to will the condominium to Mother

upon their deaths. Grandmother planned to move back into the condominium after Mother

found a place of her own and moved out of the residence.

{¶6} Grandmother testified that she has a close bond with E.S.K. and visited the

child daily when E.S.K. was hospitalized. Once E.S.K. was released from the hospital into

the Agency's care, Grandmother had weekly visitation. Grandmother had not missed a

single visit with E.S.K., and during her visits with the child, would show affection to E.S.K.,

take pictures of E.S.K., help feed E.S.K., and play with E.S.K. Grandmother dismissed

concerns the Agency expressed regarding her ability to properly support E.S.K.'s head and

to refrain from being overly emotional during the visits, stating that she knew how to properly

hold an infant and that she sometimes became emotional during the visits because it was

difficult to have such a short amount of time with E.S.K. and for such time to be monitored

-3- Clermont CA2020-060-029

and occur at a visitation center. Grandmother admitted to leaving the visitation room on

one occasion but denied that she left because she could not handle E.S.K.'s crying. Rather,

Grandmother indicated that another parent visiting his or her children had started crying,

which upset Grandmother.

{¶7} Grandmother further testified that if she were given custody of E.S.K., she

planned to have Great-Grandparents watch the child while she was at work. If Great-

Grandparents were unavailable, Grandmother would put E.S.K. in a nearby daycare.

Grandmother believed it would cost approximately $125 per week for part-time placement

in the daycare.

{¶8} Mother, Great-Grandfather, Grandmother's brother, and a daughter of one of

Grandmother's clients all testified on behalf of Grandmother at the custody hearing. Mother

was in favor of E.S.K. being placed in Grandmother's custody. Grandmother's brother and

the client's daughter testified about Grandmother's kind, patient, and compassionate nature,

with the client's daughter also noting that Grandmother had a "wonderful work ethic" and

"follow[ed] the rules of her company to the letter."

{¶9} E.S.K.'s GAL, a home-study accessor from the Agency, and a visitation

supervisor for the Agency also testified at the custody hearing. The GAL expressed that

while it was clear that Grandmother loved E.S.K., the GAL was "not quite sure that

[Grandmother] understands everything that needs to be done with the child," and the GAL

had concerns about Grandmother's financial ability to care for the child. Nonetheless, the

GAL supported Grandmother receiving temporary custody of E.S.K. to see how

Grandmother would do caring for the child.

{¶10} The home-study accessor testified about concerns she had with

Grandmother's honesty and ability to directly communicate with the Agency. Based on the

accessor's own observations of Great-Grandparents' home and statements Mother made

-4- Clermont CA2020-060-029

to the accessor, the accessor believed Grandmother had not been staying at Great-

Grandparents' home as frequently or for the duration that Grandmother claimed to have

resided there.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re A.M.
2023 Ohio 1523 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ohio 5568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-esk-ohioctapp-2020.