[Cite as In re J.C., 2014-Ohio-2743.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. J.C., M.B., J.B., & C.O. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Case No. 13-CA-83, 13-CA-84
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case Nos. 2012AB64, 2012AB65, 2012AB66, and 2012AB67
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 23, 2014
APPEARANCES: For Appellant - For Appellee - Scheena Goldsmith Fairfield County Child Protective Services
JESSICA L. MONGOLD GREGG MARX 123 South Broad Street Prosecuting Attorney Suite 206 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 By: Andrea K. Green Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For CO, JC, MB, JB Fairfield County, Ohio 239 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 TREVOR J. INNOCENTI Lancaster, Ohio 43130 117 W. Main St., Suite 206 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 For Justin Burley, Sr.
Guardian Ad Litem ERIN MCENANEY 23 1/2 - S. Park Place Ste. 207 D JACOB ORT Newark, Ohio 43055 13297 Rustic Drive NW Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} In Fairfield App. No. 13CA83, Appellant Scheena Goldsmith (“Mother”)
appeals the October 30, 3013 entries entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common
Pleas, which terminated her parental rights with respect to her four minor children, C.O.,
J.C., M.B., and J.B., and granted permanent custody of the children to Appellee Fairfield
County Child Protective Services (“FCCPS”). In Fairfield App. No. 13CA84, Appellants
C.O., J.C., M.B., and J.B. appeal the same judgment entries with regard to the trial
court’s denial of the motion for legal custody filed by Donna Logsdon, maternal
grandmother.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of J.C. (dob 9/13/2004), J.B. (dob
2/6/2007). M.B. (dob 2/18/2006), and C.O. (dob 3/25/2009).1 The children were placed
in the custody of FCCPS through a voluntary agreement for care on February 22, 2012.
The voluntary agreement of care was extended on March 23, 2012, and again on April
21, 2012. The trial court placed the children in the temporary shelter care custody of
FCCPS on May 17, 2013. On June 7, 2013, the trial court found the children to be
dependent and placed them in the temporary custody of FCCPS.
{¶3} FCCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on February 11, 2013. On
May 30, 2013, Donna Logsdon filed a motion for legal custody of the children. The trial
court conducted a hearing on the motions on June 4, and September 17, 2013.
{¶4} Alexis Howard, the family-based care caseworker assigned to the family,
testified J.C., J.B., and M.B. were originally together in the same foster home where
1 The biological fathers of the children are not parties to this Appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 3
they had been placed in a prior case. C.O. was placed with a younger brother2 in
another foster home. J.C. was moved several times due to aggressive behavior, which
included destruction of property.
{¶5} Mother’s case plan required her to complete a parent/child interaction
program offered by Denise Gardner at the Lighthouse, attend any parenting classes
specific to the behaviors of her children, participate in school and mental health meeting
regarding J.C.’s behavioral plan, and undergo counseling with the children and her
boyfriend, Steven Troester. Additionally, Mother was to maintain her home and meet
the children’s basic needs. Mother was to follow through with any recommendations
arising from her psychological evaluation.
{¶6} Howard testified Mother did not participate in the Lighthouse program with
Denise Gardner because she (Mother) believed the program was similar to the one she
had completed in a prior case. Howard explained to Mother how the program was
different and how it would benefit her, but Mother refused to participate. Howard
referred Mother to another parenting class, which she did complete, as well as a
parenting support group, which she attended on one occasion. Howard noted, although
Mother reported having a lot of trouble with J.C.’s behavior and occasionally M.B.’s
behavior, Mother did not comply with the aspects of her case plan which directly related
to those issues.
{¶7} Howard indicated Mother failed to obtain and maintain stable housing for
herself and the children. Mother resided with Logsdon during much of the case.
Howard explained Logsdon’s home was not appropriate for the children due to issues of
2 The paternal grandparents of the younger brother were eventually granted legal custody of the child. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 4
domestic violence perpetrated by Logsdon's live-in boyfriend, Charles Kilgore. Mother
was arrested in March, 2013, and was incarcerated in the Fairfield County Jail until
May, 2013, when she was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to three years
in a state penal institution. Mother did not have housing in place for herself and the
children upon her release from prison.
{¶8} Family counseling, which was another aspect of Mother’s case plan, had
commenced, but was not completed due to Mother’s incarceration. With respect to
visitation, Mother had unsupervised visits with the children at Logsdon's residence until
December, 2012. FCCPS terminated unsupervised visits on December 28, 2012, due
to Kilgore being present during visits as well as the animosity between Mother and
Logsdon. Mother had not visited the children since March, 2013, after she was
arrested.
{¶9} Howard expressed concerns regarding Mother’s decision making ability.
Although Mother testified she had been working with her counselor, since August, 2012,
on relationships with safe individuals, Mother continued to become involved with men
with criminal records. Her association with such individuals led to her felony conviction
of attempted robbery. Mother did not see her association with these men as
problematic.
{¶10} With respect to Logsdon, Howard questioned whether the grandmother
had the ability to manage all of the children. Visits between the children and Logsdon
often became out of control. Logsdon continued to reside with Charles Kilgore, who has
a history of domestic violence as well as problems with alcohol abuse. Howard noted Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 5
the children’s need for stability, and expressed concerns that they may be at risk for
physical harm and at risk of contact with individuals who abuse drugs and/or alcohol.
{¶11} During the best interest portion of the hearing, Howard testified C.O.,
M.B., and J.B. are together in a foster home and all are bonded with their foster family.
J.C. is feeling comfortable in his new foster situation. The children are affectionate with
their foster families. Howard stated the children need a safe and stable environment
where they do not have to worry about food and shelter. They need a consistent
caregiver who will help them grow and develop, and reach their full potentials.
{¶12} At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court ordered the parties to file
proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law By October 4, 2013. Via four entries
filed October 30, 2013, the trial court overruled Logsdon’s motion for legal custody of all
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re J.C., 2014-Ohio-2743.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. J.C., M.B., J.B., & C.O. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Case No. 13-CA-83, 13-CA-84
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case Nos. 2012AB64, 2012AB65, 2012AB66, and 2012AB67
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 23, 2014
APPEARANCES: For Appellant - For Appellee - Scheena Goldsmith Fairfield County Child Protective Services
JESSICA L. MONGOLD GREGG MARX 123 South Broad Street Prosecuting Attorney Suite 206 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 By: Andrea K. Green Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For CO, JC, MB, JB Fairfield County, Ohio 239 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 TREVOR J. INNOCENTI Lancaster, Ohio 43130 117 W. Main St., Suite 206 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 For Justin Burley, Sr.
Guardian Ad Litem ERIN MCENANEY 23 1/2 - S. Park Place Ste. 207 D JACOB ORT Newark, Ohio 43055 13297 Rustic Drive NW Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} In Fairfield App. No. 13CA83, Appellant Scheena Goldsmith (“Mother”)
appeals the October 30, 3013 entries entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common
Pleas, which terminated her parental rights with respect to her four minor children, C.O.,
J.C., M.B., and J.B., and granted permanent custody of the children to Appellee Fairfield
County Child Protective Services (“FCCPS”). In Fairfield App. No. 13CA84, Appellants
C.O., J.C., M.B., and J.B. appeal the same judgment entries with regard to the trial
court’s denial of the motion for legal custody filed by Donna Logsdon, maternal
grandmother.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of J.C. (dob 9/13/2004), J.B. (dob
2/6/2007). M.B. (dob 2/18/2006), and C.O. (dob 3/25/2009).1 The children were placed
in the custody of FCCPS through a voluntary agreement for care on February 22, 2012.
The voluntary agreement of care was extended on March 23, 2012, and again on April
21, 2012. The trial court placed the children in the temporary shelter care custody of
FCCPS on May 17, 2013. On June 7, 2013, the trial court found the children to be
dependent and placed them in the temporary custody of FCCPS.
{¶3} FCCPS filed a motion for permanent custody on February 11, 2013. On
May 30, 2013, Donna Logsdon filed a motion for legal custody of the children. The trial
court conducted a hearing on the motions on June 4, and September 17, 2013.
{¶4} Alexis Howard, the family-based care caseworker assigned to the family,
testified J.C., J.B., and M.B. were originally together in the same foster home where
1 The biological fathers of the children are not parties to this Appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 3
they had been placed in a prior case. C.O. was placed with a younger brother2 in
another foster home. J.C. was moved several times due to aggressive behavior, which
included destruction of property.
{¶5} Mother’s case plan required her to complete a parent/child interaction
program offered by Denise Gardner at the Lighthouse, attend any parenting classes
specific to the behaviors of her children, participate in school and mental health meeting
regarding J.C.’s behavioral plan, and undergo counseling with the children and her
boyfriend, Steven Troester. Additionally, Mother was to maintain her home and meet
the children’s basic needs. Mother was to follow through with any recommendations
arising from her psychological evaluation.
{¶6} Howard testified Mother did not participate in the Lighthouse program with
Denise Gardner because she (Mother) believed the program was similar to the one she
had completed in a prior case. Howard explained to Mother how the program was
different and how it would benefit her, but Mother refused to participate. Howard
referred Mother to another parenting class, which she did complete, as well as a
parenting support group, which she attended on one occasion. Howard noted, although
Mother reported having a lot of trouble with J.C.’s behavior and occasionally M.B.’s
behavior, Mother did not comply with the aspects of her case plan which directly related
to those issues.
{¶7} Howard indicated Mother failed to obtain and maintain stable housing for
herself and the children. Mother resided with Logsdon during much of the case.
Howard explained Logsdon’s home was not appropriate for the children due to issues of
2 The paternal grandparents of the younger brother were eventually granted legal custody of the child. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 4
domestic violence perpetrated by Logsdon's live-in boyfriend, Charles Kilgore. Mother
was arrested in March, 2013, and was incarcerated in the Fairfield County Jail until
May, 2013, when she was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to three years
in a state penal institution. Mother did not have housing in place for herself and the
children upon her release from prison.
{¶8} Family counseling, which was another aspect of Mother’s case plan, had
commenced, but was not completed due to Mother’s incarceration. With respect to
visitation, Mother had unsupervised visits with the children at Logsdon's residence until
December, 2012. FCCPS terminated unsupervised visits on December 28, 2012, due
to Kilgore being present during visits as well as the animosity between Mother and
Logsdon. Mother had not visited the children since March, 2013, after she was
arrested.
{¶9} Howard expressed concerns regarding Mother’s decision making ability.
Although Mother testified she had been working with her counselor, since August, 2012,
on relationships with safe individuals, Mother continued to become involved with men
with criminal records. Her association with such individuals led to her felony conviction
of attempted robbery. Mother did not see her association with these men as
problematic.
{¶10} With respect to Logsdon, Howard questioned whether the grandmother
had the ability to manage all of the children. Visits between the children and Logsdon
often became out of control. Logsdon continued to reside with Charles Kilgore, who has
a history of domestic violence as well as problems with alcohol abuse. Howard noted Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 5
the children’s need for stability, and expressed concerns that they may be at risk for
physical harm and at risk of contact with individuals who abuse drugs and/or alcohol.
{¶11} During the best interest portion of the hearing, Howard testified C.O.,
M.B., and J.B. are together in a foster home and all are bonded with their foster family.
J.C. is feeling comfortable in his new foster situation. The children are affectionate with
their foster families. Howard stated the children need a safe and stable environment
where they do not have to worry about food and shelter. They need a consistent
caregiver who will help them grow and develop, and reach their full potentials.
{¶12} At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court ordered the parties to file
proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law By October 4, 2013. Via four entries
filed October 30, 2013, the trial court overruled Logsdon’s motion for legal custody of all
of the children, terminated Mother’s parental rights, and granted permanent custody of
the children to FCCPS. On the same date, the trial court filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
{¶13} It is from these judgment entries Mother appeals, raising the following
assignments of error:
{¶14} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FINDING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF J.C., M.B., J.B., AND C.O. TO PERMANENTLY TERMINATE
THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF SCHEENA GOLDSMITH AND PLACE THE MINOR
CHILDREN IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 6
{¶15} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
IT FOUND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT J.C., M.B., J.B. AND C.O.
COULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITH SCHEENA GOLDSMITH WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME."
{¶16} It is from the same the children appeal, asserting the following as error:
{¶17} "I. THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO FAIRFIELD COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES AND DENYING THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENT'S MOTION FOR
LEGAL CUSTODY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE, AS THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST
INTEREST AND THAT THE CHILDREN CANNOT BE PLACED WITH THE
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME."
{¶18} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
MOTHER
I, II
{¶19} We elect to address Mother's assignments of error together. In her first
assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court's finding an award of permanent
custody was in the best interest of the children was against the manifest weight and
sufficiency of the evidence. In her second assignment of error, Mother maintains the
trial court's finding the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time
was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 7
{¶20} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant,
competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment.
Cross Truck v. Jeffries, Stark App. No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of
the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E.
Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶21} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when
deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court
schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody
of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has
temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.
{¶22} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to
grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to
grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child
is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's
parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (b) the
child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who
are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody
of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after
March 18, 1999. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 8
{¶23} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody
hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the
child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home
providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of
the child as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with
due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) the
child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of
placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody.
{¶24} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
{¶25} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should
not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all
relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter
such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the
child's parents.
{¶26} As set forth in our statement of the facts and case, supra, we find there
was competent, credible evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems which caused Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 9
the removal of the children from the home. Mother failed to complete any aspect of her
case plan, in large part due to her incarceration. It was not known whether Mother
would be released in six months or three years. Upon her release, Mother will be
required to reside in a Community Based Correction Facility for a period of four to six
months. This post-release commitment lengthened the amount of time Mother would be
unable to care for the children. In addition, upon her release, Mother intends to live with
Logsdon.
{¶27} With respect to the best interest finding, the evidence revealed the
children are doing well in foster care. They need stability, which Mother is unable to
give them now or in the foreseeable future.
{¶28} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's findings the children
could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time, and an award of permanent
custody was in the children’s best interest were not against the manifest weight of the
evidence and were based upon sufficient evidence.
{¶29} Mother’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
CHILDREN
I
{¶30} In their sole assignment of error, the children submit the trial court's
granting permanent custody to FCCPS and denying Logsdon’s motion for legal custody
was not supported by competent, credible evidence as the record fails to establish by
clear and convincing evidence permanent custody was in the best interest of the
children and fails to establish the children cannot be placed with Logsdon within a
reasonable time. Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-83 and 13-CA-84 10
{¶31} A trial court's determination on legal custody should not be overruled
absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Stull v. Richland Cty. Children Services, 5th
Dist. Nos. 11 CA47, 11 CA48, 2012–Ohio–738. An abuse of discretion is when the trial
court's judgment is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). In this type of dispositional hearing, the
focus must be the best interest of the child. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St .3d 369, 2006–
Ohio–1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188; In re Nawrocki, 5th Dist. No.2004–CA–0028, 2004–Ohio–
4208.
{¶32} For the reasons set forth in our analysis of Mother’s assignments of error,
we overrule this assignment of error.
{¶33} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, J. concur