[Cite as In re K.M., 2012-Ohio-6010.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98545
IN RE: K.M.
A Minor Child
[APPEAL BY MOTHER]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD 10913869
BEFORE: Keough, J., Blackmon, A.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 20, 2012 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
R. Brian Moriarty R. Brian Moriarty, L.L.C. 2000 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Susan M. Walters Assistant Prosecuting Attorney C.C.D.C.F.S. 4361 Fulton Parkway Cleveland, Ohio 44144 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} Appellant-mother (“appellant”), appeals from the judgment of the common
pleas court, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her minor child, K.M., to
appellee, the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services
(“CCDCFS”).1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} Two days after K.M.’s birth, CCDCFS requested and received an ex parte
telephonic order of custody of the minor child. In August 2010, CCDCFS filed a
complaint alleging neglect and dependency and requested a disposition and
pre-disposition of temporary custody of K.M. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted conditional pre-dispositional custody to appellant’s aunt. However, the
following day, CCDCFS filed another motion for pre-dispositional custody and requested
that custody be granted to CCDCFS. This request was granted following an emergency
custody hearing.
{¶3} In September 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing on whether K.M.
should be adjudged neglected and dependent. Although appellant’s counsel was present,
appellant failed to appear without explanation. Following the hearing, K.M. was
adjudicated neglected and dependent.
The parties are referred to herein by their initials or title in accordance with 1
this court’s established policy regarding non-disclosure of identities in juvenile cases. {¶4} On July 6, 2011, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to
permanent custody. Thereafter, a series of pretrials occurred, where appellant’s
attendance was sporadic. Finally, on May 8, 2012, the trial court held an evidentiary
hearing on CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody, and on May 17, the trial court
issued its written decision granting permanent custody of K.M. to CCDCFS and
terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant now appeals from this order.
{¶5} When reviewing a trial court’s judgment in child custody cases, the
appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Masters v.
Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83, 1994-Ohio-483, 630 N.E.2d 665. An abuse of discretion is
more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 73, 523
N.E.2d 846 (1988). An appellate court must adhere to “‘every reasonable presumption in
favor of the lower court’s judgment and finding of facts.’” In re Brodbeck, 97 Ohio
App.3d 652, 659, 647 N.E.2d 240 (3d Dist.1994), quoting Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield, 70
Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 1994-Ohio-432, 638 N.E.2d 533.
{¶6} Where clear and convincing proof is required at trial, a reviewing court will
examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it
to satisfy the requisite degree of proof. In re T.S., 8th Dist. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496,
¶ 24, citing State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). Judgments supported by 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. Id.
{¶7} “Clear and convincing evidence is more than a mere preponderance of the
evidence; it is evidence sufficient to cause a trier of fact to develop a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” T.S. at ¶ 24, citing In re Estate of
Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986).
{¶8} R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when
determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute
requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) granting permanent
custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child and (2) either the child
(a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be
placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is
abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the
child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children
services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
{¶9} In this case, the trial court determined that the second prong of R.C.
2151.414(B)(1) is satisfied because K.M. (a) was abandoned and (b) could not be placed
with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with her
parents. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (b). Appellant contends in her first and second assignments of error that the trial court erred in making these determinations. We note,
however, that the second prong of R.C. 2151.414 is satisfied if one of these factors exists
— K.M. is either determined to be abandoned or that she cannot or should not be placed
with either parent.
{¶10} In finding that K.M. was abandoned, the trial court stated that, “[n]either
parent had contact with the child between November 3, 2011 and May 3, 2012.” R.C.
2151.011(C) provides that “[A] child shall be presumed abandoned when the parents of
the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days,
regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety
days.”
{¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court’s finding of abandonment ignores the
fact that appellant attempted to visit with K.M. in March 2012, however, was unable to
due to the case worker being ill. While appellant may have attempted to visit K.M. in
March 2012, appellant ignores the fact that this attempt was more than 120 after her last
visit with K.M. in November 2011. Accordingly, this attempt occurred after her
presumptive abandonment of the child was already complete. Moreover, and as
CCDCFS points out, appellant failed to appear for scheduled visits in January and
February 2012; thus, there is a question whether appellant would have appeared for the
visit if one had been scheduled in March. We find that appellant’s single attempt to
contact the social worker to arrange a visit in March 2012 does not negate her abandonment of K.M. The evidence presented shows that appellant did not visit K.M.
between November 2011 and May 2012, which is well over the 90-day statutory
presumption of abandonment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re K.M., 2012-Ohio-6010.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98545
IN RE: K.M.
A Minor Child
[APPEAL BY MOTHER]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD 10913869
BEFORE: Keough, J., Blackmon, A.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 20, 2012 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
R. Brian Moriarty R. Brian Moriarty, L.L.C. 2000 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Susan M. Walters Assistant Prosecuting Attorney C.C.D.C.F.S. 4361 Fulton Parkway Cleveland, Ohio 44144 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} Appellant-mother (“appellant”), appeals from the judgment of the common
pleas court, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her minor child, K.M., to
appellee, the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services
(“CCDCFS”).1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} Two days after K.M.’s birth, CCDCFS requested and received an ex parte
telephonic order of custody of the minor child. In August 2010, CCDCFS filed a
complaint alleging neglect and dependency and requested a disposition and
pre-disposition of temporary custody of K.M. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted conditional pre-dispositional custody to appellant’s aunt. However, the
following day, CCDCFS filed another motion for pre-dispositional custody and requested
that custody be granted to CCDCFS. This request was granted following an emergency
custody hearing.
{¶3} In September 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing on whether K.M.
should be adjudged neglected and dependent. Although appellant’s counsel was present,
appellant failed to appear without explanation. Following the hearing, K.M. was
adjudicated neglected and dependent.
The parties are referred to herein by their initials or title in accordance with 1
this court’s established policy regarding non-disclosure of identities in juvenile cases. {¶4} On July 6, 2011, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to
permanent custody. Thereafter, a series of pretrials occurred, where appellant’s
attendance was sporadic. Finally, on May 8, 2012, the trial court held an evidentiary
hearing on CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody, and on May 17, the trial court
issued its written decision granting permanent custody of K.M. to CCDCFS and
terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant now appeals from this order.
{¶5} When reviewing a trial court’s judgment in child custody cases, the
appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Masters v.
Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83, 1994-Ohio-483, 630 N.E.2d 665. An abuse of discretion is
more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 73, 523
N.E.2d 846 (1988). An appellate court must adhere to “‘every reasonable presumption in
favor of the lower court’s judgment and finding of facts.’” In re Brodbeck, 97 Ohio
App.3d 652, 659, 647 N.E.2d 240 (3d Dist.1994), quoting Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield, 70
Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 1994-Ohio-432, 638 N.E.2d 533.
{¶6} Where clear and convincing proof is required at trial, a reviewing court will
examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it
to satisfy the requisite degree of proof. In re T.S., 8th Dist. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496,
¶ 24, citing State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). Judgments supported by 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. Id.
{¶7} “Clear and convincing evidence is more than a mere preponderance of the
evidence; it is evidence sufficient to cause a trier of fact to develop a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” T.S. at ¶ 24, citing In re Estate of
Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986).
{¶8} R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when
determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute
requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) granting permanent
custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child and (2) either the child
(a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be
placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is
abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the
child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children
services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
{¶9} In this case, the trial court determined that the second prong of R.C.
2151.414(B)(1) is satisfied because K.M. (a) was abandoned and (b) could not be placed
with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with her
parents. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (b). Appellant contends in her first and second assignments of error that the trial court erred in making these determinations. We note,
however, that the second prong of R.C. 2151.414 is satisfied if one of these factors exists
— K.M. is either determined to be abandoned or that she cannot or should not be placed
with either parent.
{¶10} In finding that K.M. was abandoned, the trial court stated that, “[n]either
parent had contact with the child between November 3, 2011 and May 3, 2012.” R.C.
2151.011(C) provides that “[A] child shall be presumed abandoned when the parents of
the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days,
regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety
days.”
{¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court’s finding of abandonment ignores the
fact that appellant attempted to visit with K.M. in March 2012, however, was unable to
due to the case worker being ill. While appellant may have attempted to visit K.M. in
March 2012, appellant ignores the fact that this attempt was more than 120 after her last
visit with K.M. in November 2011. Accordingly, this attempt occurred after her
presumptive abandonment of the child was already complete. Moreover, and as
CCDCFS points out, appellant failed to appear for scheduled visits in January and
February 2012; thus, there is a question whether appellant would have appeared for the
visit if one had been scheduled in March. We find that appellant’s single attempt to
contact the social worker to arrange a visit in March 2012 does not negate her abandonment of K.M. The evidence presented shows that appellant did not visit K.M.
between November 2011 and May 2012, which is well over the 90-day statutory
presumption of abandonment.
{¶12} Appellant also argues that her lack of transportation should have been
considered by the trial court. We find her arguments unpersuasive because appellant
never raised the issue of lack of transportation with the social worker until May 3, 2012.
When appellant attempted to cancel yet again this scheduled visit due to lack of
transportation, the social worker provided the appellant with transportation so the visit
could take place.
{¶13} Accordingly, even though appellant visited with K.M. in May 2012, the trial
court’s finding of abandonment was supported by competent and credible evidence where
the evidence showed that no visitation occurred for 120 days. Accordingly, this finding
of abandonment is sufficient to satisfy the second prong of R.C. 2151.414(B).
{¶14} Having determined that the trial court’s decision in finding abandonment
was not an abuse of discretion, we find that the second prong of R.C. 2151.414(B) is
satisfied. Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of error, also challenging the
second prong of R.C. 2151.414, i.e., that K.M. could not be placed with either parent
within a reasonable period of time because appellant “failed continuously and repeatedly
to substantially remedy the conditions” causing K.M. to be removed, is moot.2
Appellant has not raised any argument on appeal challenging the trial court’s determination 2 {¶15} Accordingly, the termination of appellant’s parental rights was supported
by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court granting permanent custody of
K.M. to CCDCFS. Appellant’s assignments of error are overruled.
{¶16} 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 be sent to said court 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.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
that permanent custody to CCDCFS is in K.M.’s best interests.