[Cite as In re M.D., 2019-Ohio-1930.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
IN RE: M.D. C.A. No. 18CA0085-M P.C.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE Nos. 2015 12 AB 0048 2015 12 DE 0049
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 20, 2019
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, P.C. (“Father”), appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights and placed his two minor
children in the permanent custody of Medina County Job and Family Services (“MCJFS”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Father is the biological father of M.D., born October 30, 2007; and P.C., born
May 16, 2016. The children’s mother did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment.
{¶3} M.D. and P.C. were removed from the custody of their parents during December
2015 because of prior cases involving the parents and the fact that M.D. came to school with
bruises on his body, which were determined to be the result of excessive physical discipline by
Father. Father was later convicted of felony domestic violence. At the time of his conviction,
Father was on post-release control for a conviction of unlawful sexual contact with a minor. 2
{¶4} Both children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary custody of
MCJFS. Because Father had a long history of domestic violence and drug-related convictions,
the case plan focused primarily on him demonstrating that he could control his anger and
maintain sobriety. Father failed to cooperate with MCJFS, however, and continued to exhibit
hostile and intimidating behavior toward caseworkers, the mother of his children, and other
service providers. Father did not submit to drug testing as required and admitted that he
continued to use alcohol. Father admitted that he continued to drink alcohol because that was his
right.
{¶5} On November 9, 2017, MCJFS moved for permanent custody of both children.
Shortly afterward, Father was arrested, and later convicted, of operating a vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol. The final dispositional hearing was continued by agreement of the
parties so that MCJFS could conduct a home study of a potential kinship placement for the
children. The matter ultimately proceeded to a hearing during July 2018.
{¶6} Following a four-day hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights and placed
both children in the permanent custody of MCJFS. Father appeals and raises one assignment of
error.
II.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and abused its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights and granting permanent custody to [MCJFS].
{¶7} Father’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court’s permanent custody
decision was not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Although he states both an
abuse of discretion and manifest weight standard of review, the appropriate standard of review to
address the argument that he has raised is whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of 3
the evidence. In re T.K., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28720, 2017-Ohio-9135, ¶ 7. To determine
whether the permanent custody judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this
Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses
and determines 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 [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id.
{¶8} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent
custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both
prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the
temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the
child or another child in a parent’s custody has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent
on three separate occasions; or the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable
time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E);
and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based
on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996).
{¶9} The trial court found that MCJFS satisfied the first prong of the permanent
custody test because, among other reasons, the children had been in the temporary custody of
MCJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. See R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d). Father does not dispute that finding, which is fully supported by the record.
{¶10} Instead, Father challenges the trial court’s finding that permanent custody was in
the best interest of both children. When determining the children’s best interest under R.C.
2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and 4
interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial history of the children, the need for
permanence in their lives, and whether any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11)
apply to the facts of the case. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834 and
24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11.
{¶11} Pursuant to the terms of his post-release control stemming from the domestic
violence conviction, Father was prohibited from having any contact with M.D., the victim of the
crime, and was permitted to have only supervised contact with P.C. Because Father was
incarcerated two different times during this case, he had no contact with P.C. during those
periods.
{¶12} The children are closely bonded to each other and had lived together in the same
foster home for more than two years. Several witnesses testified that the children were close to
the foster family and were doing very well in that home. The foster parents had engaged the
children in many activities, kept them on a consistent schedule, and worked with their counselors
and others to assure that their needs were met. Through ongoing counseling and the structure
and stability of the foster home, the mental health and behavior of each child had improved
significantly.
{¶13} The paternal grandmother, who had visited the children during this case, testified
that the children were doing much better in the foster home and that she believed that they
should stay there. She recognized that M.D. had not felt safe living with Father. The children’s
mother also testified that M.D. was afraid of Father and that she believed the children should stay
with the foster family. She admitted that she and Father had not been good parents and that the
foster parents were meeting all of her children’s needs. 5
{¶14} Each child had consistently expressed a desire to stay with the foster family.
M.D. had said that he feels safe in that home and that his only desire to see Father was for him to
apologize for harming him. The guardian ad litem also opined that permanent custody was in the
best interest of the children because the parents had made little progress on the goals of the case
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re M.D., 2019-Ohio-1930.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
IN RE: M.D. C.A. No. 18CA0085-M P.C.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE Nos. 2015 12 AB 0048 2015 12 DE 0049
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 20, 2019
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, P.C. (“Father”), appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights and placed his two minor
children in the permanent custody of Medina County Job and Family Services (“MCJFS”). This
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Father is the biological father of M.D., born October 30, 2007; and P.C., born
May 16, 2016. The children’s mother did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment.
{¶3} M.D. and P.C. were removed from the custody of their parents during December
2015 because of prior cases involving the parents and the fact that M.D. came to school with
bruises on his body, which were determined to be the result of excessive physical discipline by
Father. Father was later convicted of felony domestic violence. At the time of his conviction,
Father was on post-release control for a conviction of unlawful sexual contact with a minor. 2
{¶4} Both children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary custody of
MCJFS. Because Father had a long history of domestic violence and drug-related convictions,
the case plan focused primarily on him demonstrating that he could control his anger and
maintain sobriety. Father failed to cooperate with MCJFS, however, and continued to exhibit
hostile and intimidating behavior toward caseworkers, the mother of his children, and other
service providers. Father did not submit to drug testing as required and admitted that he
continued to use alcohol. Father admitted that he continued to drink alcohol because that was his
right.
{¶5} On November 9, 2017, MCJFS moved for permanent custody of both children.
Shortly afterward, Father was arrested, and later convicted, of operating a vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol. The final dispositional hearing was continued by agreement of the
parties so that MCJFS could conduct a home study of a potential kinship placement for the
children. The matter ultimately proceeded to a hearing during July 2018.
{¶6} Following a four-day hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights and placed
both children in the permanent custody of MCJFS. Father appeals and raises one assignment of
error.
II.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and abused its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights and granting permanent custody to [MCJFS].
{¶7} Father’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court’s permanent custody
decision was not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Although he states both an
abuse of discretion and manifest weight standard of review, the appropriate standard of review to
address the argument that he has raised is whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of 3
the evidence. In re T.K., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28720, 2017-Ohio-9135, ¶ 7. To determine
whether the permanent custody judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this
Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses
and determines 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 [hearing] ordered.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id.
{¶8} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent
custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both
prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the
temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the
child or another child in a parent’s custody has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent
on three separate occasions; or the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable
time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E);
and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based
on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996).
{¶9} The trial court found that MCJFS satisfied the first prong of the permanent
custody test because, among other reasons, the children had been in the temporary custody of
MCJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. See R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d). Father does not dispute that finding, which is fully supported by the record.
{¶10} Instead, Father challenges the trial court’s finding that permanent custody was in
the best interest of both children. When determining the children’s best interest under R.C.
2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and 4
interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial history of the children, the need for
permanence in their lives, and whether any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11)
apply to the facts of the case. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834 and
24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11.
{¶11} Pursuant to the terms of his post-release control stemming from the domestic
violence conviction, Father was prohibited from having any contact with M.D., the victim of the
crime, and was permitted to have only supervised contact with P.C. Because Father was
incarcerated two different times during this case, he had no contact with P.C. during those
periods.
{¶12} The children are closely bonded to each other and had lived together in the same
foster home for more than two years. Several witnesses testified that the children were close to
the foster family and were doing very well in that home. The foster parents had engaged the
children in many activities, kept them on a consistent schedule, and worked with their counselors
and others to assure that their needs were met. Through ongoing counseling and the structure
and stability of the foster home, the mental health and behavior of each child had improved
significantly.
{¶13} The paternal grandmother, who had visited the children during this case, testified
that the children were doing much better in the foster home and that she believed that they
should stay there. She recognized that M.D. had not felt safe living with Father. The children’s
mother also testified that M.D. was afraid of Father and that she believed the children should stay
with the foster family. She admitted that she and Father had not been good parents and that the
foster parents were meeting all of her children’s needs. 5
{¶14} Each child had consistently expressed a desire to stay with the foster family.
M.D. had said that he feels safe in that home and that his only desire to see Father was for him to
apologize for harming him. The guardian ad litem also opined that permanent custody was in the
best interest of the children because the parents had made little progress on the goals of the case
plan, so reunification was not possible, and the children were thriving in the foster home.
{¶15} For the first four years of M.D.’s life, Father was incarcerated for manufacturing
drugs and did not see the child. By the time of the hearing, the custodial history of the children
in this case had included more than two years living in the temporary custody of MCJFS. In
other words, M.D. had spent more than six years living outside Father’s custody, with little or no
contact, and P.C. had spent approximately half of his life living in a temporary placement during
this case. Both children needed a legally secure permanent placement and MCJFS had found no
suitable relatives to provide such a placement. Although Father proposed family friends to take
custody, they did not follow through with visitation or any recommended services until after
MCJFS moved for permanent custody.
{¶16} During the lengthy period that this case was pending, Father made little effort to
work toward reunification and continued to exhibit the same problems that existed when this
case began. He had not resolved his anger management problems, nor had he achieved sobriety
and, in fact, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol while this case was pending.
Notably, Father accepted no responsibility for his children being removed from his custody or
for his domestic violence conviction. Although he had entered a plea of no contest, he testified
that he did not believe that he had abused M.D. because he “got a lot worse [discipline] growing
up.” He further testified that, under the same circumstances, he would probably hit the child
with a belt again because “[t]hat’s my right as a parent.” 6
{¶17} The evidence before the trial court supported its conclusion that permanent
custody was in the best interest of these children. Father’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶18} Father’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT 7
TEODOSIO, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ERIC D. HALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
AMANDA CASALINUOVO, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
JEREMY SZUCS, Guardian ad Litem.