[Cite as In re M.P., 2019-Ohio-4555.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE M.P. C.A. Nos. 29332 A.J. 29333
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN17-11-000946 DN17-11-000947
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 6, 2019
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, A.F. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her two minor children in the legal
custody of their maternal grandfather (“Grandfather”). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of M.P., born February 23, 2005; and A.J., born
May 9, 2015. The children’s fathers did not appeal the trial court’s judgment.
{¶3} Several years ago, Mother lost custody of M.P. to the child’s father in a domestic
relations case because of her untreated mental health and drug problems. Five years later, M.P.’s
father developed a substance abuse problem. Because Mother had achieved an extended period
of sobriety at that time, the domestic relations court ordered that M.P. return to her custody. 2
{¶4} After the birth of A.J., Mother was involved with Summit County Children
Services Board (“CSB”) on a voluntary basis to address renewed concerns about drug use and
her mental health. On November 20, 2017, CSB filed complaints to open this case, alleging that
A.J. was abused and dependent and that M.P. was a dependent child. CSB later dismissed the
allegations of abuse and Mother stipulated to an adjudication of dependency of both children.
The children were later placed in the temporary custody of CSB.
{¶5} In addition to maintaining stable employment and housing, the case plan required
Mother to obtain assessments for chemical dependency, mental health, and domestic violence
and follow all treatment recommendations. Although Mother recognized that she needed help
and repeatedly told caseworkers that she would engage in treatment, she failed to consistently do
so. Residential treatment was recommended for Mother, but she refused to stay in any program
longer than a minimal period. Her longest period of sobriety during this case was while she
spent 21 days in a 90-day residential treatment program.
{¶6} Mother engaged in some mental health treatment, and her erratic behavior
improved, but she failed to consistently take her medication or attend counseling. Between her
ongoing drug use and her untreated mental health problems, Mother’s inability to get along with
CSB, Grandfather, and her older child was an ongoing problem throughout this case. Mother
accepted no responsibility for her family’s problems but repeatedly blamed others for their
situation.
{¶7} The children were initially placed with paternal grandparents of M.P., but they
were later placed with Grandfather. CSB eventually moved to have both children placed in the
legal custody of Grandfather. Mother later filed an alternative motion for a six-month extension
of temporary custody. 3
{¶8} Following a hearing on the competing dispositional motions, the trial court placed
the children in the legal custody of Grandfather. Mother appeals and raises one assignment of
error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING [CSB’S] MOTION TO MODIFY TEMPORARY CUSTODY TO LEGAL CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND RESULTED IN A MANIFEST MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
{¶9} Mother argues that the trial court committed reversible error by placing her
children in the legal custody of Grandfather rather than granting her alternative motion to extend
temporary custody for another six months. “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency,
or abuse, the juvenile court’s determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a
parent or a relative is based solely on the best interest of the child.” See In re K.H., 9th Dist.
Summit No. 27952, 2016-Ohio-1330, ¶ 12. “Although there is no specific test or set of criteria
set forth in the statutory scheme, courts agree that the trial court must base its decision [regarding
legal custody] on the best interest of the child.” In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-
Ohio-110, ¶ 23, citing In re Fulton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2002-09-236, 2003-Ohio-5984, ¶
11.
{¶10} The trial court was required to conduct a best interest analysis to determine
whether to place the children in the legal custody of Grandfather or to extend temporary custody.
Additionally, the trial court would have had authority to extend temporary custody only if it also
found that Mother had made “significant progress” on the case plan and that there was
reasonable cause to believe that the children would be reunified with her or otherwise
permanently placed during the extension period. R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). As detailed above, 4
Mother had not made significant progress on the reunification goals of the case plan because she
continued to struggle with drug abuse and mental health problems throughout this case and
refused to accept responsibility for her family’s situation.
{¶11} The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors set forth in R.C.
2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-
Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those
factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial
history of the children, and their need for permanence. In re T.A. at ¶ 17. The juvenile court
may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A., 9th
Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010850, 15CA010860, 2017-Ohio-1, ¶ 17. Of relevance here, those
additional factors include the children’s adjustment to their current environments and the mental
and physical health of all persons involved. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).
{¶12} Mother’s interaction with her children during this case had been limited to
supervised visitation because Mother did not comply with the substance abuse and mental health
components of the case plan. She often did not cooperate with the supervisors of her visits and
her attendance at visits was not consistent.
{¶13} Although Mother interacted well with the younger A.J., she had a strained
relationship with M.P., who had been exposed to years of Mother’s drug use and domestic
violence in the home. Although M.P. engaged in counseling during this case to address her past
trauma and strained relationship with Mother, Mother did not. Several witnesses testified that
the relationship between Mother and M.P. did not improve during this case.
{¶14} The children’s ongoing interaction with Grandfather, on the other hand, had been
positive. CSB had no concerns about his ability to meet the needs of both children. The 5
caseworker explained that the children were doing well in his home and were comfortable there.
M.P., who had often played the role of caretaker for A.J. while in Mother’s home, no longer felt
the need to protect her younger sister. M.P. was doing well in school and had become involved
in extracurricular activities.
{¶15} The guardian ad litem testified that M.P., who was almost 14 years old at the time
of the hearing, had consistently expressed her desire to remain in Grandfather’s home. Because
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re M.P., 2019-Ohio-4555.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE M.P. C.A. Nos. 29332 A.J. 29333
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN17-11-000946 DN17-11-000947
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 6, 2019
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, A.F. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed her two minor children in the legal
custody of their maternal grandfather (“Grandfather”). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological mother of M.P., born February 23, 2005; and A.J., born
May 9, 2015. The children’s fathers did not appeal the trial court’s judgment.
{¶3} Several years ago, Mother lost custody of M.P. to the child’s father in a domestic
relations case because of her untreated mental health and drug problems. Five years later, M.P.’s
father developed a substance abuse problem. Because Mother had achieved an extended period
of sobriety at that time, the domestic relations court ordered that M.P. return to her custody. 2
{¶4} After the birth of A.J., Mother was involved with Summit County Children
Services Board (“CSB”) on a voluntary basis to address renewed concerns about drug use and
her mental health. On November 20, 2017, CSB filed complaints to open this case, alleging that
A.J. was abused and dependent and that M.P. was a dependent child. CSB later dismissed the
allegations of abuse and Mother stipulated to an adjudication of dependency of both children.
The children were later placed in the temporary custody of CSB.
{¶5} In addition to maintaining stable employment and housing, the case plan required
Mother to obtain assessments for chemical dependency, mental health, and domestic violence
and follow all treatment recommendations. Although Mother recognized that she needed help
and repeatedly told caseworkers that she would engage in treatment, she failed to consistently do
so. Residential treatment was recommended for Mother, but she refused to stay in any program
longer than a minimal period. Her longest period of sobriety during this case was while she
spent 21 days in a 90-day residential treatment program.
{¶6} Mother engaged in some mental health treatment, and her erratic behavior
improved, but she failed to consistently take her medication or attend counseling. Between her
ongoing drug use and her untreated mental health problems, Mother’s inability to get along with
CSB, Grandfather, and her older child was an ongoing problem throughout this case. Mother
accepted no responsibility for her family’s problems but repeatedly blamed others for their
situation.
{¶7} The children were initially placed with paternal grandparents of M.P., but they
were later placed with Grandfather. CSB eventually moved to have both children placed in the
legal custody of Grandfather. Mother later filed an alternative motion for a six-month extension
of temporary custody. 3
{¶8} Following a hearing on the competing dispositional motions, the trial court placed
the children in the legal custody of Grandfather. Mother appeals and raises one assignment of
error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING [CSB’S] MOTION TO MODIFY TEMPORARY CUSTODY TO LEGAL CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND RESULTED IN A MANIFEST MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
{¶9} Mother argues that the trial court committed reversible error by placing her
children in the legal custody of Grandfather rather than granting her alternative motion to extend
temporary custody for another six months. “Following an adjudication of neglect, dependency,
or abuse, the juvenile court’s determination of whether to place a child in the legal custody of a
parent or a relative is based solely on the best interest of the child.” See In re K.H., 9th Dist.
Summit No. 27952, 2016-Ohio-1330, ¶ 12. “Although there is no specific test or set of criteria
set forth in the statutory scheme, courts agree that the trial court must base its decision [regarding
legal custody] on the best interest of the child.” In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-
Ohio-110, ¶ 23, citing In re Fulton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2002-09-236, 2003-Ohio-5984, ¶
11.
{¶10} The trial court was required to conduct a best interest analysis to determine
whether to place the children in the legal custody of Grandfather or to extend temporary custody.
Additionally, the trial court would have had authority to extend temporary custody only if it also
found that Mother had made “significant progress” on the case plan and that there was
reasonable cause to believe that the children would be reunified with her or otherwise
permanently placed during the extension period. R.C. 2151.415(D)(1). As detailed above, 4
Mother had not made significant progress on the reunification goals of the case plan because she
continued to struggle with drug abuse and mental health problems throughout this case and
refused to accept responsibility for her family’s situation.
{¶11} The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors set forth in R.C.
2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-
Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those
factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial
history of the children, and their need for permanence. In re T.A. at ¶ 17. The juvenile court
may also look to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) for guidance. In re K.A., 9th
Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010850, 15CA010860, 2017-Ohio-1, ¶ 17. Of relevance here, those
additional factors include the children’s adjustment to their current environments and the mental
and physical health of all persons involved. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).
{¶12} Mother’s interaction with her children during this case had been limited to
supervised visitation because Mother did not comply with the substance abuse and mental health
components of the case plan. She often did not cooperate with the supervisors of her visits and
her attendance at visits was not consistent.
{¶13} Although Mother interacted well with the younger A.J., she had a strained
relationship with M.P., who had been exposed to years of Mother’s drug use and domestic
violence in the home. Although M.P. engaged in counseling during this case to address her past
trauma and strained relationship with Mother, Mother did not. Several witnesses testified that
the relationship between Mother and M.P. did not improve during this case.
{¶14} The children’s ongoing interaction with Grandfather, on the other hand, had been
positive. CSB had no concerns about his ability to meet the needs of both children. The 5
caseworker explained that the children were doing well in his home and were comfortable there.
M.P., who had often played the role of caretaker for A.J. while in Mother’s home, no longer felt
the need to protect her younger sister. M.P. was doing well in school and had become involved
in extracurricular activities.
{¶15} The guardian ad litem testified that M.P., who was almost 14 years old at the time
of the hearing, had consistently expressed her desire to remain in Grandfather’s home. Because
of her strained relationship with Mother, M.P. did not want to see Mother until they had resolved
some of their problems through counseling.
{¶16} Because A.J. was three years old at the time of the hearing, the guardian ad litem
spoke on her behalf. She opined that legal custody to Grandfather was in the best interest of both
children because they were doing well in his home and Mother was not prepared to provide them
with a stable home. The guardian ad litem focused on Mother’s continued drug use and her
failure to accept responsibility for her failures as a parent.
{¶17} The custodial history of 14-year-old M.P. had included years of moving back and
forth between the custody of Mother and her father, and two different temporary placements
during this case. Almost four-year-old A.P. had spent most of her life moving between
placements. Both children needed a legally secure permanent placement and had found a stable
home with Grandfather, who was prepared to take legal custody of them.
{¶18} The children had adjusted well to Grandfather’s home during the many months
that they had lived with him. M.P. was succeeding academically and socially at school and was
engaged in activities in that community. Grandfather lives with his sister who provides childcare
for the children while Grandfather works. Grandfather has four other sisters who are also closely
bonded with M.P. and A.J. 6
{¶19} Finally, the trial court considered the physical and mental health of all parties.
There were no physical or mental health concerns about Grandfather, his sister, or A.J. M.P.
needed continued counseling because of the trauma she had experienced in her past and
Grandfather was committed to continuing her in counseling.
{¶20} Mother had suffered for years from untreated mental health and substance abuse
problems and made little progress during this case toward resolving those problems. The trial
court reasonably concluded that those untreated problems prevented Mother from providing
these children with an appropriate home.
{¶21} Given the evidence before the trial court, Mother has failed to demonstrate that
the trial court lost its way in concluding that legal custody to Grandfather was in the best interest
of M.P. and A.J. Mother’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶22} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 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 Summit, 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 7
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
CALLAHAN, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
PAMELA A. HAWKINS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO GUEST, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
LAWRENCE DELINO, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellee Father of A.J.
M.P., pro se, Appellee Father of M.P.
ANNETTE POWERS, Guardian ad Litem.