[Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. IN RE T.A. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : : Case No. 2012CA00029 : : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2009 JCV 01439
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Mother-Appellant: For Appellee:
JENNIFER A. ROBERTS JERRY A. COLEMAN 122 Central Plaza North, Suite B3 Stark County DJFS Canton, OH 44702 221 – 3rd St. SE Canton, OH 44702 [Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Mother-Appellant Jessica Yarnell appeals the January 23, 2012
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division to grant
permanent custody of T.A. to Appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family
Services (“SCDJFS”).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Mother is the mother of T.A., born June 29, 2006, and S.Y., born October
23, 2008. S.Y. is not part of this action because on June 3, 2011, the child was placed
in the legal custody of the child’s father. T.A.’s father has not appeared in this action.
{¶3} On November 9, 2009, SCDJFS filed a complaint requesting T.A. be
placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. At the time of the filing, the concerns
were the lack of parental supervision and parental drug use. T.A. was demonstrating
aggressive behaviors towards S.Y., such as pouring Comet cleanser on the child
causing chemical burns. The shelter care hearing was held on November 12, 2009
and T.A. was placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS.
{¶4} On January 29, 2010, the trial court found T.A. to be neglected and
continued his temporary custody with SCDJFS. The trial court adopted a case plan
for Mother to complete a parenting evaluation at Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health
and follow any recommendations; complete a Quest drug assessment; engage in
counseling; complete Goodwill’s parenting program; and participate in Intensive
Parent Child Interaction (IPCI) therapy. In addition, Mother was not to permit T.A. to
be around the maternal grandparents due to their pervasive marijuana use. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 3
{¶5} SCDJFS was granted two six-month extensions of temporary custody.
Mother was working on her case plan by completing her parenting evaluation, the
Goodwill Parenting program, IPCI, and the Quest assessment. Mother was engaged
in mental health counseling. Mother had appropriate housing for T.A.
{¶6} On June 14, 2011, SCDJFS attempted reunification of the family by
placing T.A. on an extended visit with Mother. As part of the extended visit, Mother
was to take T.A. to protective daycare, continue his counseling with Child and
Adolescent Behavioral Health, and to abide by the court order prohibiting contact
between T.A. and his maternal grandparents. Mother was also to remain compliant
with her services and to refrain from using illegal substances.
{¶7} During the extended visit, Mother did not take T.A. to his counseling or to
protective daycare. Mother permitted T.A. to visit with his maternal grandparents.
Mother also missed her counseling appointments. She was not in counseling in June,
July, August, and September.
{¶8} During the extended visit, Mother tested positive for marijuana use. She
tested positive on July 26, August 1, August 10, and August 23.
{¶9} SCDJFS removed T.A. from Mother’s care on August 1, 2011 and
returned him to his foster home.
{¶10} In September 2011, Mother’s visitation with T.A. was terminated because
of T.A.’s negative reactions to the visits. T.A. had tantrums, defecated in his pants,
and hit people after visitation with Mother due to her confusing messages to T.A.
Mother told T.A. his foster mother was his “fake mom” and T.A. did not have to listen
to her. With the termination of visitation, T.A.’s outbursts and negative behavior were Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 4
less dramatic and less frequent. T.A. receives services for his emotional and
behavioral concerns through Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Northeast Ohio
Behavioral Health, and Akron Children’s Hospital. T.A. is bonded with his foster
family.
{¶11} Dr. Aimee Thomas of Northeast Behavioral Health Services examined
Mother for her parenting evaluations. During her assessment, Mother admitted to
smoking marijuana all day, every day when she was parenting her children. Dr.
Thomas felt Mother’s drug usage directly contributed to Mother’s poor supervision of
her children. Dr. Thomas recommended that Mother demonstrate nine months of
sobriety before placing T.A. with Mother.
{¶12} T.A. has been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS since November 12,
2009. SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody on September 16, 2011.
{¶13} The Guardian ad litem recommended that SCDJFS be granted
permanent custody of T.A.
{¶14} On January 22, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for
permanent custody. The trial court granted the motion for permanent custody on
January 23, 2012. It is from this decision Mother now appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶15} Mother raises two Assignments of Error:
{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 5
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR
CHILDREN TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY.
{¶17} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING GROUNDS FOR
PERMANENT CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
ANALYSIS
I., II.
{¶18} We consider Mother’s first and second Assignments of Error together.
{¶19} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there
is relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base
his or her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911
(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 Construction, 54
Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). Furthermore, it is well established that the
trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., In
re Brown, 9th Dist. No. 21004, 2002–Ohio–3405, ¶ 9, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio
St .2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967).
{¶20} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) reads as follows: “Except as provided in division
(B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if
the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by
clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 6
permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent
custody and that any of the following apply:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. IN RE T.A. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : : Case No. 2012CA00029 : : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division, Case No. 2009 JCV 01439
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 7, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Mother-Appellant: For Appellee:
JENNIFER A. ROBERTS JERRY A. COLEMAN 122 Central Plaza North, Suite B3 Stark County DJFS Canton, OH 44702 221 – 3rd St. SE Canton, OH 44702 [Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Mother-Appellant Jessica Yarnell appeals the January 23, 2012
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division to grant
permanent custody of T.A. to Appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family
Services (“SCDJFS”).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Mother is the mother of T.A., born June 29, 2006, and S.Y., born October
23, 2008. S.Y. is not part of this action because on June 3, 2011, the child was placed
in the legal custody of the child’s father. T.A.’s father has not appeared in this action.
{¶3} On November 9, 2009, SCDJFS filed a complaint requesting T.A. be
placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. At the time of the filing, the concerns
were the lack of parental supervision and parental drug use. T.A. was demonstrating
aggressive behaviors towards S.Y., such as pouring Comet cleanser on the child
causing chemical burns. The shelter care hearing was held on November 12, 2009
and T.A. was placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS.
{¶4} On January 29, 2010, the trial court found T.A. to be neglected and
continued his temporary custody with SCDJFS. The trial court adopted a case plan
for Mother to complete a parenting evaluation at Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health
and follow any recommendations; complete a Quest drug assessment; engage in
counseling; complete Goodwill’s parenting program; and participate in Intensive
Parent Child Interaction (IPCI) therapy. In addition, Mother was not to permit T.A. to
be around the maternal grandparents due to their pervasive marijuana use. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 3
{¶5} SCDJFS was granted two six-month extensions of temporary custody.
Mother was working on her case plan by completing her parenting evaluation, the
Goodwill Parenting program, IPCI, and the Quest assessment. Mother was engaged
in mental health counseling. Mother had appropriate housing for T.A.
{¶6} On June 14, 2011, SCDJFS attempted reunification of the family by
placing T.A. on an extended visit with Mother. As part of the extended visit, Mother
was to take T.A. to protective daycare, continue his counseling with Child and
Adolescent Behavioral Health, and to abide by the court order prohibiting contact
between T.A. and his maternal grandparents. Mother was also to remain compliant
with her services and to refrain from using illegal substances.
{¶7} During the extended visit, Mother did not take T.A. to his counseling or to
protective daycare. Mother permitted T.A. to visit with his maternal grandparents.
Mother also missed her counseling appointments. She was not in counseling in June,
July, August, and September.
{¶8} During the extended visit, Mother tested positive for marijuana use. She
tested positive on July 26, August 1, August 10, and August 23.
{¶9} SCDJFS removed T.A. from Mother’s care on August 1, 2011 and
returned him to his foster home.
{¶10} In September 2011, Mother’s visitation with T.A. was terminated because
of T.A.’s negative reactions to the visits. T.A. had tantrums, defecated in his pants,
and hit people after visitation with Mother due to her confusing messages to T.A.
Mother told T.A. his foster mother was his “fake mom” and T.A. did not have to listen
to her. With the termination of visitation, T.A.’s outbursts and negative behavior were Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 4
less dramatic and less frequent. T.A. receives services for his emotional and
behavioral concerns through Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Northeast Ohio
Behavioral Health, and Akron Children’s Hospital. T.A. is bonded with his foster
family.
{¶11} Dr. Aimee Thomas of Northeast Behavioral Health Services examined
Mother for her parenting evaluations. During her assessment, Mother admitted to
smoking marijuana all day, every day when she was parenting her children. Dr.
Thomas felt Mother’s drug usage directly contributed to Mother’s poor supervision of
her children. Dr. Thomas recommended that Mother demonstrate nine months of
sobriety before placing T.A. with Mother.
{¶12} T.A. has been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS since November 12,
2009. SCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody on September 16, 2011.
{¶13} The Guardian ad litem recommended that SCDJFS be granted
permanent custody of T.A.
{¶14} On January 22, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for
permanent custody. The trial court granted the motion for permanent custody on
January 23, 2012. It is from this decision Mother now appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶15} Mother raises two Assignments of Error:
{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT
CUSTODY TO THE STARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES (SCDJFS) AS SCDJFS FAILED TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 5
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR
CHILDREN TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY.
{¶17} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING GROUNDS FOR
PERMANENT CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
ANALYSIS
I., II.
{¶18} We consider Mother’s first and second Assignments of Error together.
{¶19} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there
is relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base
his or her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911
(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 Construction, 54
Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). Furthermore, it is well established that the
trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., In
re Brown, 9th Dist. No. 21004, 2002–Ohio–3405, ¶ 9, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio
St .2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967).
{¶20} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) reads as follows: “Except as provided in division
(B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if
the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by
clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 6
permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent
custody and that any of the following apply:
{¶21} “(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the
temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child
placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period,
* * * 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.
{¶22} “* * *
{¶23} “(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months
of a consecutive twenty-two month period * * *.”
{¶24} In this case, the trial court found T.A. had been in the temporary custody
of SCDJFS for a period greater than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
We find the record supports this conclusion.
{¶25} The trial court went on to make a determination that T.A. could not be
placed with either parent within a reasonable time nor should T.A. be placed with
either parent. In determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent
within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, a trial
court is to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414(E),
including whether or not “[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's
home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the
agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to
be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 7
substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's
home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those
conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric,
psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that
were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to
allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.” See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).
{¶26} T.A. was removed from Mother’s care because of her drug dependency,
which affected her ability to supervise her children and meet T.A.’s needs. Mother
complied with her case plan and abstained from drug usage when T.A. was
temporarily removed from Mother’s care. Based on Mother’s compliance, SCDJFS
reunified Mother and T.A. with the goal of permanent reunification. Within weeks of
T.A. being in her care, Mother resumed using marijuana and failed to do the things
necessary to care for T.A. and herself. Mother did complete her case plan, but could
not maintain her success while caring for T.A. The evidence shows that T.A. requires
structure and consistency but Mother cannot provide those things while she is drug
dependent.
{¶27} The trial court next determined it was in T.A.’s best interests to be placed
in the permanent custody of SCDJFS. It is well-established that “[t]he discretion which
the juvenile court enjoys in determining whether an order of permanent custody is in
the best interest of a child should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of
the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives of the
parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 8
1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000) quoting In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d
424 (1994).
{¶28} In determining the best interest of a child for purposes of permanent
custody disposition, the trial court is required to consider the factors contained in R.C.
2151.414(D). These factors are as follows:
{¶29} “(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
parents, siblings, relatives, foster care givers and out-of-home providers, and any
other person who may significantly affect the child;
{¶30} “(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;
{¶31} “(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or
private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two
month period * * *;
{¶32} “(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
to the agency;
{¶33} “(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.”
{¶34} T.A. has a history of oppositional and aggressive behavior. He first
came to the attention of SCDJFS because he poured Comet cleanser on his younger
sibling, causing chemical burns. He was removed from two daycare programs
because of his aggressive behavior. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 9
{¶35} Mother had visitation with T.A. until September 2011, when Mother told
him his foster mother was his “fake mom” and he did not have to listen to her. During
that time, T.A.’s behaviors degenerated into temper tantrums, aggression, and soiling
his pants. He put a child in his daycare into a chokehold. When the visitation
terminated, T.A.’s behavior improved.
{¶36} T.A. is in a foster-to-adopt home. He has resided with the family for two
years and is bonded with the family. The foster family meets T.A.’s needs and
provides him the structure he requires.
{¶37} The Guardian ad litem recommended it would be in T.A.’s best interests
to be placed in the permanent custody of SCDJFS.
{¶38} Based on this record, we find no error in the trial court’s determination it
would be in the best interests for T.A. to be placed in the permanent custody of
SCDJFS. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00029 10
CONCLUSION
{¶39} Mother’s first and second Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶40} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court
Division, is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
PAD:kgb [Cite as In re T.A., 2012-Ohio-2048.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: : : IN RE T.A. : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY : : : : Case No. 2012CA00029 :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division is affirmed. Costs
assessed to Appellant.