In re J.M-R.
| Decision Date | 18 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 98902,98902 |
| Citation | 2013 Ohio 1560 |
| Parties | In re: J.M-R. Minor Child |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Timothy R. Sterkel
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Jay L. Mattes
Melinda J. Annandale
Amy L. Habinski
{¶1} Appellant-mother, T.M.1 ("mother"), appeals the juvenile court's judgment granting permanent custody of her minor child, J.M-R. (d.o.b. November 3, 2011), to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or "the agency"). She raises three assignments of error for our review:
{¶2} Finding no merit to her appeal, we affirm.
{¶3} On November 4, 2011, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that J.M-R. was a dependent child and requesting a disposition of permanent custody. After a hearing on CCDCFS's motion, the agency was granted predispositional temporary custody of J.M-R. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for mother and a guardian ad litem for J.M-R.
{¶4} On March 12, 2012, mother filed a motion for legal custody, requesting that she be granted legal custody of J.M-R., or in the alternative, that legal custody be granted to the maternal grandmother, M.M., or the child's cousin, N.M. {¶5} On March 20, 2012, the child's guardian ad litem, Melinda Annandale, submitted a report to the court stating that it was her opinion that it was in the child's best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS. Annandale explained that she had been involved with mother since August 14, 2009. She was the guardian ad litem for mother's other two children who had been permanently removed from mother and father. She stated that the alleged father "has never made an appearance nor made his whereabouts known to me." She stated that mother was cooperative and expressed her desire to rear her children, but that she had been diagnosed with learning disabilities and limited intellectual capabilities. Annandale opined that reunification would require significant support from other adults, but that there was no suitable person available. Annandale further stated that no relative was suitable for placement. According to Annandale, father had not engaged in any case plan services. Mother had made attempts, but had not, or could not, follow through. She explained that mother did complete a parenting class, but failed to benefit from it. Further, mother has had multiple opportunities to establish her own residence to provide basic needs, but "it just never happens." Since the case had not been tried, Annandale reserved the right to change her recommendation.
{¶6} On June 20, 2012, mother and alleged father, D.R., admitted to an amended complaint alleging dependency, including (1) mother and alleged father had two children permanently removed from their care due to physical abuse of one of the children and both were placed in permanent custody in July 2011; (2) mother and alleged father had adomestically violent relationship, and mother needs domestic violence services; (3) mother has developmental delays; (4) mother had independent supportive housing for herself and resides with alleged father; (5) mother engaged in parenting classes and needs to re-engage; (6) alleged father needs to engage in parenting classes; (7) alleged father needs substance abuse treatment; and (8) alleged father needs to visit child and has attempted to establish paternity. Subsequently, the court adjudicated J.M-R. to be a dependent child.
{¶7} The court held a permanent custody hearing on July 31, 2012. Present at the hearing were mother, mother's counsel, mother's guardian ad litem, the guardian ad litem for J.M-R., counsel for CCDCFS, and Michelene Willis, the CCDCFS social worker assigned to the case.
{¶8} Willis testified that she got involved with mother and father when the agency obtained emergency custody of their two older children, born November 14, 2008 and January 4, 2010, after the oldest child suffered multiple leg fractures when he was in father's care. The leg fractures were at different stages of healing when Willis was assigned to the case. This oldest child also had other injuries, including bruising on his face and a burn on his thumb. Willis testified that the agency received permanent custody of these children in June 2011. CCDCFS became involved with J.M-R. because mother became pregnant with him while she still had an active case with the agency. Because neither mother nor father had completed their case plans for the other children, the agency removed J.M-R. from mother and father at birth.
{¶9} Regarding J.M-R., Willis testified that mother's case plan for all three children included a mental health component. Mother did not comply with this part of her case plan with the other two children or with J.M-R. Willis explained that mother had a psychological evaluation through the court clinic. It found that mother has borderline intellectual capabilities. Mother was referred for mental health counseling. This counselor was assigned to not only assist mother with mental health counseling, but also to assist mother with all of the other components of her case plan. Although mother initially went to her appointments, she stopped going.
{¶10} Regarding mother's parenting component of her case plan, Willis testified that mother attended 15 of 18 parenting classes at the YWCA and did not receive her certificate. Mother was subsequently referred to two other parenting classes through Beech Brook and Carl Stokes, but she did not complete either of those programs.
{¶11} Willis testified that mother was supposed to receive domestic violence services as part of her case plan. Mother was referred to the YWCA for its seven-week domestic violence program. Although mother attended "the seven classes," she did not obtain a certificate because she failed to complete the final phase of the program that included her preparing a safety plan and giving it to the instructor.
{¶12} According to Willis, mother and father lived together in a two-bedroom house. Mother and father admitted to a domestic violence history that included pushing each other. Father admitted to putting "his hands on" mother in the past. Father never completed a domestic violence program. Although Willis agreed that there had not beenany domestic violence in their home since father had moved in, Willis explained that there were safety concerns because mother still lived with father.
{¶13} Willis further testified that mother never obtained a stable job, which was part of her case plan.
{¶14} Willis testified that father never completed any of his case plan. He had not established paternity. He did have a substance abuse assessment, but never followed through with the recommendations. Father never submitted to any random drug tests, although he admitted to smoking marijuana. Father never completed domestic violence classes, parenting classes, or provided proof of a stable income. Willis also stated that since the agency had obtained emergency custody of J.M-R., father had only visited him three times.
{¶15} Willis did not know definitively how many times mother had visited J.M-R., but said that mother visited him about once a month. Willis transports J.M-R. to each visit with mother and supervises the visits. Willis said that the majority of the time J.M-R. cries the "entire visit."
{¶16} Willis testified that J.M-R. was placed in a foster-to-adopt home. She stated that J.M-R. was doing well and was "developmentally on target." According to Willis, J.M-R. is very bonded to his foster family and his extended foster family. When Willis takes him back to the foster home, he is "excited to be back home and he calms down."
{¶17} Willis testified that the agency investigated relatives to take custody of J.M-R. She stated that a paternal aunt's home study was denied due to drug-related convictions. A maternal cousin was rejected due to a 2004 felony burglary conviction, plus she had a prior history with CCDCFS and Lorain County children services, with a substantiated sexual abuse allegation. The maternal grandmother was also investigated. Willis testified that at first the grandmother told her a few months before the permanent custody hearing that she did not want custody of J.M-R. because "she wanted to get her life together." Willis said that the maternal grandmother still had two minor children in her custody, out of six or seven children. The maternal grandmother had a history with CCDCFS, including seven or eight referrals, with four being substantiated or indicated. Grandmother did visit with J.M-R. approximately 40 percent of the time, but according to Willis, J.M-R. was not bonded to the grandmother. The grandmother also had a prior drug trafficking conviction.
{¶18} Mother had several witnesses testify against permanent custody. The maternal grandmother testified that she had been visiting J.M-R. since he was born. She testified that she wanted legal custody of him. She stated that she had not had a drug trafficking conviction since 1991. She had seven children, two still at home. Mother was actually born while she was in prison for her drug trafficking conviction. While grandmother was in prison, her other...
To continue reading
Request your trial