In re M.H.
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 1680 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 111145 |
| Parties | IN RE: M.H., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal by D.P., Mother] |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD-17-914799 and AD-21-907095
The Law Office of R. Tadd Pinkston LLC, and R. Tadd Pinkston, for appellant.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶1} Appellant-mother, D.P. ("Mother"), appeals the juvenile court's decision terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of her minor children, M.H and M.R.P., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("agency"). Mother raises the following assignment of error for review:
The trial court erred in its R.C. 2151.414 analysis to the prejudice of Mother in that [the] court's award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
For the following reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
{¶2} The agency first became involved with Mother in 2016, prior to the births of M.H. and M.R.P. At that time, Mother was raising two boys with their father ("Father"). The agency filed complaints on the boys' behalf and created case plans for Mother and Father that addressed parenting, domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and housing.[1] The two brothers were ultimately placed in the legal custody of a paternal aunt, and they are not involved in the current proceedings.
{¶3} On September 28, 2017, during the pendency of the boys' cases, M.H. was born to Mother and Father. On September 29, 2017, the agency filed a complaint in Cuyahoga J.C. No. AD-17-914799 for dependency and temporary custody of M.H. On October 2, 2017, the court granted the agency's preadjudicatory motion for temporary custody of M.H. The agency placed M.H. in the custodial care of a foster family with whom M.H. remained throughout the duration of her case. The agency also modified Mother's and Father's case plans to include M.H. On November 14, 2017, the court appointed counsel for Father and a guardian ad litem ("GAL") for M.H.
{¶4} Father did not substantially comply with his case plan and last spoke with an agency social worker in 2017. Father is not a party to this appeal.
{¶5} The court adjudicated M.H. dependent on March 6, 2018. On May 2, 2018, the juvenile court granted temporary custody of M.H. to the agency and noted the goal of reunification with Mother.[2] On August 10, 2018, the agency filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody.
{¶6} On March 27, 2020, Mother filed a motion that requested the court grant legal custody of M.H. to her paternal aunt. On September 2, 2020, M.H.'s foster parents filed a motion for legal custody of M.H. The juvenile court denied the foster parents' motion for legal custody on September 8, 2020.
{¶7} M.R.P. was born to Mother on March 2, 2021. Mother identified M.R.P.'s father as "Jerome Doe." M.R.P.'s father was not involved in the agency's case plan and was not a party to the underlying action.[3] Due to several factors - the agency's ongoing involvement with Mother since 2016, the prior placement of two of Mother's children with a legal custodian, and the pending action for permanent custody of M.H. - the agency found it was in the best interest of M.R.P. to assume emergency custody of the child within 24 hours of her delivery. The juvenile court committed M.R.P. to the predispositional temporary custody of the agency on March 5, 2021. The agency placed M.R.P. in the foster home where her older sister, M.H., already resided.
{¶8} The juvenile court held a hearing on March 8, 2021, during which it considered the agency's motion for permanent custody of M.H. and Mother's motion for legal custody of M.H. to the paternal aunt. At the start of the hearing, Mother's attorney moved for a continuance of the trial. The basis of the motion was that Mother gave birth to M.R.P. the week before and could not attend the hearing due to illness. The court denied Mother's motion for continuance. Upon consideration of the evidence and testimony, the juvenile court granted the agency's motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody and thereby terminated the parental rights of M.H.'s Mother and Father. The court denied Mother's motion for legal custody to M.H.'s paternal aunt.
{¶9} On March 25, 2021, Mother filed an appeal arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied her request for continuance of M.H.'s permanent custody hearing. On August 5, 2021, this court found the juvenile court's denial of Mother's request for continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. In re M.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110396, 2021-Ohio-2686. The trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new hearing on the state's request for permanent custody and Mother's motion for legal custody to paternal aunt.[4] {¶10} On August 18, 2021, the agency filed a complaint in Cuyahoga J.C. No. AD-21-907095 for abuse, dependency, and permanent custody of M.R.P.[5] On September 7, 2021, Mother filed a motion for legal custody of M.R.P. to the child's maternal aunt.
{¶11} On October 13, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing on the agency's complaint regarding M.R.P. Present at the hearing were M.R.P.'s GAL, Mother's attorney, the agency's social worker, and the agency's attorney. Mother received notice of the hearing but did not participate. The court denied an oral motion for continuance by Mother's attorney. The court found that the agency proved the allegations of the complaint by clear and convincing evidence and adjudicated M.R.P. abused and dependent. The court also found that the return of M.R.P. to her mother was not in the child's best interest. The court terminated the preadjudicatory temporary custody of M.RP. to the agency and committed her to the temporary custody of the agency.
{¶12} On November 9, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing in both Cuyahoga J.C. Nos. AD-17-914799 and AD-21-907095 on the agency's prayers for permanent custody of M.H. and M.RP. to the agency. Present at the hearing were the children's GAL, Mother's attorney, an attorney for M.H.'s Father, the children's foster parents, the children's maternal aunt via Zoom, two of the agency's social workers, and the agency's attorney. Mother and Father received notice of the hearing but did not participate. The agency did not recommend returning M.H. or M.R.P. to Mother because of Mother's failure to engage with the children and failure to address ongoing agency concerns including domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health. Following consideration of the testimony and evidence, the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to M.H. and M.R.P. and committed both children to the agency's permanent custody.[6] The juvenile court also denied Mother's motion for legal custody of M.H. and M.R.P. to their maternal aunt.
{¶13} On November 16, 2021, Mother filed an amended motion for legal custody of M.H. and M.R.P. to their maternal aunt pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). On December 2, 2021, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
{¶14} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues that the trial court's grant of permanent custody to the agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶15} A parent has a fundamental interest in the care and custody of her children. In re L.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No 107708, 2019-Ohio-1343, ¶ 20. However, parental rights are not absolute: "'The natural rights of a parent are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, 86 N.E.3d 1012, ¶ 29 (8th Dist), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979). "By terminating parental rights, the goal is to create 'a more stable life' for dependent children and to 'facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.'" In re R.G., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104434, 2016-Ohio-7897, ¶ 21, quoting In re N.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101390, 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67, citing In re Howard, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 85 A10-077, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7860, 5 (Aug. 1, 1986).
{¶16} The agency may obtain permanent custody of a child in two ways. In re E.P., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2009-11-022 and CA2009-11-023, 2010-Ohio-2761, ¶ 2. The agency may first obtain temporary custody of the child and then file a motion for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413. The agency may also request permanent custody as part of its original abuse, neglect, or dependency complaint pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).
{¶17} Here, the agency obtained temporary custody of M.H. and then filed a motion for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413. As to M.R.P., the agency requested permanent custody pursuant to RC. 2151.353(A)(4) as part of its original complaint. Because the agency sought permanent custody for the children pursuant to two different statutes, two different statutory analyses apply to determine whether permanent custody to the agency was supported by the evidence.
{¶18} For a motion for permanent custody sought under R.C 2151.413, such as the motion filed for M.H., a juvenile court must satisfy the two-prong test set forth in R.C. 2151.414 before it can terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency. The juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that any one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) apply and that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial