In re A.P.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21CA14,21CA15 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 1577 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: A.P. AND R.P., Dependent Children. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION
Robert W. Bright, Middleport, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jason Holdren, Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney, Emily VanSickle Assistant Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney, and Randy Dupree, Assistant Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney Gallipolis, Ohio, for Appellee.
DECISION & JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} This is an appeal from a Gallia County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division, judgment that granted Gallia County Job and Family Services, appellee herein, permanent custody of six-year-old A.P., and five-year-old R.P. C.G., the children's biological mother and appellant herein, raises the following assignments of error for review:
{¶2} In 2017, appellant's infant child, R.P., was diagnosed with an unexplained skull fracture and a brain bleed. At the time, R.P. lived with A.P., appellant, and her father. Appellee removed R.P. and A.P. from their parents' custody and developed a case plan. Appellant completed the case plan, separated from the children's father, and appellee returned the children to appellant's custody.
{¶3} On October 12, 2018, R.P., then almost two years old, was admitted to the hospital with unexplained injuries that occurred while in appellant's care and custody. Medical professionals later determined that the child had sustained a skull fracture, broken fingers, and leg fractures.
{¶4} On October 15, 2018, appellee filed a complaint that alleged A.P. is a dependent child and that R.P. is a dependent and abused child. Appellee alleged that R.P. had suffered several unexplained injuries while in appellant's care and custody and that A.P. had bruising on her face. Appellee asserted that "the children are at significant risk of further and/or potential harm" and requested emergency temporary custody. Subsequently, the trial court granted appellee temporary custody of the children.
{¶5} On November 19, 2018, appellant admitted the allegations contained in the complaints, and the trial court adjudicated the children dependent. The court continued the temporary custody order pending disposition. On December 20, 2018, the parties agreed to continue the children in appellee's temporary custody.
{¶6} On November 14, 2019, appellee filed a motion for permanent custody of the children and alleged (1) the children had been in temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, (2) the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, and (3) placing the children in appellee's permanent custody is in the children's best interests.
{¶7} On January 2, 2020, appellant filed a motion to stay appellee's permanent custody motion so that she could complete one last case plan requirement. Appellant alleged she had completed all case plan requirements except a mental health evaluation. Appellant stated that she has been unable to complete the evaluation "due to insurance restrictions" and that she is "working diligently to get this completed." The trial court granted appellant's motion.
{¶8} At a June 9, 2020 review hearing, the trial court noted that appellant still had to complete a mental health evaluation. Appellee recommended that the court continue temporary custody to provide additional time to complete a mental health evaluation. The court thus continued the children in appellee's temporary custody.
{¶9} In February 2021, the state charged appellant with two counts of third-degree-felony endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A). Appellant then requested multiple continuances of the permanent custody hearing in order to complete discovery and negotiations in the criminal matter.
{¶10} In May 2021, appellant filed a motion to ask the trial court to place the children in the foster mother's legal custody. Appellee also renewed its permanent custody motion.
{¶11} In October 2021, the trial court held a hearing to consider appellee's permanent custody motion. At the hearing Gallia County Department of Job and Family Services Caseworker Kristi Smith testified that she first worked with the family in 2017, when appellee received a report that R.P. had been abused. Smith explained that the initial report stated that R.P. "was in distress" and taken to the hospital. Doctors discovered R.P. "had a brain bleed" and a skull fracture. Smith stated that the agency developed a case plan for the family and that R.P. later was reunified with appellant.
{¶12} Caseworker Smith related that appellee continued to receive "multiple reports of abuse and neglect" after the children had been reunited with appellant. Smith stated that in September 2018, [1] R.P. again went to the hospital. Doctors discovered that R.P.'s right and left fibula were broken, her right and left tibias were broken, she had "cauliflower ear" and an eye infection. Appellee again removed the children from appellant's custody and developed another case plan aimed at reunification.
{¶13} The family's current caseworker, Jessica McCoy, testified that the case plan required appellant to complete parenting classes, obtain a mental health evaluation, and maintain a stable and sanitary home, among other things. McCoy stated that the parents completed parenting classes and mental health evaluations.
{¶14} Caseworker McCoy explained that the children have been in the same foster home since their October 2018 removal. McCoy indicated that the children are doing well in the foster home and that the foster mother ensures that all of their needs are met.
McCoy also does not believe the children can safely be returned to either parent. She believes that placing them in appellee's permanent custody is in their best interests.
{¶15} The trial court asked Caseworker McCoy whether she discussed appellant's request that the court grant the foster mother legal custody of the children. McCoy indicated that appellee would like to obtain permanent custody of the children and that the foster mother "is not willing to do the legal custody," but rather would like to adopt the children.
{¶16} Appellant testified that she does not believe that she presently can care for the children. She advised the trial court that she would like the children to remain with the foster parent until appellant is able to "get on [her] feet." Appellant also revealed that her criminal charges are pending and she intends to plead guilty to the two counts of endangering children. Appellant explained that when R.P.'s 2018 injuries were discovered, she had been living with a boyfriend and she believes her boyfriend caused the injuries.
{¶17} The foster mother testified that the children have been in her home since their removal. She stated that R.P. "is non-verbal," "cannot communicate," and takes seizure medication. Appellant's counsel asked the foster mother why the foster mother was not willing to accept legal custody of the children and the foster mother responded:
{¶18} On November 3, 2021, the trial court granted appellee permanent custody of the two children. The court found (1) the children have been in appellee's temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, and (2) the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. The court additionally determined that placing the children in appellee's permanent custody is in their best interests. The court found that the children need a legally secure permanent placement that can only be achieved by granting appellee permanent custody. The court noted that (1) the children have been in appellee's temporary custody for more than two and one-half years and that "finalization is important," (2) the children are bonded to their foster mother and that "[t]here is a strong possibility of adoption by the foster mother," and (3) the guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended that the court grant appellee permanent custody.
{¶19} Thus, the trial court awarded appellee permanent custody of the children and denied appellant's request to place the children in the foster mother's legal custody. This appeal followed.
{¶20} In her first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of the children is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, appellant challenges the trial court's findings that (1) appellant failed to remedy the problems that led to the children's initial removal, (2) appellant demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the children, and (3) the children cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time.
{¶21} Generally, a reviewing court will not disturb a trial court's permanent custody decision unless the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. E.g., In re B.E., 4th Dist. Highland No. 13CA26, 2014-Ohio-3178 ¶ 27; In re R.S., 4th Dist. Highland No 13CA22, 2013-Ohio-5569, ¶ 29.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial