In re K.C. , 2012 Ohio 1162 ( 2012 )

[Cite as In re K.C., 2012-Ohio-1162.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
K.C. (DOB 10-11-2010) : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
MINOR CHILD :
: Case No. 2011CA00259
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No.
2011JCV00001
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee
JENNIFER A. ROBERTS LISA A. LOUY
122 Central Plaza North 110 Central Plaza South
Suite B3 Suite 400
Canton, OH 44702 Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On January 3, 2011, appellee, the Stark County Department of Jobs and
Family Services, filed a complaint for temporary custody of K.C. born October 11, 2010,
alleging the child to be dependent. Mother is appellant, Candice Crooms; alleged father
is James Adler. By judgment entry filed March 11, 2011, the trial court found the child
to be dependent and granted temporary custody to appellee.
{¶2} On August 24, 2011, appellee filed a motion for permanent custody. A
hearing was held on October 18, 2011. By judgment entry filed October 27, 2011, the
trial court granted permanent custody of the child to appellee. Findings of fact and
conclusions of law were filed contemporaneously with the judgment entry.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶4} "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 CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO GRANT
PERMANENT CUSTODY."
II
{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING GROUNDS FOR
PERMANENT CUSTODY AS SUCH DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 3
I, II
{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining it was in the best
interests of the child to grant appellee permanent custody. Appellant also claims the
trial court's decision to grant permanent custody to appellee was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶7} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant,
competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment.
Cross Truck v. Jeffries (February 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA–5758. 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 (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. A
reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there
exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the
trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 1993-Ohio-9.
{¶8} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent
custody. Said section states in pertinent part as follows:
{¶9} "(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section
or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code whether a
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should
not be placed with the parents, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the
court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to
division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 4
the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's
parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent
within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent:
{¶10} "(1) Following 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 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.
{¶11} "(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation,
physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes
the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present
time and, as anticipated, within one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to
division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of
the Revised Code;
{¶12} "(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child
by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or
by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for
the child;
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 5
{¶13} "(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant."
{¶14} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) enables a trial court to grant permanent custody if the
court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the
child. "Clear and convincing evidence" is "that measure or degree of proof which is
more than a mere 'preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such
certainty as is required 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and which will
produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought
to be established." Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, paragraph three of the
syllabus. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states the following:
{¶15} "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 permanent custody of the child to the agency
that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply:
{¶16} "(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.
{¶17} "(b) The child is abandoned.
{¶18} "(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are
able to take permanent custody.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 6
{¶19} "(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***."
{¶20} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best
interests of the child. Said section states relevant factors include, but are not limited to,
the following:
{¶21} "(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other
person who may significantly affect the child;
{¶22} "(b) 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;
{¶23} "(c) 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***;
{¶24} "(d) 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;
{¶25} "(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child."
{¶26} In its findings of fact and conclusions of law filed October 27, 2011, the
trial court found the following:
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 7
{¶27} "12. ***Candice Crooms cannot adequately meet her own needs, let alone
her child. Due to mothers mental health concerns; placement of the child with her
would place the child at risk now and in a reasonably foreseeable time.
{¶28} "The Court is unable to find that this child could be safely returned to
Candice Crooms based upon her failure to remedy the problems that led to the removal
of this child. The Court is unable to find that she will remedy these problems within a
reasonable period of time.
{¶29} "13. The Court finds that James Adler has abandoned this child by virtue
of his lack of contact with her, his lack of bonding with her, failure to support her, and his
failure to attempt any form of reunification.
{¶30} "14. The Court finds that neither parent has remedied the problems that
led to removal, nor can the Court find that within a reasonable period of time they will
remedy the problems leading to removal."
{¶31} Appellant argues she essentially fulfilled the case plan and she should be
given an opportunity to demonstrate her parenting skills.
{¶32} Although appellant completed the Goodwill parenting course as required
in her case plan, she failed to meet fifty percent of her goals. T. at 7, 38. Goodwill
concluded that they had "grave concerns" regarding appellant's ability to parent a child.
T. at 43. Appellant blamed her failure to successfully complete the Goodwill parenting
course on being raped near the end of the course. T. at 60-61. However, her goals had
not been met prior to the incident. T. at 14.
{¶33} Aimee Thomas, a psychology assistant with Northeast Ohio Behavioral
Health, completed a parenting evaluation on appellant. T. at 24. Dr. Thomas testified
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 8
appellant's "significant cognitive deficits" interfered with her ability to parent in a safe
and competent manner without "twenty-four/seven supervision." T. at 31. Dr. Thomas
had serious concerns with appellant's comprehension, working memory, short term
memory and long term memory. T. at 26, 32. The only way appellant could function as
a parent would be to have a life coach and she would have to have home based
parenting involvement. T. at 7, 44. Appellant's "developmental disabilities were stable,
which therefore meant not changeable." T. at 9. Further intensive services would not
improve her abilities. T. at 9-10.
{¶34} Appellant failed in completing a case plan involving an older child in
Florida, but blamed that failure on her move to Ohio. T. at 6, 56. Appellant moved to
Ohio to give birth to the child sub judice to avoid Florida's Children Services and have
her mother raise the child. T. at 8, 12, 29, 53. It was appellant's plan to return to
Florida to regain custody of her older child. T. at 53. Appellant believes she can parent
now because her social security benefit is sent directly to her. T. at 54-55.
{¶35} The major concern was appellant's ability to care for her young child and
her lack of retaining what she had learned. T. at 28, 42-43. This concern was
confirmed by incidents during visitation with the child. T. at 16-17, 22, 40-41. Appellant
has demonstrated the need for anger management and has difficulty with learning and
adopting new skills. T. at 27-28, 40. The child's alleged father has had no contact with
appellant or the child. T. at 5, 21.
{¶36} Although appellant clearly loves her child and her lack of parenting skills is
not of her own making, it is clear from the record that she cannot function as a single
mother.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 9
{¶37} As for best interests, the trial court found the following:
{¶38} "K.C. is placed in an agency licensed foster home and the foster parents
wish to adopt her.
{¶39} "The Guardian Ad Litem presented a written report to the Court and
recommended that permanent custody be granted to the SCDJFS.
{¶40} "The Court finds that this child is not strongly bonded to any biological
parent.
{¶41} "The Court finds it is in the best interest of K.C. to grant her permanent
custody to the SCDJFS for purposes of adoption. K.C. deserves to be in a stable,
loving environment where she can thrive and have her needs met on a daily basis."
{¶42} The alternative placement suggested by appellant (her parents) had been
previously rejected as a placement for another child. T. at 66, 74-75. The child is in a
single-child foster-to-adopt home and has bonded with the foster parents. T. at 73-74.
Any bond between appellant and the child was minimal and described as "comfortable
around one another." T. at 13, 78.
{¶43} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in finding,
by clear and convincing evidence, that the best interests of the child would best be
served by granting appellee permanent custody of the child.
{¶44} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00259 10
{¶45} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio,
Juvenile Division is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
_s/ Patricia A. Delaney_____________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards ______________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 222
[Cite as In re K.C., 2012-Ohio-1162.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: :
:
K.C. (DOB 11-09-2005) :
:
MINOR CHILDREN : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
:
: CASE NO. 2011CA00259
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Juvenile Division is
affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
_s/ Patricia A. Delaney_____________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards ______________
JUDGES