In re A.D.

1

2024-Ohio-4793

IN RE A.D. A Minor Child Appeal by C.B., Mother

No. 113491

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

October 3, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvdenile Division Case No. AD19907910

The Law Firm of Jesscia A. L. Camargo, LPA, LLC, and Jessica A L Camargo, for appellant mother C.B.

Lisa A. Hahn, for appellee paternal grandmother K.D.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.

{¶ 1} C.B., mother of AD. (d.o.b. 6/12/19) ("Mother") appeals the trial court's judgment granting the complaint for visitation of K.D. by paternal grandmother ("Grandmother") and the trial court's grant of supervised visitation to J.D., father of AD ("Father"). Father has not filed an opposing brief.

{¶ 2} We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background and Facts.

{¶ 3} In June 2019, Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or "the agency"), filed a complaint for abuse, dependency, and predispositional temporary custody of A.D. who was born addicted to benzodiazepines and opiates. A.D. was placed with Grandmother upon his release from the hospital. Predispositional and subsequently temporary custody was granted to the agency, A.D. was adjudicated abused and dependent, and remained in Grandmother's custody.

{¶ 4} On January 19, 2021, the agency moved to terminate temporary custody without supervision and to vest legal custody to Mother without restrictions. In a magistrate's decision dated February 23, 2021, adopted by the court on March 11, 2021, Mother was awarded legal custody of her children without restrictions.

{¶ 5} On March 30, 2022, under the same case number, Grandmother filed a complaint to intervene pursuant to Civ. R. 24(A) and for visitation and companionship rights pursuant to "R.C. 3109.12." The magistrate's May 9, 2022 pretrial order granted intervention and ordered a temporary schedule allowing visitation on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. As of August 2022, Mother no longer allowed visitation. On August 18, 2022, the case was assigned to a visiting judge. Grandmother filed multiple motions to show cause while the case was pending.

{¶ 6} On November 26, 2022, Mother's newly hired counsel filed a "brief in opposition to paternal grandmother's 'complaint' for companionship rights" that has been filed approximately eight months earlier. Mother argued the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under R.C. 3109.12.

{¶ 7} In February 2023, Father filed pro se an application for shared parenting. In approximately August 2023, Mother's counsel withdrew from Mother's case but serves as counsel in the instant appeal.

{¶ 8} The trial court bifurcated the visitation and show cause proceedings. On October 25, 2023, the hearing on Grandmother's complaint for visitation and Father's application for shared parenting was held. After appropriate legal advisements, Mother and Father elected to proceed pro se and were allotted time to meet with the guardian ad litem ("GAL") prior to moving forward. Grandmother was present represented by counsel.

{¶ 9} Grandmother testified that Mother and Father were never married, and she had not met Mother prior to A.D.'s birth though Father informed her of the pregnancy. A.D. was born with ten types of opiates in his system and required detoxification. Grandmother was contacted by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or "the agency") and accepted the agency's request for placement. AD. was released to Grandmother's custody when A.D. was 19 days old.

{¶ 10} Grandmother cared for AD. through medical appointments, medical procedures, physical therapy required due to developmental delays, swallowing issues, and allergies. The first year was challenging as A.D. was up nightly and cried a lot. Grandmother remained at A.D.'s side when he was hospitalized for surgery.

{¶ 11} Father had some degree of contact with A.D. the first year, but Mother's contact was minimal until A.D. was two years old. Father's middle-school-aged daughter also resided with Grandmother.

{¶ 12} Grandmother provided rides for Mother to attend agency-required classes, looked after A.D. and A.D.'s maternal half-siblings, allowed Mother to stay at her house when needed, sometimes loaned Mother her car, and gave her a job. She also purchased a house for Mother to live in at a reasonable rental that Mother stopped paying in August 2022. Mother regained legal custody in April 2021, but A.D. and A.D.'s two half-siblings remained with Grandmother, though Mother picked them up for a few weekends until Mother removed them on March 11, 2022. Mother told Grandmother that children were resilient, and A.D. would forget her.

{¶ 13} The trial court granted temporary visitation in May 2022 for four hours twice a week. The order was followed "with a few misses" until Mother stopped visitation in August 2022. Mother failed to pay rent for five months and moved out in January.

{¶ 14} Grandmother expressed concern that A.D. has been negatively impacted by the separation from Grandmother and his paternal half-sister who still resided with Grandmother. Grandmother requested weekly visitation and some weekends so the three could engage in activities. Neither Mother, Father, nor the GAL cross-examined the witness.

{¶ 15} Grandmother's close friend L.L. testified that she visited Grandmother's house two to three times a week. She personally observed the degree of care that A.D. required and never heard Grandmother complain. L.L. witnessed the strong bond between the two. When cross-examined by Mother and Father, L.L. did not know whether A.D. had been diagnosed with a stomach problem, admitted consuming alcohol during some visits at Grandmother's house, but denied that she was intoxicated.

{¶ 16} Mother confirmed that A.D. was placed with Grandmother upon his release from the hospital but denied AD. had ten drugs in his system. Mother disagreed that she neglected seeing A.D. and explained she did not visit the hospital during A.D.'s surgery because she was incarcerated. Mother admitted that "pretty much" all of the time she was well-treated by Grandmother and testified to the various ways that Grandmother assisted her. Mother denied that the children were "staying with" Grandmother after custody was restored to Mother but said Grandmother was babysitting at no cost.

{¶ 17} Mother thought the temporary visitation order was just something she agreed "would be fine." She stated that did not recall the hearing officer saying it was a court order nor that she was questioned about her failure to comply with the order during the previous hearing. Mother confirmed that she had not taken AD. to visit Grandmother for 14 months and that she was moving forward on her motion to terminate the temporary visitation order.

{¶ 18} Counsel inquired whether Mother believed that A.D. "cared for" Grandmother. Mother responded she did not know, stating, "He's a kid . . . . He's gonna care for whoever is in his presence. Like he's that little." She also did not think A.D. had been damaged by no longer seeing Grandmother or his sister and confirmed during cross-examination by Father that A.D. is happy.

{¶ 19} During cross-examination by the GAL, Mother said she did not want Grandmother to have visitation.

Mother: She gave him ice cream which she noted that she knew that he couldn't have, and he was sick two times when he came home.

He would act differently when he came home. She stalked me. She put a GPS system on my car.

She had somebody following me, which is not safe in a car because I felt like somebody was following me.

There's a list. I have a whole full list of -

GAL: Okay. So what changed from the beginning of the case where you were agreeable to [Grandmother] having visitation?

Mother: Honestly, she hadn't shown that side of her character at that point like so much of it. And I didn't like the confrontation, and he had been there for that time with her.

{¶ 20} During redirect examination, Mother admitted that her attempt to get a civil protection order against Grandmother due to the GPS monitor failed, indicated that her counsel knew why, and said, "I'm not allowed to answer anymore."

{¶ 21} The GAL testified that it was in A.D.'s best interest to grant Grandmother's visitation motion based on the GAL's home visit and the established relationship. "They had a very strong bond you could tell." The GAL did not believe that the abrupt termination of visitation was in A.D.'s best interest. The GAL had no concerns about the quality of care that Grandmother provided.

{¶ 22} Conversely, the GAL expressed reservations about Mother's parenting.

At one point it was indicated to me that there was a GPS tracker on [Mother's] car and some of the stops that it showed were concerning, and what I mean by that is there would be numerous stops for a short period of time and I felt it was speculative to actually, you know, say what those stops were, but it did seem kinda concerning that someone would be driving like this based on, you know, [Mother's] history too.

I did make appropriate contacts due to that that I had to, but I found it concerning, but as far as like definite proof of something going on, I don't think it was, but other than that, the only other thing that I would find concerning is just the history of like the abuse, neglect, dependency case that happened and just [A.D.'s] history meaning that he was born with several substances in his system.

{¶ 23} The GAL also had several conversations with Mother regarding the temporary visitation.

Yes. I remember kind of conversations regarding asking - yeah, mother did bring up some of their reasons, which were basically

...