In re F.M.

2021-Ohio-2774

IN RE F.M., ET AL. Minor Children Appeal by A.M., Mother

No. 110333

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 12, 2021

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD-18907381 and AD-20909151

Judgment Affirmed

Adam Parker, for appellant.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

{¶ 1} This appeal is from a permanent custody determination made by the Juvenile Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded permanent custody to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("Agency"). AM. ("Mother") appeals that court's decision and assigns two errors for our review. For the reasons set forth below, we overrule the assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

A. F.M.

{¶ 2} F.M. was born to appellant-Mother on June 6, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that Mother had been displaying mental health issues that interfered with her ability to adequately parent the child. The complaint also alleged that the father, W.C., is a registered sex offender.

{¶ 3} At a September 5, 2018 hearing, Mother admitted to the allegations of an amended complaint:

1. After delivery of the child, Hospital staff believed the mother was exhibiting manic symptoms. In addition to exhibiting grandiose and fleeting thoughts, which Mother asserts were possible reactions to hospital-administered medications. Mother has been asked to complete a mental health assessment but has not done so.

2. Mother lacks provisions with which to care for the Child at this time.

3. Mother has another child who is not in her care and custody. The child was committed to the legal custody of maternal grandmother in Georgia on January 23, 2015. See Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia Case No. 14-1-007929-40. The child was subsequently committed to the guardianship of his maternal aunt in March, 2017. See Cuyahoga County Probate Court Case No. 2017GRD222129.

4. Alleged father, [W.C.], has not yet established paternity and is not willing to care for the child at this time.

5. [W.C.] has a prior conviction of rape and corrupting another with drugs. See case no. CR-02-421714-ZA. [W.C.] is a registered sex offender. See registration no. 24046.

6. Alleged father, John Doe, has failed to establish paternity and has failed to support, visit, or communicate with the child since birth.

(Entry and Opinion, Docket Nos. 52-57).

{¶ 4} The juvenile court determined that F.M. was a dependent child based on that admission and awarded temporary custody to the Agency. On April 26, 2019, nearly a year later, the Agency filed a motion to modify the temporary custody to permanent custody. That motion contended that the Agency was entitled to an order of permanent custody based on Juv.R. 19 and R.C. 2151.413. The case was set for pretrial on October 3, 2019, but the case was continued. The father intervened just over a month after the initial hearing date on November 22, 2019 and requested custody be granted to him or, in the alternative, to the paternal grandmother.

{¶ 5} Following a number of continuances, the court granted the Agency's motion for permanent custody following a dispositional hearing on January 28, 2021.

B. I.M.

{¶ 6} I.M. was born to Mother on May 21, 2020. Five days later, the Agency obtained temporary custody of I.M. in an action that was later dismissed. On October 28, 2020, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that I.M. should be adjudicated a dependent child and requested as disposition that the Agency be granted permanent custody. The case was set for an adjudicatory hearing on January 14, 2021. The court determined that I.M. was a dependent child at this hearing. The case was continued to January 28, 2021 where the court considered the Agency's motion for permanent custody of F.M. as well as the Agency's prayer in the complaint for permanent custody of I.M.

{¶ 7} The court incorporated the testimony of the January 14, 2021 hearing into the January 28, 2021 hearing.

C. Adjudicatory Hearing for I.M.

{¶ 8} On January 14, 2021, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing for I.M.

{¶ 9} Gabrielle Uhrin testified that she was the social worker for I.M. She stated that in 2018 the court adopted a case plan to accomplish reunification for F.M. that required Mother to obtain "mental health services, basic needs and housing."

Q. Okay. Were there any other behaviors that you observed that made you think that she needed to get a mental health assessment?

A. Mom sometimes lacks basic needs skills. She's constantly needing to be reminded to hold the baby's head or not to overfeed the baby or there was a time that mom did try to give [F.M.] orange soda. There's just little things that she doesn't comprehend very well and we just wanted to make sure that everything was okay with mom mentally before we proceeded further.

{¶ 10} Uhrin also testified that F.M. and I.M. were Mother's second and third children. Mother's first child, A.M., was presently in the care of Mother's sister in Las Vegas. Ms. Uhrin also testified that regardless of instruction, Mother seemed to revert to prior conduct in providing care to I.M. Following argument, the court found I.M. to be dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B) & (D).

{¶ 11} This testimony was incorporated into the disposition hearing set for January 28, 2021.

D. Disposition Hearing

{¶ 12} At the disposition hearing, the Agency produced three witnesses. The Agency first produced Kathleen Miller a licensed social worker. She testified that she had training in diagnosing mental health issues. She stated that roughly half her day was spent "doing [] diagnostic or [] mental health assessments[.]" She diagnosed Mother with paranoid schizophrenia based on the criteria in the DSM-V. Miller's report then established a series of engagement goals, which the records indicate Mother did not pursue.

{¶ 13} Next the Agency called Ms. Uhrin to the stand. She testified that she was a social worker with the Agency. Ms. Uhrin testified that hospital staff observed manic behavior on the part of Mother and as a result contacted the Agency. She further stated that the Agency established a case plan for Mother. However, Mother did not follow up on any of the mental health treatment recommended in the plan. Uhrin testified that in her view the reason Mother did not follow up on any of the appointments is that Mother believed that nothing was wrong with her.

{¶ 14} Uhrin stated that Mother had difficulty changing F.M.'s diaper. Even after being told what to do, Mother continued to have difficulty in providing basic care for F.M. Uhrin also agreed that Mother attended nearly every visitation that she could with the children. The Agency first sought to place F.M. with Mother's half-sister. However, the Agency determined that this placement was not appropriate (this determination is not a challenged in this appeal).

{¶ 15} The Agency also considered placing F.M. with her paternal grandmother in Florida. However, Uhrin stated that the Agency did not think the placement appropriate because the grandmother stated that she would give unsupervised access to W.C.

{¶ 16} Uhrin also testified that Mother did not have the appropriate provisions for F.M. and has not gotten them in the last two and half years. Though she also stated that Mother could get the required provisions.

{¶ 17} Finally, the Agency produced Rhonda Wilson of Catholic Charities at the Hough Collaborative/The Fatima Family Center. She testified about Mother's reluctance to accept Section 8 housing that would be appropriate for the children.

{¶ 18} The father produced his mother as a witness. She testified about her home and her job. She also testified that she would permit her son to have unsupervised visits with the children should she be granted custody and not prohibited by any order. The Agency did not contest the appropriateness of this placement aside from the paternal grandmother's willingness to allow the Father unsupervised access to the children.

{¶ 19} Following the hearing, the court issued two separate opinions and entries, one in each case. The entries are identical except for slight differences that are not material to the present appeal. In each entry, the court found that

"the child's continued residence in or return to the home of [Mother] will be contrary to the child's best interest * * *. That one or more of the factors in division (E) of section 2151414 of the Revised Code exist and the child cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent; * * * [t]he parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense listed in [R.C.] 2151.414(E)(6) or 2151.414(E)(7)."

(Opinions and Entries of 02/11/2021 in Case No. AD20909151 & 02/12/2021 in Case No. AD18907381 ("Judgment Entries")).

{¶ 20} Without using so many words, the court determined that granting permanent custody to the Agency for F.M. was appropriate under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a):

The child is not abandoned or orphaned, * * * 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.

{¶ 21} The court also must consider the statutory factors supporting the determination that "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." R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and 2151.353(A)(4). For the purposes of the present appeal,...