In re F.M.

2021-Ohio-3039

IN RE F.M., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal by W.C., Father]

No. 110350

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

September 2, 2021

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD18907381 and AD20909151

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Rachel A Kopec, for appellant

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

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

{¶ 1} Appellant W.C. ("Father") appeals from the juvenile court's decision awarding permanent custody of his and A.M.'s ("Mother") two minor children F.M. (D.O.B. June 6, 2018) and I.M. (D.O.B. May 21, 2020), to appellee Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS").^[1] For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This case began shortly after F.M.'s birth when CCDCFS filed a complaint on June 11, 2018, for F.M. in Cuyahoga J.C No. AD18907381, alleging she was dependent and seeking temporary custody of the child along with a motion for emergency predispositional temporary custody. The complaint alleged hospital staff observed Mother displaying manic symptoms and paranoid ideations that prevented her from exercising appropriate parenting skills and judgment. The complaint also alleged she did not have provisions to care for the child. Regarding Father, it alleged he had not established paternity, was not willing to care for the child and that he was a registered sex offender for his prior convictions of rape of a minor and corrupting another with drugs.

{¶ 3} On June 11, 2018, the court held a hearing on the motion and granted emergency predispositional custody to CCDCFS. On September 27, 2018, F.M. was adjudicated dependent lacking adequate parental care by reason of the mental or physical condition of Mother and committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS. The court's entry from that hearing reflects Mother admitted to the allegations in the complaint, which included allegations that she had the parental rights of her older child terminated in Georgia.

{¶ 4} CCDCFS develop a case plan to promote reunification of the child with Mother that included services to address her mental health and housing issues to provide basic needs for the child. On April 26, 2019, the agency filed a motion for permanent custody of F.M. The corresponding affidavit alleged Father had failed to make himself available for case plan services and abandoned the child. This is because Father had failed to contact CCDCFS since the child's birth in June 2018, despite the agency reaching out to him for almost a year. On November 22, 2019, while the motion for permanent custody was pending, Father filed a motion for legal custody of F.M. or in the alternative placement with F.M.'s paternal grandmother ("L.C.-W.").

{¶ 5} On May 21, 2020, I.M. was born and on May 26, 2020, she was committed to predispositional temporary custody of CCDCFS. After dismissing the original complaint, CCDCFS refiled the complaint on October 28, 2020, alleging I.M. was dependent and requesting permanent custody of I.M. The complaint alleged Mother's mental health interfered with her ability to provide care for the child and that she lacked stable housing and the means to support a child. Regarding Father, it alleged Father had prior convictions for rape of a minor and corrupting another with drugs. It also alleged he lacked the ability to provide for I.M.'s basic needs failed to establish paternity, and failed to support, visit, or communicate with the child since birth. The complaint also included a motion for emergency predispositional temporary custody of I.M., which the court granted after a hearing on October 29, 2020.

{¶ 6} The adjudicatory hearing on the motion for permanent custody of I.M. was held on January 14, 2021. At the hearing, Gabrielle Uhrin ("Uhrin") testified that she had been working as the family's social worker since 2018 and that F.M. had previously been adjudicated dependent. She testified regarding Father's criminal background, which was stipulated to by counsel, where he had been convicted for raping a minor and designated a registered sex offender. She testified that Father had been unavailable when F.M. was born, and at the time of I.M.'s birth, Uhrin had been unable to verify Father's housing to make sure it was appropriate. She also explained CCDCFS's concerns about Father's prior convictions and being alone with the children. In its January 19, 2020 order, the court found the allegations of the complaint for I.M. had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and adjudicated the child to be dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (D). The case was continued for the dispositional hearing, where the court considered CCDCFS's motion for permanent custody of F.M., as well as its request in the complaint for permanent custody of I.M.

{¶ 7} The dispositional hearing for both F.M. and I.M. occurred on January 28, 2021. At the commencement of the dispositional hearing, the trial court granted CCDCFS's request to incorporate the evidence, testimony, and exhibits entered at the prior adjudication hearing. CCDCFS called three witnesses, the first being Kathleen Miller ("Miller"), a licensed social worker with training in diagnosing mental health issues who testified regarding her diagnosis of Mother's mental health. "[Miller] 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." In re F.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110333, 2021-Ohio-2774, ¶ 12.

{¶ 8} Uhrin again testified about her involvement as the case worker for the family. With respect to Father, she testified that he was "unavailable" from September 2018 when she was assigned to the children's case to May 2019, almost the entire first year of F.M.'s life. CCDCFS knew his identity and attempted to contact him but was unable to reach him. Father never responded to CCDCFS during this time. Once Father finally responded to CCDCFS in May 2019, he was given a case plan that consisted of a list of directives that included establishing paternity, building a relationship with the children, and verifying adequate housing. Father established paternity for F.M. and eventually I.M. after her birth. Uhrin testified that Father eventually did make efforts to establish a relationship with both children per his case plan. CCDCFS had scheduled visits at Catholic Charities for Mother and children, but Father was not able to enter the premises, due to his prior convictions. Biweekly visits with both children were then arranged at a park for Father, who consistently attended these visits, appropriately playing with F.M. on the playground.

{¶ 9} Uhrin also testified how CCDCFS had been trying to verify Father's housing situation since he became involved in this case in 2019 but had been unable to do so. After an extreme delay, Father did eventually verify his living situation the same week as the final dispositional hearing, over 18 months after he was put on notice of the case plan's goals. Uhrin testified she viewed his one-bedroom apartment virtually. Uhrin also testified that Father's prior convictions for rape of a minor under thirteen and corrupting another with drugs, together with his status as a registered sex offender, caused her great concern about the children's safety if custody was given to Father.

{¶ 10} Last, Uhrin also testified that the children had been placed together in a foster home and were doing very well, having received services to assist in their development. Uhrin testified that I.M. had finally begun reaching appropriate developmental milestones for her age. She discussed how CCDCFS had attempted to identify appropriate relatives for possible placement, including Mother's half-sister and the children's paternal grandmother, L.C.-W. However, Mother's half-sister was not approved due to prior agency history, and L.C.-W. was not selected due to her minimization of Father's convictions for rape of a minor and corrupting another with drugs and her admission to permit him future unsupervised access to the children. CCDCFS also called Rhonda Wilson of Catholic Charities at the Hough Collaborative/The Fatima Family Center, whose testimony only concerned Mother. See In re F.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110333, 2021-Ohio-2774, at ¶ 17.

{¶ 11} Mother did not call any witnesses. Father only called his mother, L.C.-W., as a witness, who testified remotely. L.C.-W. testified regarding her job and home. In court, Father produced L.C.-W.'s paystubs and her lot rental for her trailer where she resides in Florida, which L.C.-W. confirmed. She testified how the Florida children and family services agency had investigated her and approved her for placement. She acknowledged Father's rape conviction and that he was a registered sex offender but stated that if it were up to her, she would permit him to have unsupervised contact with the children if placed with her.

{¶ 12} Last, the court heard from both children's guardians ad litem. F.M.'s guardian, Maureen Savino ("Savino"), recommended F.M. be placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS and noted her extreme concern of the children's safety with the L.C.-W.'s minimization of Father's prior convictions. I.M.'s guardian Pamela Hawkins ("Hawkins"), testified regarding her concerns of Father having custody due to his serious prior convictions. She emphasized that the court in his criminal case determined Father was a sexual predator and she had great concern for the children's safety and for him to be alone and unsupervised with them. She also...