In re R.P.

181 N.E.3d 594

IN RE: R.P., Jr.,

(R.P., Appellant).

In re: L.P.,

(R.P., Appellant).

In re: W.P.,

(R.P., Appellant).

In re: W.P.,

(S.S., Appellant).

In re: R.P., Jr.,

(S.S., Appellant).

In re: L.P.,

(S.S., Appellant).

No. 20AP-538

No. 20AP-539

No. 20AP-540

No. 20AP-542

No. 20AP-543

No. 20AP-544

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered on November 16, 2021

On brief: Steven Thomas D. Potts, for appellee Franklin County Children Services.

On brief: Allison L. Harrison Law, LLC, and Todd A. Fichtenberg, Reynoldsburg, for appellant R.P.

On brief: Anzelmo Law, and James A. Anzelmo, Columbus, for appellant S.S.

DECISION

KLATT, J.

{¶ 1} Appellants, R.P. ("father") and S.S. ("mother"), appeal a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, that granted permanent custody of the parents’ children to appellee, Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS"). For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.

{¶ 2} Mother and father are the parents of L.P., born August 24, 2013; W.P., born April 24, 2015; and R.P., born June 17, 2016. FCCS initially removed L.P. and W.P. from their parents’ custody in June 2015 because it was concerned that mother was selling the children for $25 each. Mother completed her case plan requirements, including parenting classes, a drug and alcohol assessment, and an anger management course. FCCS returned L.P. and W.P. to mother in November 2015.

{¶ 3} On November 29, 2016, L.P. was admitted to Nationwide Children's Hospital and diagnosed with a subdermal hematoma, a broken arm, and bruising and abrasions all over her body. At first, mother reported that L.P. sustained these injuries while falling down a set of stairs two times in a two-day period. Mother, however, later admitted that she and father caused the injuries.

{¶ 4} On December 1, 2016, FCCS filed a complaint alleging that L.P. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child. FCCS filed a second complaint alleging that R.P. was a dependent child because he resided in the same household with mother, father, and L.P. FCCS did not file any complaint with regard to W.P. because he resided with his maternal grandmother. A magistrate granted FCCS a temporary order of custody for L.P. and R.P. on December 5, 2016.

{¶ 5} The trial court dismissed the December 1, 2016 complaints because dispositional hearings did not occur within 90 days of the filing of the complaints as required by R.C. 2151.35(B)(1). FCCS refiled both complaints on February 28, 2017. In relevant part, the complaints stated:

The family has a history with [FCCS] dating back to 2013 with neglect substantiated in June 2015. On November 29, 2016, [FCCS] received a referral on [L.P.] It was reported that [L.P.] was taken to * * * Nationwide Children's Hospital [ ] with concerns for an arm and head injury. The initial report stated that [L.P.] fell down the stairs on Friday, November 25, 2016, and was throwing up. * * * [T]hen on Saturday, November 26, 2016, [L.P.] fell down the stairs again at [a friend's] home. * * * It was reported that EMS was called to the parent's home on Monday, November 28, 2016. It was reported by parents that EMS stated that [L.P.] was fine and parents needed to keep an eye on her. * * * It is reported that [L.P.] has bruising and abrasions and scars all over her body. [L.P.] also has [a] subdermal hematoma and it is confirmed that both bone [sic] where [sic] broken which was consistent with her falling down the stairs. On November 30, 2016, the intake caseworker met with mother. Mother continuously stated that [L.P.] received her injuries because she fell down the stairs. * * * On December 1, 2016, mother admitted to the hospital staff that she and the father * * * caused the injuries to [L.P.]. Mother reported that she told [L.P.] to go to the corner and when [L.P.] resisted and wouldn't stand up, father came over and placed [L.P.] in the corner. Mother stated that father may have squeezed [L.P.]’s arm while placing her in the corner[,] leaving the bruise on her arm. * * * It was later learned that mother beats on [L.P.] and leaves bruises and has voiced not wanting her children. * * * After being evaluated by the agency nurse, [R.P.] is showing symptoms of being delayed in fine motor skills and language. [R.P.] was also not able to sit up until seven (7) months due to weak back muscles.

(Feb. 28, 2017 Compls.) On March 1, 2017, a magistrate again granted FCCS a temporary order of custody of L.P. and R.P.

{¶ 6} On May 4, 2017, FCCS filed a complaint alleging W.P. was a neglected and dependent child. In relevant part, the complaint stated:

[W.P.] is currently residing with [his] maternal grandmother * * * by arrangement between mother and [the maternal grandmother]. On March 29, 2017, [a] [ ] caseworker arrived at [the maternal grandmother]’s home for an unannounced home visit. [The] [ ] caseworker observed various unknown adults sleeping on the couch and [the maternal grandmother] appeared upset that [the] caseworker came to [the] home unannounced. [The] [ ] caseworker reportedly heard someone upstairs tell [the maternal grandmother] "not to let [the] caseworker upstairs," raising concern as to what may be occurring in the home. The agency has concerns regarding [the maternal grandmother]’s ability to obtain medical care and ensure that [W.P.]’s basic and safety needs are met. [The maternal grandmother] also has a criminal history of drug related charges. * * * Mother is drug screened through American Court Services [ ] and has been negative for all substances. * * * Father is not drug screening consistently and continues to test positive for cocaine and marijuana. Parents are unemployed and do not have stable housing.

(May 4, 2017 Compl.) A magistrate granted FCCS a temporary order of custody of W.P.

{¶ 7} On May 11, 2017, a magistrate held a combined adjudicatory and dispositional hearing regarding L.P. and R.P. At that hearing, mother and father admitted to the second cause of action in L.P.’s complaint, which alleged L.P. was an abused child. FCCS then requested that the trial court dismiss the remaining causes of action. Mother and father also admitted to the sole cause of action in R.P.’s complaint, which alleged that R.P. was a dependent child.

{¶ 8} In a judgment dated May 16, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision finding L.P. to be an abused child as defined in R.C. 2151.031(C), dismissing the remaining abuse, neglect, and dependency causes of action as requested by FCCS, and committing L.P. to FCCS’ temporary custody. In a second judgment, also dated May 16, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision finding R.P. to be a dependent child as defined in R.C. 2151.04(C) and committing him to FCCS’ temporary custody. Both judgments approved and adopted the same case plan, and made that case plan an order of the court.

{¶ 9} On July 24, 2017, a magistrate held a combined adjudicatory and dispositional hearing regarding W.P. At that hearing, mother and father admitted to the second cause of action in W.P.’s complaint, which alleged that W.P. was a dependent child. FCCS then requested that the trial court dismiss the neglect cause of action.

{¶ 10} In a judgment dated July 31, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision dismissing the neglect cause of action, finding W.P. to be a dependent child as defined in R.C. 2151.04(C), and committing W.P. to FCCS’ temporary custody. Additionally, the judgment approved and adopted an amended case plan, to which FCCS had added W.P.

{¶ 11} On December 4, 2017, the trial court issued judgments extending FCCS’ temporary custody of L.P. and R.P. for six months. The trial court entered judgments granting a second six-month extension of temporary custody of L.P. and R.P. on June 25, 2018, and it entered a judgment granting the first six-month extension of temporary custody of W.P. on June 26, 2018. Additionally, in the three June judgments, the trial court approved and adopted an amended case plan, and made that case plan an order of the court.

{¶ 12} On October 19, 2018, FCCS moved for permanent custody of all three children. The trial court held a hearing on FCCS’ motion on September 15 and 16, 2020. Mother, the foster mother, the caseworker assigned to the family, and the guardian ad litem for the children testified at that hearing.

{¶ 13} In judgments dated October 23, 2020, the trial court granted FCCS permanent custody of L.P., W.P., and R.P. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the children had been in FCCS’ custody for 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period and awarding FCCS permanent custody was in the children's best interests.

{¶ 14} Father now appeals the October 23, 2020 judgments, and he assigns the following errors:

1. The trial court's finding that FCCS's motion for permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence is against the manifest weight of evidence.

2. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant-Father R.P.’s motion for a continuance.

{¶ 15} Mother now appeals the same judgments, and she assigns the following errors:

[1.] The trial court plainly erred by admitting the testimony and report of the guardian ad litem.

[2.] Children services failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that it should be given permanent custody of S.[S].’s children.

{¶ 16} We will begin by addressing father's second assignment of error, by which he argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant him a one-day continuance of the hearing on the permanent custody motions. We disagree.

{¶ 17} Immediately before the hearing began, father's attorney requested that the trial court continue the proceedings for one day so his client could attend. Father's attorney explained that father was not at court because there were "some maintenance issues he had to deal with at home; he couldn't leave that unattended." (Sept. 15, 2020 Tr. ...