Opinion
2023 CA 00014 2023 CA 00015
07-25-2023
IN THE MATTER OF: D.M.B-M and D.L.B-M
Appellant Mother JERMAINE L. COLQUITT Guardian ad Litem ALLISON MACLEOD-OWEN For Appellees W. SCOTT HAYES HAYES LAW OFFICE
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2022-5073 and 2022-5074
Appellant Mother JERMAINE L. COLQUITT
Guardian ad Litem ALLISON MACLEOD-OWEN
For Appellees W. SCOTT HAYES HAYES LAW OFFICE
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
OPINION
WISE, J.
{¶1} Appellant M.B. appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted Timothy and Mary Martin's ("Appellees") petition for adoption of D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M (the "children"). The following facts give rise to this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} In 2014, the children were removed from the care of Appellant, the biological mother. Prior to placement with Appellees the children were living with their maternal grandmother, M.T, and Appellant's four other children.
{¶3} Eventually legal custody was granted to Appellees as six children were too much for M.T. Appellees have a clean home and enough room to accommodate the children.
{¶4} Before Appellees filed the adoption petition, the children regularly visited M.T. and their siblings. After the petition was filed, M.T. and their siblings began being cruel to the children. M.T. threatened to continue to harass Appellees until they withdrew the petition. The harassment and claims of abuse by Appellees only arose after the filing of the adoption petition.
{¶5} The Guardian ad Litem found that despite M.T.'s harassment, Appellees provide a stable, consistent, loving presence for the children. The children are enrolled in school and learning well. They are also involved in extracurricular activities including baseball and soccer.
{¶6} Appellees keep up with the children's medical and therapy appointments.
{¶7} The Guardian ad Litem found the children are comfortable and happy in the Appellees' home. The children have bonded with Appellees and have communicated that they are excited to be adopted by Appellees. Adoption is the natural progression to provide stability to the children's lives.
{¶8} Appellees have raised the children for most of their lives. They have medical conditions, but are keeping up with their appointments and are managing them. Their overall health is described as good. Appellant struggles with addiction from use of illicit drugs.
{¶9} Appellee Timothy Martin plead guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct from an incident where he took D.M.B-M.'s face in his hands to make the child look at him after he asked D.M.B-M. to stop making noise with a straw in the lobby of a police station. The incident left a scratch from Timothy Martin's fingernail on D.M.B-M.'s chin.
{¶10} The children's maternal grandmother called the police alleging Timothy Martin choked the child.
{¶11} On February 9, 2023, the trial court granted Appellees' Petition for Adoption.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶12} Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal and raises the following Assignments of Error:
{¶13} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING THE ADOPTION PETITION WITHOUT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERING THE FACTORS LISTED IN R.C. 3107.161(B) TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ADOPTION WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, IN VIOLATION OF OHIO LAW.
{¶14} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE ADOPTION OF D.L.B. AND D.M.B. WAS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTEREST BECAUSE THIS FINDING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
I.
{¶15} In Appellant's first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred by failing to adequately consider the factors listed in R.C. §3107.161(B). We agree.
{¶16} "A trial court is required to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) when making a determination in a contested adoption. R.C. 3107.161(B) provides a nonexclusive list of eleven factors, which the trial court is to consider when determining if an adoption is in the best interest of the child." In re Adoption of Haylett, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2003-P-0093, 2004-Ohio-2306, ¶42.
{¶17} In its February 9, 2022, judgment entry, the trial court made no references to R.C. §3107.161(B) or any factor contained therein. While the trial court is not required to list each factor individually, it must sufficiently indicate that it considered the R.C. §3107.161(B) factors so an appellate court may conduct a meaningful review. Haylett at ¶43.
{¶18} As the trial court made no indication it considered the factors of R.C. §3107.161 (B) or adequately stated the basis of its decision, this Court is unable to review the trial court's best interest determination.
{¶19} Appellant's first Assignment of Error is sustained.
II.
{¶20} Based upon our disposition in Appellant's first Assignment of Error, we find it is premature to address Appellant's second Assignment of Error.
{¶21} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Licking County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded to the trial court to sufficiently indicate whether or not the trial court considered all the factors in R.C. §3107.161 (B) and explain their application to this case.
By: Wise, J. Gwin, P. J., and King, J., concur.