IN RE: L.C. Z.G. Z.G. Z.G. Z.G.
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. DN 16-07-574 DN 16-07-575 DN 16-07-576
DN 16-07-577 DN 16-07-578.
P. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO
GUEST, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
ANNETTE POWERS, Attorney at Law, for the Children.
KERNAN, Guardian ad Litem.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR, JUDGE.
Appellants, L.G. ("Mother") and P.C. ("Father
C"), appeal from a judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated their
parental rights and placed their minor children in the
permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board
("CSB"). This Court affirms.
Mother is the biological mother of the five minor children at
issue in this appeal: L.C., born November 29, 2004; Z.G.,
born May 13, 2006; Z.G., born February 20, 2008; Z.G., born
January 1, 2010; and Z.G., born April 3, 2014. Father C. is
the father of only the middle child, Z.G, born February 20,
2008. The other fathers did not appeal the trial court's
CSB has a lengthy history with this family that has included
six abuse, neglect, and dependency cases dating back to 2004
when L.C. was an infant. During the case before this one, the
juvenile court eventually placed the children in the legal
custody of their maternal grandmother. This case began on
July 11, 2016, when Akron police removed these children from
the home of their grandmother pursuant to Juv.R. 6. The
children were all adjudicated dependent in this case on
October 24, 2016.
Several weeks later, CSB moved for permanent custody of all
five children. The first permanent custody hearing was held
as scheduled on March 9, 2017, before a visiting judge. None
of the parents appeared, nor did any counsel on their behalf.
After the hearing, the trial court entered judgment,
terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody of
the children to CSB.
Mother appealed from that judgment and this Court reversed
and remanded because Mother was denied proper notice and an
opportunity to be heard at the permanent custody hearing.
In re L.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28718,
2018-Ohio-370, ¶ 1. Specifically, Mother was not
properly served with the permanent custody motion, and she
did not have the opportunity to participate at the final
hearing to defend against CSB's motion. Id. at
On remand, CSB again moved for permanent custody. During
April 2018, CSB first became aware of Father C. as a
potential father of the child Z.G who was born on February
20, 2008. Father C. did not establish his paternity, however,
until February 2019, shortly before the permanent custody
The matter proceeded to a final hearing. Mother appeared at
the hearing and was represented by counsel. Father C. was
incarcerated at the time, had informed his counsel that he
did not want to be transported to the hearing, but that he
wanted to be represented by counsel. Through counsel, Father
expressed that he supported Mother receiving custody of his
Following the hearing, the trial court found, among other
first prong grounds, that CSB had established grounds under
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) because the children had been
adjudicated dependent on at least three separate occasions.
The trial court also found that permanent custody was in the
best interest of each child. ...