In re A.B.
{¶1} Appellant-father appeals from the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Division Court‘s decision granting permanent сustody of his daughter to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS“). As required by
{¶2} CCDCFS filed a сomplaint for neglect and temporary custody with respect to appellant‘s daughter, A.B.1 on September 29, 2010. The complaint alleged that A.B. was neglected pursuant to
{¶3} On January 25, 2011, the complaint was amended and appellant admitted to the amended allegations. The complaint was changed from neglect to dependency, the allegations of appellant‘s history of mental health and substance abuse issues were deleted and they were replaced with statements that appellant needed to undergo mental health and substance abuse assеssments. A.B. was adjudged to be a dependant child and
{¶4} CCDCFS‘s temporary custody of A.B. was extended twice during 2011 to allow appellant the opportunity to progress on a case plan with the goal of rеunification. On June 27, 2012, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. On August 17, 2012, appellant filed a motion to terminate temporary custody and grant legal custody in favor of himself or, altеrnatively, his fiancée.
{¶5} The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 13, 2013. On March 27, 2013 the trial court issued a journal entry granting CCDCFS‘s motion for permanent custody. Appellant appeals from this order assigning thе following sole assignment of error:
The trial court erred in granting permanent custody since (1) none of the circumstances set forth in
R.C. 2151.414(E) were proven by clear and convincing evidence and (2) the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶6} Appellant‘s argument regarding
{¶7} The record reflects that
{¶8}
{¶9} As the condition set forth in
{¶11}
(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section * * * the cоurt shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child‘s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providеrs, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child‘s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child;
(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public-children-services agencies or private-child-placing agencies for twelve or more months of a сonsecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public-children-services agencies or private-child-placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in аnother state;
(d) The child‘s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to thе agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶12} Shamelle Middleton, the CCDCFS social worker assigned to this case, was the sole witness to testify at the permanent custody hearing. She stated that CCDCFS initially received a referral into the kids hotline that appellant was not in a position to provide care for A.B. CCDCFS began an investigation and Middleton testified that appellant reported that he had a bipolar mental health diagnosis. CCDCFS implemented a safety plan that placed A.B. in the care of an aunt. Two weeks later apрellant was arrested and the aunt refused to provide further care for A.B. At that point CCDCFS filed a complaint and obtained a temporary order of removal.
{¶13} The goal of the permanency plan was reunification of A.B. with appellant.3 The case plan provided for appellant to undergo substance abuse and mental health assessments. Middleton testified that appellant was initiаlly not cooperative with the case plan and blamed her for the removal of A.B.
{¶14} Appellant did eventually complete both mental health and substance abuse assessments. Appellant wаs not diagnosed with a psychiatric condition but the mental health assessment recommended that he maintain a year of sobriety. The substance abuse assessment recommended that he complete outpatient treatment. Appellant
{¶15} In addition to appellant‘s inability to maintain sobriety, the record reflects that he failed to visit A.B. from March 2012 to December 2012. Middleton testified that he cancelled and failed to appear for visits in March 2012. Appellant requested in April that visits take place in his own home but that requеst was denied when he failed a drug test. Appellant did not visit with A.B. again until January 2013. Middleton testified that she encouraged appellant to re-engage in November 2012 and he indicated at that time that he would prеfer that A.B. be cared for by his own mother or another relative.
{¶16} Finally, A.B.‘s guardian ad litem (“G.A.L.“) submitted a report echoing Middleton‘s concerns regarding appellant‘s disengagement with the case. The G.A.L. recоmmended permanent custody in favor of CCDCFS. Middleton also testified that a potential adoptive placement had been identified for A.B.
{¶17} The above record contains clear and convinсing evidence reflecting negatively on appellant in regard to many of the
{¶18} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶19} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said lower court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR