In re A.D.
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the mother of A.D. and G.D. (Mother), appeals a decision of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the two children to Fayette County Children Services (Agency). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
{¶ 2} Since August 2009, Mother has been serving a term of community control in
{¶ 3} Mother had custody of the children for approximately a month when she was arrested on November 5, 2013 for failing to report to her probation officer. Mother tested positive for marijuana, heroin, and cocaine and was incarcerated. On November 6, 2013, the Agency filed a motion for emergency temporary custody of A.D. and G.D., which the trial court granted that same day. The Agency also filed a complaint alleging that A.D. and G.D. were neglected and dependent children and sought permanent custody of the children. Thereafter, the juvenile court found that A.D. and G.D. are dependent children and it is in the children‘s best interest to remain in the temporary custody of the Agency pending disposition of the case.
{¶ 4} In December 2013, Mother‘s community control was revoked and she was sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment. During this time, Mother‘s husband (Stepfather) was also incarcerated on drug-related charges. On December 12, 2013, the Agency filed a case plan to reunify Mother with A.D. and G.D. The case plan required Mother to remain drug free and complete drug and mental health treatment programs, attend parenting classes, and provide for the children‘s basic needs.
{¶ 5} On April 17, 2014, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding the Agency‘s request for permanent custody of A.D. and G.D. Father permanently surrendered his parental rights to the children. At the time of the hearing, Mother remained incarcerated but was scheduled to be released from prison in one week.
{¶ 7} Anders testified that in 2013, Mother attended and completed an inpatient drug treatment program. Mother remained sober until the fall of 2013 when Anders found Mother with drug paraphernalia. In November 2013, Mother was arrested for failing to report to her probation officer and failing to take a drug test. Eventually, Mother‘s probation was revoked which led to her six-month jail sentence.
{¶ 8} Margo Robinson, the Agency case worker assigned to the family, also testified regarding Mother‘s struggles with drug addiction. Robinson explained that Mother does not have a driver‘s license, has not been employed since 2011, is married to Stepfather who also struggles with substance abuse, lives off Stepfather‘s disability check, and had not arranged for suitable housing when she was released from jail. Additionally, the Agency has concerns with Mother‘s mental health and there are allegations of violence between Mother and Stepfather.
{¶ 10} Lastly, Mother testified at the hearing that she was due to be released from jail in one week. Upon release, Mother plans to live with her sponsor in Fayette County and the children can live in the sponsor‘s home as well. Mother stated that while in jail she attended substance abuse meetings five days a week and that she underwent a mental health assessment and she was cleared. Once she is released, Mother plans to end her relationship with Stepfather due to his history of drug abuse and to find employment.
{¶ 11} In an entry dated June 17, 2013, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of A.D. and G.D. to grant permanent custody to the Agency. The court also found that the Agency had made reasonable efforts toward reunifying the family.
{¶ 12} Mother now appeals, asserting two assignments of error.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT [THE AGENCY] MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN TO RETURN HOME TO [MOTHER].
{¶ 16} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate court‘s review of a juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody is limited to whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court‘s determination. In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612, 2002-Ohio-6892, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). A reviewing court will reverse a finding by the juvenile court that the evidence was clear and convincing only if there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented. In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510, 520 (12th Dist.2000).
{¶ 17} Except for a few narrowly defined statutory exceptions,
{¶ 18} As this court has stated, “[i]n determining whether the agency made reasonable
{¶ 19} Upon a review of the record, the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mother or other family members. The Agency has been involved with the family for several years and Mother has failed to remain drug free, provide for the children‘s basic needs, or provide a safe home for the children. Mother has participated in numerous drug treatment programs yet continues to relapse. Mother has failed to obtain employment and does not have a driver‘s license. She is married to Stepfather who struggles with drug addiction and was incarcerated at the time of the permanent custody hearing. Additionally, the children do not wish to live with Mother anymore and while in the custody of Mother, the children experimented with drugs and self-inflicted cutting. The Agency has also made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with other family members. Father has surrendered his parental rights to the children. The Agency contacted a cousin who was deemed inappropriate for placement and the children‘s maternal grandmother did not want custody until Mother‘s parental rights were terminated.
{¶ 20} While the current case plan was filed when Mother was incarcerated, the evidence demonstrated that the Agency has been involved with Mother and the children for years and the Agency has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in finding throughout the case that the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunite the children with their family.
{¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 23} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO GRANT PERMANENT CUSTODY TO [THE AGENCY] WITHOUT EVALUATING THE LESS RESTRICTION [sic] OPTION OF PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN.
{¶ 24} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to the Agency. Specifically, Mother argues the Agency did not review the children‘s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement could have been achieved by a planned permanent living arrangement.
{¶ 25} Pursuant to
{¶ 26} The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children
{¶ 27}
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child‘s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, 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 consecutive twenty-two month period * * *;
(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 the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 28} With respect to
{¶ 29} With respect to
{¶ 30} In regards to Mother‘s argument that the appropriate disposition would have been a planned permanent living arrangement, we remind Mother that the juvenile court was without authority to place the children in a planned permanent living arrangement, as the Agency did not file a motion requesting such a disposition. In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230, 2006-Ohio-4359, ¶ 37. Moreover, the Agency had no obligation to request such a disposition. In re C.T., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-07-180, 2009-Ohio-1037, ¶ 34.
{¶ 31} Based on consideration of the statutory factors, the juvenile court determined by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of A.D. and G.D. to grant permanent custody to the Agency. After careful review, we find the juvenile court‘s decision is supported by the evidence and it is in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to the Agency. The evidence establishes that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with either parent. Additionally, the evidence supports that granting permanent custody to the Agency is in the best interest of the children. Mother has struggled with drug addiction for years, had
{¶ 32} Mother‘s second assignment of error is overruled
{¶ 33} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.