IN RE: A.M.L.
CASE NO. CA2013-01-010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
6/3/2013
[Cite as In re A.M.L., 2013-Ohio-2277.]
M. POWELL, J.
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2011-0109
Amy R. Ashcraft, 240 East State Street, Trenton, Ohio 45067, for appellant
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicole Salinas, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, C.L. (Mother), appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her daughter A.M.L. to the Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services (the Agency).
{¶ 2} Mother was 16 years old when her daughter was born in February 2009. In February 2011, both Mother and her own mother (Grandmother) were drug tested while in
{¶ 3} On March 3, 2011, the police and a life squad were dispatched to Mother‘s school: Mother “was passed out” in the classroom after taking a non-prescribed Xanax. That same day, following a home visit by the Agency to Mother‘s residence, A.M.L. was removed by the police after all three adults in the home (Grandmother, the child‘s maternal great grandmother (Great Grandmother), and the latter‘s boyfriend) appeared to be under the influence as their eyes were bloodshot and their speech was slurred. None of the adults knew of Mother‘s whereabouts. A.M.L. was subsequently placed with a foster family. She has lived with the foster family since her March 2011 removal.
{¶ 4} On March 4, 2011, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that two-year old A.M.L. was neglected and dependent. On March 25, 2011, the juvenile court adjudicated A.M.L. dependent (the Agency withdrew its neglect complaint) and awarded temporary custody to the Agency. A case plan was implemented to reunify Mother with her daughter. The case plan required Mother to complete a Substance Abuse Mental Illness assessment and follow all recommendations, obtain and maintain stable housing and income, and participate in a parenting program.
{¶ 5} On March 26, 2012, the Agency moved for permanent custody of A.M.L. A hearing on the motion revealed that during the 18-month period between the child‘s removal and the permanent custody hearing, Mother (1) tested positive for various drugs on numerous occasions, (2) was arrested and incarcerated several times, (3) was inconsistent in visiting her daughter, (4) completed a substance abuse assessment but subsequently refused to participate in, and failed to complete, any treatment program, and (5) failed to complete any parenting program. While Mother was finally living independently in her own
{¶ 6} By decision filed on November 6, 2012, the magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that A.M.L. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, and that it was in the best interest of A.M.L. to grant permanent custody to the Agency. Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. On January 14, 2013, the juvenile court overruled the objections and affirmed the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶ 7} Mother appeals, raising two assignments of error. For ease of discussion, the two assignments of error will be addressed together.
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY GRANTING THE BCCS‘S MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY GRANTING THE STATE‘S MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY.
{¶ 12} Mother argues that the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody to the Agency was not in A.M.L.‘s best interest and that such finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 13} “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 have been met.” In re E.P., 12th Dist. Nos. CA2011-07-126 and CA2011-07-129, 2011-Ohio-6225, ¶ 14, citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate court‘s review of a juvenile court‘s decision regarding permanent custody is limited to whether sufficient credible evidence exists to
{¶ 14} Pursuant to
{¶ 15} Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; or, where the preceding factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.
{¶ 16} In the case at bar, the juvenile court found A.M.L. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period as of the date the Agency filed its permanent custody motion. Mother does not dispute this finding. The record contains competent credible evidence supporting this finding. The second prong of the permanent custody test is therefore satisfied.
{¶ 17} Mother, however, disputes the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of A.M.L. to the Agency was in the child‘s best interest. Specifically, Mother asserts that given her completion of a substance abuse assessment, the fact she was about to start the Adult Drug Court program, her bond with her daughter, and the magistrate‘s recognition (in Mother‘s words) that “Mother could possibly achieve the necessary traits and skills to provide permanency to the child,” the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody to
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} With regard to
{¶ 20} Before A.M.L. was removed from Mother‘s home, both lived at various times
{¶ 21} The juvenile court found that the interaction between Mother and her daughter during supervised visits “demonstrat[ed] a loving and nurturing bond.” Mother testified that visitation always goes well, she has a very close relationship with A.M.L., and the two of them have a “mother daughter bond.” The record indicates that following A.M.L.‘s removal in March 2011, Mother consistently visited her daughter twice a week (two hours each time) until September 2011. Thereafter, Mother became inconsistent, visiting at first only once a week, and subsequently visiting every other week. Due to incarceration and her drug addiction, Mother missed her daughter‘s birthday in February 2012 and did not visit at all between March 16 and August 29, 2012. Mother visited A.M.L. twice right before the permanent custody hearing.
{¶ 22} With regard to
{¶ 23} With regard to
{¶ 24} With regard to
{¶ 25} As noted earlier, the case plan required Mother to complete a Substance Abuse
{¶ 26} At the time of the permanent custody hearing, Mother had been living independently in her own apartment for three weeks. This was the first time she was living on her own. Before that, when she was not incarcerated, she lived with either Grandmother or Great Grandmother. The juvenile court found that Mother had not paid rent yet. According to Mother, the landlord was “working with her” until she had a job. At the hearing, Mother was unemployed but testified a job was being held at a Taco Bell, where she would be able to schedule her work hours around her Butler County Felony Drug Court schedule in the event she was accepted into the program. The juvenile court found that Mother provided no verification of her pending employment with Taco Bell. During the 18-month period between the child‘s removal and the permanent custody hearing, Mother was never employed.
{¶ 27} The juvenile court found that Mother completed a substance abuse assessment in January 2012, attended an Intensive Outpatient Program for a short time and then never returned, and subsequently refused multiple times to participate in any substance abuse treatment program. The record shows that Mother completed a substance abuse assessment on May 4, 2011, one day after testing positive for marijuana, and an updated substance abuse assessment on January 30, 2012, four days after testing positive for marijuana. During the course of the proceedings, Mother tested positive for drugs numerous times, including marijuana, opiates, benzodiazepines, and amphetamine.
{¶ 29} After months of denying she had a substance abuse problem and refusing to participate in or complete any substance abuse treatment program, Mother eventually admitted she was a drug addict. She also admitted at the hearing she did not become serious about her drug addiction until she faced prison time on her felony drug charges. As the juvenile court found, “Mother is currently waiting to see if she has been accepted into the Butler County Felony Drug Court program for treatment in lieu of incarceration on pending drug charges.” The court noted that “Mother will face felony prison time if she is not accepted into the program.”
{¶ 30} Mother testified that while she still is a drug addict, she is not currently using and has no desire to use. She also testified her drug addiction “had a very strong hold on [her].” Mother explained that she initially smoked marijuana, but became addicted to prescribed medication following the death of her son in the fall of 2010 (no evidence was presented as to the son). She eventually started using heroin.
{¶ 31} Finally, with regard to
{¶ 32} In light of the foregoing, and after a thorough review of the record, we find that the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody to the Agency is in A.M.L.‘s best
{¶ 33} Therefore, having found no error in the juvenile court‘s decision granting the Agency permanent custody of A.M.L., Mother‘s two assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 34} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.