In re B.T.
Brian Shidaker, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle E. Sollars, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Melissa A. Berry, for father
Sandy Bigley, for CASA.
O P I N I O N
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 2} At the outset, we decline to address Mother‘s appeal regarding Brian because we find that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to grant the Agency permanent custody of Brian. The jurisdiction of the juvenile court over abused, neglected, or dependent children is controlled by
The court shall retain jurisdiction over any child for whom the court issues an order of disposition pursuant to division (A) of this section or pursuant to section 2151.414 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code until the child attains the age of eighteen years . . . , except that the court may retain jurisdiction over the child and continue any order of disposition under division (A) of this section or under section 2151.414 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code for a specified period of time to enable the child to graduate from high school or vocational school. The court shall make an entry continuing its jurisdiction under this division in the journal.
{¶ 3}
{¶ 4} The Agency became involved with the family in October 2021 after learning that Brian, then almost 15 years old, was not attending school regularly and that seven-year-old Jane was not enrolled in school. The Agency worked informally with the family for a few months and closed the case on January 6, 2022, after Brian‘s attendance improved and Jane was enrolled in school. However, the Agency opened a new investigation on January 12, 2022, upon learning that Jane had excessive absences and
{¶ 5} The children were adjudicated dependent on May 18, 2022. The children initially remained in Mother‘s custody under the Agency‘s protective supervision. Mother began testing positive for methamphetamine in the summer of 2022. As a result, a safety plan was put into place pursuant to which the children resided with a maternal aunt.3 The safety plan was violated in August 2022 when Mother came to the courthouse with Brian unsupervised. It was again violated in January 2023 when the Agency received information that Father was living at the maternal aunt‘s residence despite a no-contact order between Father and Mother. As a result, the juvenile court granted temporary custody of the children to the Agency on January 6, 2023. Jane was placed in a kinship care with a different maternal aunt, and Brian was placed at the home of his coach. Both placements disrupted and the children were placed together in the care of long-time friends of Mother (“Friends“). In January 2024, the juvenile court terminated the Agency‘s temporary custody and granted Friends temporary custody of the children.4 However, this
{¶ 6} The Agency implemented a case plan for Mother in May 2022. The case plan required Mother to receive treatment for mental health and substance abuse and obtain and maintain stable employment and housing, and for Brian to attend school. Over the course of the case, the case plan was updated six times for the following reasons: to reflect the four changes in placement for the children; to address domestic violence after Mother revealed that Father had head-butted her on October 26, 2022; and to add Father to the plan in March 2023.
{¶ 7} Father‘s initial case plan required him to obtain full-time employment, to complete a mental health assessment and follow through with all recommended treatments, to obtain housing as he had been homeless for several months, and to complete the domestic violence OCEPI workbook in light of the head-butting incident. A later case plan, filed in July 2024, required Father to complete the OCEPI workbook, to engage in mental health services and follow through with all recommended treatments, and to obtain independent housing. The case plan noted that Father was currently residing with Mother “who continues to test positive for illegal substances. There have been previous concerns of domestic violence between the two of them.”
{¶ 8} On May 23, 2024, the Agency moved for permanent custody of the children.
{¶ 9} Testimony revealed that both Mother and Father completed the domestic violence OCEPI workbook, that they were residing together in Mother‘s home, that Father was fully employed and earning $40,000-50,000 a year, that Father had neither substance abuse issues nor a criminal record, and that there is a mutual loving bond between the children and the parents. Testimony also revealed the following.
Employment
{¶ 10} Although Mother was employed on and off throughout the case, she testified that she lost her job in July 2023 and that she was selling her belongings, working on cars, and working for DoorDash to pay her rent. Mother admitted she did not have a driver‘s license as it had been suspended. Mother stated that she was looking for a job, that she had submitted multiple applications, and that she could not financially support the children “if they came home today.” During his testimony, Father explained he was the one driving when Mother was delivering for DoorDash.
Housing
The Caseworker‘s and GAL‘s Contact with Mother and Father
{¶ 12} The caseworker testified that his last successful home visit was in late June 2024 and that he last saw Mother and Father during a court hearing in late July 2024. Thereafter, the caseworker tried several times to contact Mother and visit her home by calling and texting her, by making unannounced visits to the home, and by leaving notices on the door with both parents’ names. However, Mother never answered the door or replied to his texts. Although the caseworker testified he would call or text both Father and Mother before June 2024 to schedule a home visit, he only texted Mother after June 2024. He provided no explanation as to why he stopped contacting Father after June 2024. The caseworker also testified that unannounced home visits qualified for both Mother and Father and that they took place between 2:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. even though
{¶ 13} Father testified that although the Agency has his email and cellphone contact information, it does not contact him. Father confirmed that he does not come home from work until 6:00 p.m., hence after the attempted home visits.
{¶ 14} The GAL‘s testimony solely referred to her attempts at contacting Mother and visiting the home. The GAL testified that she had not spoken to Mother in a year, that she last saw the children with Mother when they all lived with her sister under the safety plan, that she went to Mother‘s home a couple of times but no one answered the door, and that she stopped trying to contact Mother after that.
Visitation
{¶ 15} Mother visited frequently but not consistently with the children at the Agency. Her last visit was on May 14, 2024. That day, Mother arrived late, was told the visit had been cancelled, and allegedly told another parent in the parking lot that she wanted to “beat up” a case aide. The threatening comment was reported to the Agency and Mother was unable to resume visitation afterward. No charges were filed against Mother. The caseworker testified that Mother was provided with the option to reach out to other agencies’ visitation centers in surrounding counties as alternative locations for visitation, that Mother had called these centers, and that Mother was told the centers did not allow visitation for out-of-county individuals. The record indicates this was the extent of the caseworker‘s efforts in assisting Mother in her attempt to resume visitation with the children. The caseworker also testified he would have advocated to have Mother‘s visitation reinstated had she been showing progress on her case plan. However, he had not done so because “as far as [he knew], [Mother] was not in counseling” and her last drug test was positive.
Jane‘s wishes
{¶ 17} Throughout the case, the GAL reported that after the children were no longer residing with their maternal aunt under the safety plan, they both expressed their desire to live with Mother in their own home, and Jane further stated she wanted Father to live with them. In her final report, the GAL reported that “[a]lthough both children state they wish they could reunite with their mother, both report feeling happy and safe in the current placement, and both state they wish to remain with the [foster] family.” The caseworker testified that although the children care for and love visiting with Mother and Father, they both desire finality. The caseworker also stated that Jane wanted the case to conclude and either go home or be adopted were the Agency to get permanent custody. The foster family did not testify and the Agency did not present evidence that the family was interested in adopting Jane. The juvenile court did not interview the children in camera but found that the children desire finality.
Other Concerns of the Caseworker and GAL
{¶ 18} The main concerns for the caseworker and the GAL were Mother‘s substance abuse issues, Father‘s unwillingness or inability to recognize Mother‘s substance abuse issues, the prior head-butting incident and Mother‘s allegation she was in a domestic violent relationship with Father, and the belief Mother and Father were so
No-Contact Order
{¶ 19} The no-contact order was issued on November 30, 2022, a month after the head-butting incident. Father testified the parties accidentally butted their heads when he was gathering his belongings to leave Mother‘s home at her request. Mother testified Father intentionally head-butted her in the face during a dispute, out of anger. No charges were filed. Father testified he did not become aware of the no-contact order until he appeared before the juvenile court in January 2023, ostensibly because of the second violation of the safety plan. The juvenile court vacated the no-contact order in May 2023. The GAL testified there was no evidence that the children were exposed to domestic violence acts or that they were themselves physically abused.
Mental Health
{¶ 20} Father completed a mental health assessment at Talbert House on March 7, 2023. The assessment recommended counseling one to four times a month. The caseworker testified that Father did not follow or agree with the recommendation. The GAL reported that Father lied about the recommendation and did not engage in counseling. Father testified he participated in mental health treatment for a short period of time but stopped attending because they could not accommodate his work schedule. Sometime before the permanent custody hearing, Father completed a new mental health assessment that did not recommend treatment.
{¶ 21} The record indicates that Mother went to Talbert House and later on, to Autumn Behavioral for mental health treatment. Mother testified she went to Talbert House three times over a three-month period, did not miss any appointments, and left the
Mother‘s Substance Abuse
{¶ 22} Mother testified she has been in substance abuse programs and taking Suboxone for the past 15 years. The GAL‘s first report indicates that Mother became addicted to prescription opioids used to treat chronic pain due to arthritis and fibromyalgia. Mother asserted she started getting positive results for methamphetamine only after the Agency became involved. Mother adamantly denies she uses methamphetamine, and over the course of the case has provided several explanations for the positive results.
{¶ 23} Mother testified that she went weekly to BrightView for substance abuse treatment. While there, she tested positive for methamphetamine four times over a four-month period between June and October 2022. Exhibit 6, BrightView‘s test results, curiously states that all four samples were collected at a facility at midnight. The same document also shows that Mother tested negative for methamphetamine between February and May 2022, and in January and February 2023. Mother disputed the Agency‘s position that she was discharged from the program because of poor attendance. A letter BrightView sent to the Agency on May 14, 2023, provides, “Patient‘s last kept appointment occurred on 3/16/23 and patient doesn‘t currently have upcoming counseling sessions. Progress reports will be paused moving forward until patient re-engages or is discharged.” Mother testified that she left because (1) the juvenile court was repeatedly told there was no proof she was attending and caseworkers had not received the releases of information, and (2) a BrightView counselor had falsified information on the treatment plan and BrightView no longer felt like a safe place. Mother stated that by the time
{¶ 24} The record shows that Mother was tested whenever she appeared before the juvenile court. Mother typically provided a saliva sample via oral swabs, and the samples were sent to Forensic Fluids for testing. Using that method, Mother was tested 22 times between January 2022 and July 2024. One sample was positive for methamphetamine, 14 samples were positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, and seven samples were negative for those substances. Although Mother has been taking Suboxone on a daily basis for the last several years, six of the 22 samples tested negative for Suboxone. Mother was once found in contempt for refusing to submit to a court-ordered drug screen. At the permanent custody hearing, Mother complained that no one was helping her figure out why she keeps testing positive for methamphetamine, and that she would agree to be tested daily if it meant she could be reunified with Jane. In her quest to figure out why she keeps testing positive for methamphetamine, Mother admitted tampering with the oral swab drug tests by replacing the oral swabs provided by Forensic Fluids with identical oral swabs provided by Boulder Care and providing water instead of saliva.
{¶ 25} There is no evidence the children know about or witnessed Mother‘s substance abuse, how Mother‘s substance abuse affected her ability to parent, or how it adversely affected the children‘s home environment. The evidence related to Mother‘s substance abuse is most accurately characterized as proving only her status as an active drug user. Father testified that he has no tolerance for drug abuse, that he would not let anyone abuse drugs around the children, and that he has never witnessed Mother do drugs. Father also stated that based upon how methamphetamine typically affects users
Additional Relevant Testimony
{¶ 26} The caseworker generally stated that two relatives, Mother‘s first biological child and an aunt living in Kentucky, could be possible placement options. Although the caseworker testified that the children have a good and loving relationship with their oldest sister, the Agency had decided that the older sibling was not a placement option. The caseworker did not provide an explanation. The caseworker further indicated that the Agency had not heard back from Kentucky regarding the ICPC.
{¶ 27} In addition to the concerns listed above, the GAL testified that other concerns included Father‘s dishonesty about the treatment recommendations following his first mental health assessment. The GAL was not aware that Father had recently completed a mental health assessment and that it recommended no treatment. The GAL also expressed concerns about domestic violence in the home presumably based upon the head-butting incident. Despite this single incident between Mother and Father in their long history together, the GAL characterized the relationship as involving patterns of domestic violence that “would likely reassert themselves” were the family back together, and stated that the home provided by Mother and Father was “very unstable” and one where domestic violence had happened. When asked if it was possible there was no additional domestic violence after the head-butting incident, the GAL flippantly replied, “It‘s possible that Paris is not in France, but I believe it is there.”
{¶ 28} On direct examination, the GAL also stated that Mother “has been unable to meet the children‘s basic needs.” However, when asked about that statement on cross-examination, the GAL (1) disputed making that statement, (2) asserted that Mother “had
{¶ 29} On February 18, 2025, the juvenile court issued an entry granting the Agency‘s motion for permanent custody. The juvenile court found that Jane had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 of a consecutive 22-month period, and even if Jane had not been in the Agency‘s temporary custody for 12 of the last 22 months, she could not be placed with her parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with them. The juvenile court further found that granting permanent custody of Jane to the Agency was in the child‘s best interest.
{¶ 30} Mother now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision, raising four assignments of error. Father also appeals the juvenile court‘s decision, raising two assignments of error. This court consolidated the appeals for review and disposition. For ease of discussion, Mother‘s second and fourth assignments of error and Father‘s first assignment of error will be considered together.
{¶ 31} Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 2:
THE JUVENILE COURT‘S DECISION GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE AGENCY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND IN FAVOR OF THE STATE.
{¶ 32} Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 4:
GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE STATE IS A VIOLATION OF MOTHER‘S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE CHILDREN‘S BEST INTEREST TO TERMINATE FATHER‘S RIGHTS AND PLACE THE CHILDREN IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF CCCS.
{¶ 34} In the assignments of error above, Mother and Father both argue that the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of Jane to the Agency was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 35} The right to parent one‘s children is a fundamental right. In re H.G., 2015-Ohio-1764, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.), citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000), and In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). Before a parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In re H.G. at ¶ 30. Additionally, the state is required to prove that it made reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child during the child-custody proceedings prior to the termination of parental rights. In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 26, citing
{¶ 36}
{¶ 37} “An appellate court‘s review of a juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody is generally limited to considering whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court‘s determination.” In re D.P., 2020-Ohio-6663, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). “That is to say, the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody must be supported by sufficient evidence.” In re P.E., 2023-Ohio-2438, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). Sufficiency of the evidence tests the burden of production. In re M.W., 2025-Ohio-1968, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment is a question of law.
{¶ 38} In determining whether a juvenile court‘s decision granting a motion for permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an “appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the
{¶ 39} As stated above, the juvenile court found that Jane had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period prior to the Agency filing its motion for permanent custody. See
{¶ 40} On appeal, Father challenges the juvenile court‘s determination that Jane could not be placed with him within a reasonable time or should not be placed with him. We need not review this issue, however. In re R.B., 2023-Ohio-3146, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). As noted above, only one of the
{¶ 41} As neither Mother nor Father have shown any error related to the second prong of the permanent custody test, we turn our focus to the juvenile court‘s determination that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in Jane‘s best interest.
{¶ 42} An agency that seeks permanent custody of a child bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the child‘s best interest. In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558, at ¶ 26. Before granting permanent custody, the juvenile court is required to consider all relevant factors under
{¶ 43} The juvenile court‘s February 18, 2025 entry granting permanent custody to the Agency contains 72 items ostensibly listed as findings of fact. We note that a large number of these items are not findings of fact, but rather, are recitations of the evidence presented to the juvenile court, without any statement indicating whether the court believed the testimony presented. See Smith v. Quigg, 2006-Ohio-1494 (5th Dist.). The court‘s entry then identifies the
Father‘s Appeal
{¶ 44} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the juvenile court erred in determining it was in Jane‘s interest to award permanent custody to the Agency. In support, Father emphasizes that he has never wavered in his expressed desire to reunify with Jane, that he has maintained stable employment and housing throughout the pendency of the case, that he regularly visited with Jane and that the two are bonded and care deeply for one another, and that no concerns were ever raised regarding his parenting or substance abuse. Father also argues the juvenile court erred in finding the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Jane.
{¶ 45} It is undisputed that Father completed the domestic violence OCEPI workbook, that the juvenile court vacated the no-contact order a few months after it was issued, that Father was fully employed and earning $40,000-50,000 a year, that he had no substance abuse issues, that he had no criminal record, that there is a mutual loving bond between him and Jane, and that he visited Jane at the Agency once a week and only missed one visit. As the caseworker testified, Father‘s failure to secure appropriate housing separate from Mother was by all accounts the only outstanding concern regarding Father and one that prevented his reunification with Jane because of Mother‘s substance abuse issues. The caseworker also testified that in any event, reunification was no longer the Agency‘s goal for the case. The juvenile court found that Father had
{¶ 46} The record shows that Father spent time, money, and efforts in looking for an affordable and appropriate housing separate from Mother. Father testified that despite his full-time employment earning $40,000-50,000 a year, his lack of a criminal record, multiple weekly costly applications, and expanding his search to several cities, he had been unable to find appropriate and affordable housing separate from Mother. During her testimony, the GAL acknowledged that finding housing was very difficult for everybody. Mother testified that in her efforts to help Father complete the housing requirement of his case plan, she offered numerous times to move out of her home. However, the Agency turned down her offer each time. Consequently, Father requested assistance from the Agency. It responded to Father‘s request for housing assistance by simply having him sign an Emergency Service Allocation form in late summer 2024, a few months before the permanent custody hearing. There was no follow up or other assistance provided by the Agency.
{¶ 47} Contrary to the juvenile court‘s finding, the record does not show that the Agency made reasonable efforts toward reunifying Jane with Father. In a permanent child custody matter, the Agency has the responsibility to actively aid the parent so that the children can be returned to the parent. In re D.D., 2023-Ohio-4147, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.). The Agency also has the burden to prove it made reasonable efforts to reunify. Id. at ¶ 20. “‘Reasonable efforts’ does not mean all available efforts. Otherwise, there would always be an argument that one more additional service, no matter how remote, may have made reunification possible.” In re M.A.P., 2013-Ohio-655, ¶ 47 (12th Dist.). Even so, “[r]easonable efforts means that a children‘s services agency must act diligently and provide services appropriate to the family‘s need to prevent the child‘s removal or as a
{¶ 48} The record also shows that the Agency neither worked around nor accommodated Father‘s busy work schedule in attempting to see or contact him. Although the caseworker knew that Father was never home from work until after 5:30 p.m., the caseworker consistently made unannounced home visits before 5:00 p.m., leaving a notice on the door without any follow up calls, and stopped contacting Father after June 2024. The caseworker provided no explanation as to why he stopped contacting Father after June 2024. Father‘s testimony that the Agency does not contact him despite having his email and cellphone contact information was unrebutted.
{¶ 49} We also find that the Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that granting the Agency permanent custody was in Jane‘s best interest. In examining the first best interest factor under
{¶ 50} Concerning the fourth best-interest factor under
{¶ 51} Although a children services agency must act diligently and use reasonable efforts to assist the parents to remedy their problems as a predicate to reunification, we find that the Agency‘s actions toward reunification with Father were not “characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic application and effort.” In re D.D., 2023-Ohio-4147, at ¶ 27 (10th Dist.). The purpose of
{¶ 52} While we recognize the importance of permanent placement for children, we are not willing to condone the permanent removal of a child from his or her family without an adequate demonstration of an agency‘s reasonable efforts and a parent‘s incapacity to provide adequate parental care. See In re Fry, 2002-Ohio-3935 (3d Dist.). The Agency had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father‘s parental rights was warranted. The record does not demonstrate reasonable
Mother‘s Appeal
{¶ 53} In her second and fourth assignments of error, Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding it was in Jane‘s best interest to award permanent custody to the Agency because (1) Father or two relatives the Agency was in the process of vetting could or should have qualified as a legally secure placement without an award of permanent custody to the Agency, (2) the juvenile court improperly gave weight to the testimony of Jerome “Pete” Reed, the certifying scientist from Forensic Fluids, (3) Mother substantially complied with her case plan and has always denied using drugs, and (4) the Agency‘s termination of her visits ensured that she could not regain custody of Jane. We address Mother‘s expert testimony issue first. The other three issues for review will be considered together.
{¶ 54} In its entry granting the Agency permanent custody of Jane, the juvenile court found Reed‘s testimony to be credible. At the permanent custody hearing, Reed testified as an expert witness in the field of oral fluid testing. Reed explained the processes used at Forensic Fluids, including sample collection, tracking, initial testing, and confirmation testing, as well as the methods used for eliminating the possibility of false positives. He also explained how Forensic Fluids would indicate whether a sample
{¶ 55} In her second issue for review, Mother argues that the juvenile court should not have given weight to Reed‘s testimony because it directly conflicted with that of his supervisor. Mother asserts that upon being informed of the conflicting testimony, and because Reed‘s testimony was the only evidence of positive drug tests, the “judge should have granted the continuance. When he denied the continuance originally, he said that he may consider granting it later in the day but he did not ultimately allow the case to be continued. A continuance would have allowed the witness with conflicting testimony to be brought in to Court to testify.”
{¶ 56} Mother‘s second issue for review lacks merit. First, evidence of the supervisor‘s alleged conflicting testimony was not put before the juvenile court and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. As an appellate court, our review is strictly limited to the record before us and we cannot consider matters or facts that are outside the record or were not part of the trial court proceedings. In re M.B., 2024-Ohio-3239, ¶ 47, fn. 5 (12th Dist.); In re L.E., 2022-Ohio-3962, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.). Second, while Father‘s counsel alluded to the alleged inconsistencies in testimony, no motion for continuance was made to have the supervisor brought before the juvenile court, and any earlier oral
{¶ 57} We now turn to Mother‘s remaining issues for review, which essentially challenge the juvenile court‘s determination that it was in Jane‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 58} As stated above, in examining the first best interest factor under
{¶ 59} The record shows that Mother regularly visited with Jane, and there was no testimony the visits did not go well. This is not a case where Mother has abandoned Jane or repeatedly failed to visit her. Then, on May 14, 2024, the Agency cancelled Mother‘s visit when she arrived late, and subsequently terminated all visitation after the Agency heard, second-hand from another parent, that Mother had made some threat in the parking lot after being denied visitation that day. The caseworker testified he had not heard the threat and no one else from the Agency testified about the threat or its content.
{¶ 60} Concerning the fourth best-interest factor under
{¶ 61} The main obstacles to Mother‘s reunification with Jane and the reasons why her parental rights were terminated were Mother‘s substance abuse and the head-butting incident.
{¶ 62} The evidence presented by the Agency regarding Mother‘s substance abuse is based solely upon positive tests results and is most accurately characterized as proving only her status as an active drug user. In analyzing the best interest factors, the juvenile court did not determine whether any of the factors in
{¶ 63} Although Mother‘s use of methamphetamine was relevant evidence that the juvenile court should consider, the Agency presented no evidence that methamphetamine use affected Mother‘s parenting and ability to provide a legally secure home for Jane, that
{¶ 64} This court does not condone a parent‘s use of an illegal substance or abuse of a legal substance, and certainly does not condone Mother‘s methamphetamine use. Her actions regarding drug use and substance abuse treatment are inappropriate and unsalutary. We also recognize that a parent‘s drug use may or can result in environmental risks to his or her children. However, to warrant state intervention under
{¶ 65} We also note that the caseworker testified (1) that Mother did not complete her mental health counseling at Talbert House and Autumn Behavioral, (2) that Mother went to BrightView for substance abuse treatment but was discharged from the program for poor attendance, (3) that he did not have any documentation that Mother was still attending Boulder Care, (4) and that he did not have documentation that Mother completed treatment programs at Talbert House, BrightView, Boulder Care, or Autumn Behavioral. Mother testified that she signed several releases of information multiple times. The record indicates that she did so for unidentified providers. The caseworker testified that Mother signed a release for Boulder Care, that he had requested records from the provider, and that he did not recall receiving them. In support of the caseworker‘s overall testimony, the State submitted only one exhibit, the letter BrightView sent to the Agency on May 14, 2023, which provided that Mother‘s last kept appointment occurred in March 2023, that she had no upcoming counseling sessions, and that progress reports would be paused until Mother re-engaged or was discharged. Contrary to the State‘s assertion, the letter does not state that Mother was discharged from the program or that she was allegedly discharged because of poor attendance. Mother testified that by the time BrightView sent the letter, she had left the program on her own accord and had transferred to Boulder Care.
{¶ 66} Despite its burden of proof and evidence that Mother had signed releases
{¶ 67} The other obstacle to Mother‘s (and Father‘s) reunification with Jane was the head-butting incident and allegations of domestic violence. In reciting the evidence presented at the permanent custody hearing in its February 18, 2025 entry, the juvenile court noted the incident and Mother‘s and Father‘s respective versions. Then, in examining the best interest factor under
{¶ 68} The Agency had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Mother‘s parental rights was warranted. The purpose of the termination of parental rights statutes is to make a more stable life for the dependent children and to facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children. In re A.L., 2024-Ohio-1992, ¶ 44 (8th Dist.). This court does not look upon these matters lightly, and this case is certainly no exception. But in light of the above and given the evidence before the juvenile court on the best interest factors, we must conclude that the Agency did not meet its burden and the juvenile court erred in finding that terminating Mother‘s parental rights and granting permanent custody of Jane to the Agency was in Jane‘s best interest.
{¶ 69} In light of the foregoing, the juvenile court‘s February 18, 2025 entry granting permanent custody of Jane to the Agency is reversed. Mother‘s second and fourth assignments of error and Father‘s first assignment of error are sustained.
{¶ 70} The parents’ remaining assignments of error are as follows.
{¶ 71} Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 1:
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE CAUSING A VIOLATION OF [MOTHER‘S] SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A CONTINUANCE AS REQUESTED TO ALLOW MOTHER TIME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL.
{¶ 72} Mother‘s Assignment of Error No. 3:
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT MOTHER ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLETE HER CASE PLAN.
{¶ 73} Father‘s Assignment of Error No. 2:
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED BY ALLOCATING ANY WEIGHT TO THE [GAL‘S] REPORT OR TESTIMONY, BECAUSE HER INVESTIGATION WAS DEFICIENT AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
{¶ 74} In light of our resolution of Mother‘s second and fourth assignments of error and Father‘s first assignment of error, and our reversal of the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of Jane to the Agency, the remaining assignments of error above are moot and we do not decide them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶ 75} In Case No. CA2025-03-024, the judgment or final order appealed from in Juvenile Case No. 20223013 is vacated as to the granting of permanent custody of Brian, and, in both Case Nos. CA2025-03-024 and CA2025-03-025, the granting of permanent custody of Jane in Juvenile Case No. 20223014 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above opinion.
SIEBERT, J., concurs.
BYRNE, P.J., concurs separately.
BYRNE, P.J., concurring separately.
{¶ 76} I concur with and fully join the court‘s opinion. I write separately, however, to emphasize a few points.
{¶ 77} I have grave concerns about Mother‘s positive drug test results indicating methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine is a dangerous and highly destructive illegal drug. In most cases, methamphetamine use will lead a parent to act in ways that directly or indirectly harm their children, leading to the need to temporarily remove the children
{¶ 78} But we are only able to decide cases based on the record before us. And the record before us in this case does not include any testimony or other evidence concerning any link between Mother‘s methamphetamine use and resulting harm to Jane. I find it hard to believe that such evidence does not exist, but I also am not permitted to invent evidence where none exists. It is unclear why the state did not present testimony or other evidence at the permanent custody hearing concerning how Mother‘s drug use may have harmed Jane.
{¶ 79} I am also concerned about Father‘s alleged incident of domestic violence involving head-butting. As with illegal drug use, domestic violence will often justify temporarily removing children from a parent‘s custody, and possibly lead to a permanent custody decision. But in this case the evidence about the head-butting incident was contradictory, and the state did not offer evidence regarding any other incidents of domestic violence, let alone its impact on Jane. And in the end, the agency itself apparently dropped its concerns about domestic violence, as the caseworker testified that Father‘s housing situation was the only concern preventing the children‘s reunification with Father.
{¶ 80} In the absence of evidence of harm to Jane in the circumstances of this particular case, we must find for Mother and Father. We have stated on numerous occasions that parents have a “constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of [their] child,” In re N.L., 2025-Ohio-2625, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), and that such parental rights are “fundamental,” In re H.G., 2015-Ohio-1764, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.), citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). While we have usually made these statements
{¶ 81} Parental rights are so important that, in order to terminate those rights, “the state is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met.” In re M.G., 2023-Ohio-1316, ¶ 44 (12th Dist.);
{¶ 82} I share the agency‘s concerns about Mother and Father, who are far from perfect parents. Mother, in particular, needs to turn her life around; the failure to do so could lead to further litigation involving Jane or to criminal charges against Mother. But the law does not permit the courts to terminate parental rights merely because parents make poor choices. In this Constitutional Republic, the government, for very good reason, must meet a high standard to obtain the termination of parental rights. It did not do so here.
SIEBERT, J. concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.
SIEBERT, J. concurring.
{¶ 83} While I fully concur with the majority opinion, I also concur with the concurring opinion written by Judge Byrne.
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that in Case No. CA2025-03-024, the judgment or final order appealed from in Juvenile Case No. 20223013 be, and the same hereby is, vacated as to the granting of permanent custody of B.T., and, in both Case Nos. CA2025-03-024 and CA2025-03-025, the granting of permanent custody of J.C in Juvenile Case No. 20223014 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above Opinion.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed 100% to appellee.
/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge