IN THE MATTER OF: C.M.
CASE NO. CA2016-07-051
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
1/9/2017
[Cite as In re C.M., 2017-Ohio-57.]
RINGLAND, J.
APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 2012 JC 0432
Dever Law Firm, Scott Hoberg, 9146 Cincinnati-Columbus Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellant
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee
O P I N I O N
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological mother of C.M. (“Mother“), appeals a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of C.M. to appellee, the Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services (“CCDJFS“). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On January 9, 2012, CCDJFS filed a dependency complaint and requested
{¶ 3} Mother‘s case plan including housing, income, mental health, drug treatment, and parenting education. Mother made progress towards the completion of her case plan, particularly with her completion of a substance abuse treatment program. However, the record reflects that CCDJFS continued to express concerns with respect to Mother‘s maturity and ability to parent. Throughout the pendency of these proceedings, C.M.‘s father has failed to enter into a case plan and has no involvement in this matter.
{¶ 4} The ensuing years brought continued involvement with Mother and CCDJFS. On November 8, 2012, CCDJFS was granted temporary custody through an emergency order. Following a hearing, C.M. was again placed with Mother, again subject to the protective supervision of CCDJFS.
{¶ 5} C.M. was again removed on June 10, 2013 and temporary custody was granted to the agency on August 16, 2013. CCDJFS moved for permanent custody on August 22, 2014. Following a hearing, CCDJFS was denied permanent custody of C.M. and Mother, again, was able to obtain protective supervision of C.M. on April 10, 2015.
{¶ 6} CCDJFS moved for permanent custody a second time and a trial was held on February 5, 2016. At the permanent custody hearing, the state presented the testimonies of several CCDJFS caseworkers, the guardian ad litem (“GAL“), C.M.‘s foster father, as well as Mother‘s counselor and other individuals assigned to her case to assist with parenting and responsibility issues.
{¶ 7} Mother testified in support of her case and also called an independent homecare provider, her brother, and a neighbor. In addition, Maternal Grandmother testified
{¶ 8} The GAL prepared a written report in which she recommended permanent custody be granted to the agency. The GAL noted that Mother and C.M. are bonded, but expressed serious concern with Mother‘s maturity and ability to parent. In addition, the GAL testified that Maternal Grandmother was not a suitable placement, as she had not completed a home study and there were concerns that Mother would continue to exert influence and “run the show” with respect to C.M. In addition, there were concerns with Maternal Grandmother‘s stability in her current living arrangement. While Maternal Grandmother maintained an apartment, she did not have long-term plans at that residence and there were concerns that she would return to her home in Moscow, Ohio. At the time, Maternal Grandmother‘s son and his family resided in the Moscow home and had had been uncooperative with CCDJFS. In her testimony, Maternal Grandmother admitted that her son and his wife had a background that included “some things” on “the unacceptable list.”
{¶ 9} After taking the matter under advisement, the juvenile court magistrate granted permanent custody in favor of CCDJFS. Mother then filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which were overruled. Mother now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody to CCDJFS, raising one assignment of error for review:
{¶ 10} IN A CHILD CUSTODY CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE AGENCY DESPITE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of C.M. to CCDJFS was not in C.M.‘s best interest and was not supported by the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we find Mother‘s assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 12} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that
{¶ 15}
[T]he court 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 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.
{¶ 16} In granting the motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court considered each of the best interest factors in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. With respect to
{¶ 17} In addition, the trial testimony highlights a concerning inability to parent. In communications with C.M., Mother will often ask adult-style questions and is unable to differentiate between age-appropriate behavior and topics. The majority of their visitation time consists of playing videogames, instead of engaging in appropriate conversation. Furthermore, agency caseworkers testified about a number of situations highlighting Mother‘s impulsive behavior and inability to control C.M. As one example, a CCDJFS caseworker explained that during one visit to the agency, a fire alarm sounded and everyone was evacuated from the building. As Mother, C.M., and the caseworker were reentering the building, C.M. chose to hold the caseworker‘s hand. Mother became offended by this act and threatened not to visit C.M. again and walked away from him, leaving him in tears. In another instance, a CCDJFS caseworker made an unannounced visit to Mother‘s home to discover that C.M. had been left at home unattended.
{¶ 18} Regarding Maternal Grandmother, there is justified concern that Maternal Grandmother is not a suitable placement. Despite the lengthy proceedings, Maternal Grandmother did not take the necessary steps to offer an alternative arrangement until the very end of these proceedings. Though Maternal Grandmother currently resides in an appropriate home, she admitted that she does not have a long-term plan in that residence and there is concern that she will move back to her home in Moscow, which would not be appropriate considering concerns about the other individuals residing there.
{¶ 19} To the contrary, the juvenile court found that “there is no doubt that the foster family has had a significantly positive impact upon C.M.‘s life.” The trial court noted that a more structured family environment has alleviated many of the behavioral issues that C.M. exhibits with Mother. The foster family attends to C.M.‘s educational and emotional needs
{¶ 20} In its consideration of
{¶ 21} With respect to
{¶ 22} In considering
{¶ 23} In sum, Mother was given one final chance to prove that she could care for C.M., but has failed to rectify the very serious concerns about her ability to parent. The most recent attempts at parenting indicate that Mother cannot control C.M., and that she cannot refrain from loud outbursts in front of the child, or make C.M.‘s health and welfare her first priority. While in the care of the foster family, C.M. has been afforded the stability and security that he requires.
{¶ 24} With respect to Maternal Grandmother, the juvenile court found that her situation was “unsuitable.” Again, Mother does not have long-term plans in her current living arrangement and there are concerns that Mother has not been forthright with the agency, as evidenced by Maternal Grandmother not informing the agency that she had another child in her care. In addition, Maternal Grandmother‘s inability to control Mother will likely continue to keep C.M.‘s life in chaos.
{¶ 25} Based on these findings, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in C.M.‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to CCDJFS. On appeal, Mother disputes the juvenile court‘s findings and argues that the evidence did not support the grant of permanent custody. In so doing, Mother alleged that she has maintained her sobriety and has secured stable housing. In addition, Mother states that the evidence shows that she knows how to support C.M. and can provide him with a healthy and safe environment. Although Mother agrees that certain provisions of the case plan have not been followed, she alleges that many of these alleged violations were mere “technical violations” and do not reflect agency concerns. In sum, Mother believes that the evidence demonstrated that placement with her would be appropriate and legally secure.
{¶ 26} We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and find that the juvenile court‘s determination regarding the best interest of C.M. is supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This matter has a lengthy and concerning history. Though Mother has made progress in the treatment of her drug addiction and shown positive growth in other areas, the record reflects that C.M.‘s best interests are best served through a grant of permanent custody to CCDJFS. Mother has had over four years to improve the situation in her household. Still, Mother does not seem able to control herself or recognize the full extent of her parental responsibilities with respect to the care of C.M. As this court has stated previously, “a parent is afforded a
{¶ 27} Therefore, having found no error in the juvenile court‘s decision granting CCDJFS permanent custody of C.M. Mother‘s single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 28} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.