In re C.P.
Zac Corbin, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, and Courtney A. Worley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
BYRNE, J.
{1} Appellant (“Father“), the biological father of C.P. (“Child“), appeals the decision of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of Child to the Brown County Department of Job and Family Services (“BCDJFS” or “the agency“). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decision.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{2} Child was born in November 2015. Child‘s biological mother (“Mother“) was in a relationship with Father at the time and the two lived together in Michigan. Father supported Child financially. In 2016,
{3} In March 2018, BCDJFS received a report that Child was hanging out of the open window of Mother‘s apartment. On investigating, BCDJFS workers found Mother asleep and observed deplorable living conditions in the apartment. Child was temporarily removed and placed in a foster home. Mother was given and completed a case plan. Child was then reunified with Mother. Father was present for one of four hearings held on this matter. This was the first time Father had any contact with Mother since Mother and Child moved to Ohio in 2016.
{4} On April 23, 2019, BCDJFS received a report that Child was unsupervised outside his apartment building for about 45 minutes. BCDJFS investigated the home and again found deplorable living conditions. The agency instituted a safety plan the same day and Child was removed to his maternal aunt‘s home. Mother was charged with felony child endangerment. On May 6, 2019, Child appeared, unaccompanied, at the BCDJFS office and a caseworker happened to identify him. In both instances, Mother was later found sleeping in her apartment and was unaware Child had left; in the latter instance, Child‘s maternal aunt was also found sleeping at Mother‘s apartment. On May 7, the juvenile court granted BCDJFS temporary custody of Child. Child was placed in the same foster home where he was previously placed.
{5} Father was notified of the proceedings, and he appeared at a hearing held on June 25, 2019. Father requested counsel be assigned to him, but his request was denied because Father was found financially ineligible for the services of the public defender‘s office. A case plan was implemented, and on March 2, 2020, following successful completion of the plan, Mother was reunited with Child. Despite having notice, Father did
{6} On October 28, 2020, BCDJFS received a report of a domestic disturbance at Mother‘s home. Upon arrival, BCDJFS workers again observed deplorable living conditions. They again instituted a safety plan the same day. Mother was charged with another count of felony child endangerment and arrested for violating probation on her previous child endangerment conviction.
{7} On November 19, 2020, BCDJFS filed another motion for temporary custody. The juvenile court granted the motion on November 23, 2020 following a shelter care hearing. Despite receiving notice, Father did not attend the hearing. The juvenile court again placed Child with the same foster family. Another case plan was put in place for Mother.
{8} An adjudicatory hearing was held on December 28, 2020. Father was again absent, despite receiving notice. On February 23, 2021, a dispositional hearing was held. Father was present, and requested, and was granted a public defender. The hearing was continued to April 19, 2021. On April 16, 2021, BCDJFS filed its first motion for permanent custody, which was later withdrawn for procedural reasons.
{9} On April 19, 2021, Mother signed a permanent surrender of her parental rights. Child remained in the temporary custody of BCDJFS. On April 28, 2021, Father filed a motion requesting visitation with Child. On June 15, 2021, a case plan for Father was filed with the juvenile court. Father was ordered to complete parenting education, mental health treatment, a psychological evaluation, and a drug and alcohol assessment, and ordered to complete a home study pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC“).
{11} BCDJFS coordinated visitation between Father and Child beginning in July 2021. The first of these visits was the first time that Father had seen Child since Mother and Child moved out in 2016—that is, the first time Father had seen Child in five years. Father had four visits with Child, three in person, and one via Zoom when he was in inpatient treatment. But while Father completed a psychological evaluation, he failed to maintain regular contact with BCDJFS, failed to provide verification he had attended parenting classes, and failed to complete mental health treatment. On September 2, 2021, BCDJFS filed for permanent custody of Child.
{12} A hearing was held on December 13, 2021. The juvenile court heard testimony from Father, Father‘s father and stepmother, a BCDJFS caseworker, and Child‘s guardian ad litem (“GAL“). Uncontested testimony established that Father had no bond with Child, but Father testified that he could offer Child stability. Father testified that he
{13} Father admitted that he had two OVI convictions, the most recent of which occurred on December 29, 2020. While he told the psychological evaluator that he had been sober since that time, when pressed at trial, he at first stated that he had a “relapse” in June 2021. He then said that December 29, 2020 was his alcohol sobriety date, while June 1, 2021 was his “complete sobriety date” for “everything.” In context, it appears Father was stating that before or on June 1, 2021, he used substances other than alcohol—perhaps the marijuana or “harder substances” he had referred to just before this exchange, though Father did not clarify. Father also admitted that he failed to inform the ICPC evaluators of his most recent OVI. Father was still on probation at the time of trial.
{14} Father also admitted that he was over $5,000 in arrears in child support for another child, his daughter.1 Father was uncertain of his monthly child support obligation to his daughter. He explained that he was in arrears because he could not afford to pay for his home, food, and his daughter‘s child support.
{15} The magistrate awarded permanent custody of Child to the agency. Father filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. The juvenile court overruled those objections and affirmed the magistrate‘s decision to award permanent custody to the agency.
II. Legal Analysis
{16} Father timely appealed, raising one assignment of error:
{18} Father‘s brief references several arguments purportedly supporting his sole assignment of error, but those arguments are sparse. We will analyze those arguments—or assertions—below after summarizing the applicable legal standard and the portions of the magistrate‘s and juvenile court‘s decisions relevant to Father‘s appeal.
A. Applicable Law
{19} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In re K.P., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2021-11-017, 2022-Ohio-1155, ¶ 11. Under
{20} 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 R.F., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2021-06-052, CA2021-06-053, and CA2021-06-056, 2021-Ohio-4118, ¶ 7. This court will therefore reverse a juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody only if there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented. In re M.N., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2021-07-015, 2021-Ohio-4042, ¶ 19.
{21} Even if there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court‘s decision, an appellate court may nevertheless reverse a permanent custody judgment if it finds the judgment to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re F.S., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and CA2020-08-012, 2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 61. To determine whether the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. In re K.M., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-03-031, CA2020-03-032, and CA2020-03-033, 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 25. The presumption in weighing the evidence is in favor of the finder of fact, which we are especially mindful of in custody cases. In re R.K., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-03-027 and CA2021-03-028, 2021-Ohio-3074. Therefore, if the evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is most favorable and consistent with the verdict and judgment. In re D.S., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2021-10-030 and CA2021-10-031, 2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 63.
{22} As for the first part of the two-part test described above, the magistrate in this case found that a grant of permanent custody to BCDJFS was in Child‘s best interests. As for the second part of the two-part test, the magistrate found that (1) Child had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, (2) Child had been abandoned by Father, and (3) Child could not and should not be placed with Father in a reasonable time. Having found that both parts of the two-part test were satisfied, the magistrate granted BCDJFS‘s motion for permanent custody.
{23} Father objected to the magistrate‘s decision on multiple grounds. As relevant here, Father objected to the magistrate‘s finding that permanent custody was in Child‘s best interests, that Father abandoned Child, and that Child could not and should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time. That said, Father admitted that Child had been in the custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.
{24} In its opinion overruling Father‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, the juvenile court noted the undisputed fact that Child had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for “much more” than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and found that the magistrate was correct in reaching this conclusion. The juvenile court also found that the evidence showed that Father had abandoned Child. The juvenile court did not mention the magistrate‘s finding that Child could not and should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time.
{25} The juvenile court also addressed Child‘s best interests, described Child‘s need for permanency, noted that “there was testimony from [BCDJFS] that [Child] is bonded to his foster home,” and that this “appears to be the only real home [Child] has known.” The juvenile court also determined based on Child‘s history of removals from Mother‘s home
C. Abandonment and “12 of 22” Analysis
{26} In support of his assignment of error, Father states that the sole issue presented for review is whether the juvenile court erred in finding under
{27} Father‘s assertion fails. As stated above, in addition to finding that Father abandoned Child and that Child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable period of time, the magistrate found that Child had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, a circumstance we have called the “12 of 22” provision. See In re A.D., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-11-060, 2022-Ohio-736, ¶ 20;
D. Best Interest Analysis
{28} In the final lines of Father‘s appellate brief, after addressing issues other than best interests, Father states that “further * * * it is clear that a review of the facts and the relevant law make it clear that granting of permanent custody and terminating a legal
{29}
(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.
{30} We first consider “[t]he 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.”
{31} The second best interest factor is the wishes of the child as expressed by the child or the child‘s GAL.
{32} The next best interest factor is “[t]he custodial history of the child.”
{33} The next best interest factor is 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.”
{34} It is also questionable whether Father could provide permanency or security for Child. Father is more than $5,000 in arrears in child support for his other child and testified to his financial difficulties. Father has shown he is unable or unwilling to provide for the other child he has a legal responsibility to provide for, even when he has not provided any financial support to Child since his infancy.
{35} Based on our review of the testimony at trial, we find that the juvenile court did not err in finding that permanent custody to BCDJFS was in Child‘s best interest.
{36} Even if Father‘s argument that the juvenile court erred in finding that he abandoned Child may be read as applying to the best interest part of the permanent custody test—rather than as applying to the abandonment factor under the second part of the test—Father‘s argument fails. Father makes no arguments in his brief and cites no case law to explain why the juvenile court‘s abandonment determination was erroneous. As we have noted, ”
{38} The juvenile court did not err in determining that an award of permanent custody to BCDJFS was in Child‘s best interest. There is more than sufficient credible evidence to support the juvenile court‘s determination that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. See In re A.S., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2019-05-071, CA2019-05-072, and CA2019-05-073, 2019-Ohio-4127, ¶ 19.
III. Conclusion
{39} We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case. We find that the juvenile court‘s determinations that Father abandoned Child, that Child was in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for the requisite period under
{41} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
- 16 -