IN RE: D.B., et al.
CASE NOS. CA2019-06-065, CA2019-06-066, CA2019-06-067
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
11/4/2019
2019-Ohio-4514
S. POWELL, J.
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 118-D000018
Sean Brinkman, 10 West Monument Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45402, for appellant
O P I N I O N
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the mother of D.B., V.B., and M.B. (“Mother“), appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her three children to appellee, Warren County Children Services (“WCCS“). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On April 25, 2018, Mother‘s first two children, D.B. born on April 5, 2013 and V.B. born on February 23, 2017, were adjudicated dependent children. Approximately three
{¶ 3} On February 14, 2019, after not having had any contact with Mother for approximately five months, WCCS moved for permanent custody of the children. The juvenile court held a one-day hearing on WCCS’ motion on May 13, 2019. The juvenile court heard testimony from one witness during this hearing; the ongoing caseworker assigned to the case. Although provided with notice of the hearing, Mother did not make an appearance at the permanent custody hearing. Neither did the children‘s father.
{¶ 4} At the permanent custody hearing, the caseworker testified that neither she nor the children had had any contact with Mother for several months. The caseworker also testified that Mother had not completed any of the case plan services deemed necessary for her reunification with the children. This includes mental health and substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and a domestic violence intervention program, among others. The caseworker further testified that Mother had not provided her with any verifiable information that she had obtained gainful employment or suitable housing for herself and the children.
{¶ 5} On May 17, 2019, the juvenile court issued a decision granting WCCS’ motion for permanent custody. In so holding, the juvenile court found Mother had not completed any of the required case plan services set forth in her case plan “notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by [WCCS].” This includes, as noted above,
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT FIND CHILDREN SERVICES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE CONTINUED REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE CHILD‘S HOME OR TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CHILD TO RETURN HOME SAFELY.
{¶ 7} In her single assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred by granting permanent custody of her three children to WCCS since WCCS failed to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent the removal of the children from her home. Mother also argues that WCCS failed to make “reasonable efforts” to make it possible for the children to return safely to her home. We disagree.
{¶ 8} Mother initially argues that the juvenile court erred by granting WCCS’ motion for permanent custody since the juvenile court failed to make a “reasonable efforts” finding as part of its decision granting WCCS’ motion. “Generally, a juvenile court does not have to make a reasonable efforts determination pursuant to
{¶ 9} Mother also argues that the juvenile court erred by granting WCCS’ motion for permanent custody since WCCS (1) waited several months to refer her for case plan services after the children were removed from her care, (2) suspended her visitation time with the children, and (3) later removed her from the case plan altogether. But, despite Mother‘s claims, the record indicates that WCCS acted expeditiously in referring Mother for case plan services given her general lack of involvement in the plan. This includes, as noted above, mental health and substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and a domestic violence intervention program. Mother, however, either failed to attend those required case plan services or was unsuccessfully discharged from those services.
{¶ 10} The record also indicates that Mother‘s visitation time with the children was not suspended by WCCS without cause. The record instead indicates Mother‘s visitation time was suspended due to her sporadic attendance and general lack of engagement with the children. This ultimately resulted in Mother being removed from the case plan altogether due to her disregard and apparent indifference towards meeting the requirements set forth in her case plan. Therefore, while Mother would like to place the blame for her failings on WCCS, the record indicates those failings were the fault of Mother, and Mother alone.
{¶ 11} The key concern in a permanent custody proceeding is “whether the parent has substantially remedied the concerns that caused the child‘s removal from the parent‘s custody.” (Emphasis omitted.) In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 24. The record in this case firmly establishes that Mother did not remedy the concerns that led to the children‘s removal from her care, let alone substantially remedy
{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.