In re I.H.
Fran Sweeney, 7723 Tylers Place Boulevard, #129, West Chester, Ohio 45069, guardian ad litem
Billy W. Guinigundo, 5331 South Gilmore Road, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for appellant
Robin N. Piper III, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011-6057, for appellee, Butler County Department of Job & Family Services
O P I N I O N
POWELL, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, the biological father of I.H., appeals a decision of the Butler County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of the child to the Butler County
{¶2} On September 21, 2006, BCDJFS filed a complaint alleging that I.H. and his half-siblings, who have different fathers, were dependent children. The complaint alleged that the children were frequently truant and there were concerns regarding the mother‘s mental health and her lack of parenting skills regarding discipline, communication and budgeting. The complaint also alleged that the mother married a man she met through a prison hotline and a criminal background check of the man revealed convictions for domestic violence, menacing by stalking, failure to comply, violation of a protection order, resisting arrest and aggravated menacing or stalking. The complaint further alleged that the mother had revealed to a BCDJFS worker that she had been arrested for selling drugs in 2005, sex abuse of one of the children by an uncle was substantiated by the agency, the gas was not turned on in the family trailer, and there was no hot water to bathe and minimal food in the home. The complaint also alleged that the mother told a BSDJFS worker that appellant had been in prison from August 2005 to September 2006 for selling drugs and there were concerns that the mother was allowing appellant, a convicted sex offender, to return home after his release from prison.
{¶3} The children were placed in the temporary custody of the agency. In October 2006, the children were all placed in the home of the father of one of I.H.‘s half-siblings, but custody of I.H. was returned to the agency in February 2007. On March 23, 2007, an agreement finding the children dependent was stipulated on the record and the court found the children dependent. Custody of I.H. remained with the agency. On December 10, 2008, the court found the mother was making progress on the case plan and the children were placed back with their mother. Six
{¶4} On July 22, 2009, the agency filed a motion for permanent custody of the children. At the first scheduled date of the hearing, the mother executed a permanent surrender of her parental rights to the children. Appellant contested the motion for permanent custody and the hearing was continued to allow him to present additional witnesses. On May 11, 2010, the magistrate granted the motion for permanent custody. Appellant filed objections to the decision which were overruled by the trial court on June 17, 2010.
{¶5} Appellant now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of the child to BCDJFS. He raises the following sole assignment of error for our review:
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT A GRANT OF PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE CHILD‘S BEST INTEREST.”
{¶7} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388. An
{¶8} Pursuant to
{¶9} The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence, and appellant does not dispute, that the children are dependent, and have been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period as of the date BCDJFS filed the permanent custody motion. However, appellant does dispute the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of the children to BCDJFS is in the children‘s best interest.
{¶10}
{¶11} With respect to
{¶12} With respect to
{¶13} With respect to
{¶14} With respect to
{¶15} The court further found that on appellant‘s release from prison on December 15, 2009, he advised one of the caseworkers that he did not want to participate in case plan services, but just wanted to visit with I.H. However, the court also indicated that there was some evidence that appellant stated at a December 29, 2009 meeting that he would participate in services. One week before the hearing on
{¶16} With regard to this factor, the court also found that appellant is a registered sex offender and has an extensive criminal history which includes convictions for corruption of a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated trafficking in drugs and trafficking in drugs. Due to his recent incarcerations, appellant had no contact with I.H. from May 2008 until February 2010. The court further found that despite participating in a substance abuse program in prison, appellant admits to drinking alcohol. Appellant also does not have independent housing and is living with his ex-wife and her paramour. Appellant stated that he had employment doing roofing and siding, but did not present any evidence regarding the amount of income and whether it would be sufficient to meet the needs of a child. The court also found that appellant failed to take responsibility for the reasons that have caused I.H. to remain in foster care and placed the blame on the child‘s mother, disregarding the fact that his criminal behavior and incarceration contributed to the extended foster care placement.
{¶17} Based on these findings, the court concluded that appellant failed to establish that he can provide a stable environment for I.H. within a reasonable time. The court stated that although appellant completed substance abuse treatment, he still admits to using alcohol to fall asleep and the true test for a recovering addict is
{¶18} Finally, the court found that one of the factors in
{¶19} Based on consideration of the above statutory factors, the court found that it was in I.H.‘s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency. On appeal, appellant argues that there is a conflict in the evidence and the court lacked sufficient evidence to find that he was unable to provide a secure placement for the child. He argues that the court relied heavily on his time away from the child without giving due regard to his efforts at reunification and while incarcerated for treatment.
{¶20} We have carefully reviewed the record and find the court‘s findings are supported by sufficient, credible evidence. The court indicated that while appellant made some efforts in the right direction, given appellant‘s criminal history, lack of stability, absence from his child‘s life and substance abuse problems, the evidence
{¶21} Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.