2005 Ohio 4920 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2005
{¶ 2} Megan was fifteen years old and in the custody of the Agency when on April 20, 2003 she gave birth to her daughter J.I. Two days later, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that J.I. was dependent and seeking temporary custody of her. The Agency was granted temporary custody of J.I. on April 28, 2003. Because Megan was already in a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement ("PPLA"), the Agency subsequently asked that J.I. be placed in a PPLA, so that Megan could parent her daughter. On July 2, 2003, Megan entered a plea of admit to the allegation that J.I. was dependent. On December 8, 2003, J.I. was placed in a PPLA. Megan and her daughter were subsequently placed together in Debra Wolfe's foster home.
{¶ 3} Because of behavioral problems, which included two hospitalizations for depression and suicidal ideations, Megan was removed from Debra Wolfe's home on April 6, 2004. J.I. remained at Debra Wolfe's home. In September 2004, J.I. was placed in the Harpers' foster home where she has been since. Meanwhile, Megan was placed in Norma Mitchell's home. Her placement there, however, only lasted three months. Because of behavioral problems, which included a school suspension, hospitalization for an apparent suicide attempt, sneaking out of the house, and receiving phone calls from men, Megan was removed from the Mitchell home and temporarily placed at Kettering Youth Services. In July 2004, Megan was placed at Adriel, a very structured group residential home, after no foster home could be located for her.
{¶ 4} On October 28, 2004, the Agency moved for permanent custody of J.I. under R.C.
{¶ 5} In its decision and entry, the juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.I. had "been in the custody of [the Agency] for 12 of 22 consecutive months," and that it was in the best interest of J.I. to grant permanent custody to the Agency. The juvenile court further stated that "[w]hile not necessary in order to grant the motion under the `12 of 22' provision, the Court also finds [that] * * * Megan has failed continually and repeatedly to remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed away from the mother, * * * [and] has demonstrated a lack of commitment to [J.I.] * * *." The juvenile court based its decision on R.C.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} "THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED PERMANENT CUSTODY OF APPELLANT'S CHILD TO THE STATE BASED ON [R.C.]
{¶ 8} The juvenile court granted permanent custody of J.I. to the Agency after finding that J.I. had been in the custody of the Agency for 12 of 22 consecutive months pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 9} The Agency moved for permanent custody under R.C.
{¶ 10} R.C.
{¶ 11} "(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and has not been in the temporary custody of one or more [agencies] * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period * * *, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents;
{¶ 12} "* * * [or]
{¶ 13} "(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more [agencies] * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period[.]"
{¶ 14} The essence of Megan's argument is that temporary custody and PPLA are two different, separate dispositional status under R.C. Chapter
{¶ 15} A PPLA is "an order of a juvenile court pursuant to which both of the following apply: (a) The court gives legal custody of a child to a public children services agency * * * without the termination of parental rights[;] (b) The order permits the agency to make an appropriate placement of the child and to enter into a written agreement with a foster care provider or with another person or agency with whom the child is placed." R.C.
{¶ 16} As we see it, the only difference between a PPLA and temporary custody is the duration of the status. While an agency may file for permanent custody when a child is in a PPLA, the agency must file for permanent custody once a child has been in its temporary custody for at least 12 months. This is a difference without a distinction.
{¶ 17} We therefore hold that if a child is in a PPLA when an agency files for permanent custody of the child, a juvenile court can apply the "12 of 22" rule of R.C.
{¶ 18} In the case at bar, J.I. was placed in the temporary custody of the Agency on April 28, 2003, and in a PPLA on December 8, 2003. The Agency moved for permanent custody on October 28, 2004. Counting the period of time J.I. was in temporary custody and in a PPLA, it is clear J.I. was in the Agency's custody for at least 12 months for purposes of R.C.
{¶ 19} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 20} "THE COURT'S DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO THE STATE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
{¶ 21} Megan first argues that the Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that J.I. could not be placed with her within a reasonable time.3 Megan also argues that the juvenile court's finding that it was in J.I.'s best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 22} Because we have held that the juvenile court properly found that J.I. was in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 23} Under R.C.
{¶ 24} An appellate court's review of a juvenile court's decision finding clear and convincing evidence is limited to whether there is competent, credible evidence in the record supporting the juvenile court's determination. In re S.B., Butler App. Nos. CA20041-2-305/306/307/308,
{¶ 25} The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in J.I.'s best interest. Upon thoroughly reviewing the record, we find competent, credible evidence exists supporting the juvenile court's decision.
{¶ 26} The juvenile court noted that J.I. had been in the Agency's custody since her birth in April 2003, "a continuous period of almost 23 months at the time of" the permanent custody hearing. While J.I. was bonded with her mother, the court noted that J.I. was also bonded with her current foster family. During the permanent custody hearing, there was testimony that when visiting J.I., Megan (1) was at times careless with J.I., seemingly treating her more like a doll than a child, (2) persisted for a long time in using "baby talk" with J.I. even though this was not helpful as J.I. was delayed in language development, and (3) did not always engage in age appropriate activities with J.I. The juvenile court noted that while J.I. was somewhat delayed when she was placed with her current foster family, she has improved under their care.
{¶ 27} The juvenile court further noted J.I.'s need for a stable, secure, permanent placement "which for her as a two year old can be best achieved by a granting of permanent custody." As the court stated, "[Megan] has not done anything consistently over the last two years to convince the Court or [the Agency] that she could provide that stability. [Megan] created the situation that caused her to be moved from her placement with Debra Wolf[e] and her daughter. * * * She's the one who has attempted suicide several times. She's the one who has acted irresponsibly and dangerously sexually. She's the one who has acted irresponsibly medically by hording her meds [which she later used in attempting suicide]."
{¶ 28} Finally, the juvenile court noted that J.I.'s guardian ad litem advocated that the motion for permanent custody be granted. In her last report, which was filed two months before the permanent custody hearing, the guardian ad litem noted that she saw J.I. at the home of her current foster family when J.I. was about 19 months old: "Most noted was the marked improvement [J.I.] has made in development. She was walking and communicating with the foster parents. * * * She [is] now on target regarding prior developmental concerns." The guardian ad litem also noted that Megan and J.I. were bonded and interacted well, but that J.I. "also interacts well" with her current foster family. The guardian recommended the granting of the motion because:
{¶ 29} "[J.I.] has been in foster care for 20 months. She is in her second foster care placement. She deserves a secure and permanent home. If placed with her Mother, there would be great risk that she could be moved again based on Mother's history of placement changes. [PPLA] is not the best option for a child this age. She is not two years of age yet. To have her linger in foster care for an indefinite period of time is not fair to her. PPLA was a good option for this child at the beginning of this case when mother was parenting the child and showing a good effort to maintain her placement with [J.I.]. This is not the case now."
{¶ 30} In light of the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court's finding that it was in J.I.'s best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because J.I. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 31} Judgment affirmed.
Walsh, P.J., and Bressler, J., concur.
