In re K.P.
Alana Van Gundy, for appellant.
M. POWELL, P.J.
{1} Appellant (“Father“) appeals a decision of the Preble County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of his son, K.P., to the Preble County Job and Family Services, Children‘s Services Division (the “Agency“). K.P.‘s mother (“Mother“) is not a party to this appeal. Father and Mother were never married to one another.
{2} The Agency became involved with Mother on June 28, 2019, the day K.P.
{3} Father wаs added to the family case plan while he was incarcerated. The Agency requested that Father engage in substance abuse “services that assist him with becoming or remaining free of all illegal substance use. [Father] will sign releases for this agency to obtain information on his progress. [Father] will not use any illegal substanсes or legal substances in an illegal manner.” Father was also required to “obtain a consistent income that will contribute to providing for [K.P.‘s] basic needs.” Father was released on June 24, 2021.
{4} Temporary custody of K.P. was extended on July 24, 2020, and again on February 17, 2021. On May 28, 2021, the Agency moved for permanent custody of K.P. Both Father аnd Mother objected to the Agency‘s request for permanent custody. The CASA filed a report, recommending that permanent custody be granted to the Agency. In support of her recommendation, the CASA noted that temporary custody of K.P. could no longer be extended, that Father had no relationship with K.P. because he had been incarcerated during the child‘s entire life, and that although Father was set to be released in June 2021, he could not provide basic needs for the child.
{6} During its case-in-chief, the Agency presented evidence that K.P. had been living with his current foster family since February 2020, that he is very bonded with the foster family and thаt his needs are met, and that the foster family would like to adopt him. The caseworker testified that Father had no relationship with K.P. while incarcerated, that following his release, Father regularly and consistently attended visits with K.P., and that the visits always went well. The caseworker further testified that Father was not currently employed, that he had provided a friend‘s address in Indiana for housing, and that while he reported he had completed the case plan services while he was incarcerated, the Agency had not received documentation showing what he had completed. The caseworker testified that Father‘s lack of stable housing and steady income and the failure to verify his sobriety prevented reunification of K.P. with Father.
{7} On October 21, 2021, the juvenile court granted permanent custody of K.P. to the Agency. The juvenile court found that it was in K.P.‘s best interest to grant the Agency permanent custody, that K.P. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and that despite reasonable efforts by the Agency to prevent the need for placement of K.P. outside the home, K.P. could not and should not be placed with Father or Mother within a reasonable amount of time.
{8} Father now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision, raising one assignment of error:
{9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO PREBLE COUNTY CHILDREN‘S SERVICES BECAUSE THAT AGENCY FAILED TO
{10} Father argues that the juvenile court erred by granting permanent custody of K.P. to the Agency.
{11} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear аnd convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In re R.K., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2021-03-027 and CA2021-03-028, 2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 14, citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). Because the state is required to prove that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met by clear and convincing evidence, “[a]n 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.K. at ¶ 13. 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. Id. However, even if the juvenile court‘s decision is supported by sufficient evidence, an appellate court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id.
{12} In determining whether a juvenile court‘s decision to grant a motion for permanent custody is against thе 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 T.P., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-164, 2016-Ohio-72, ¶ 19, quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. “The presumption in weighing the evidence is in favor of the finder of fact, which we are
{13} Pursuant to
{14} In this case, the juvenile court found that K.P. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period at the time the Agency filed its motion for permanent custody. This finding is not disputed by Father and is supported by the record, as K.P. has been in the temporary custody of the Agency since July 2019.1 Father instead disputes the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of K.P. to the Agenсy was in the child‘s best interests.
{16} With respect to K.P.‘s relevant interactions and relationships with those who may significantly impact his young life, the juvenile court found that K.P. was doing well in foster care and that all his needs were met in his foster home. Furthermore, K.P. is very bonded with his foster family who has expressed an interest in adopting him.
{17} The juvenile court noted at the outset that the child‘s wishes “as expressed by the child or through the Guardian Ad Litem” is a best interest factor which the juvenile court is to consider under
{18} With respect to
{19} In considering
{20} The juvenile court made no findings regarding whether any of the factors listed in
{21} Based upon its consideration of the relevant factors in
{23} Father was incarcerated on drug charges when K.P. was born in July 2019 and had no contact or relationship with K.P. until Father was released in June 2021 when K.P. was two years old, three months prior to the permanent custody hearing. Although Father regularly visited with K.P. after his release and the visits went well, the limited three-month period was insufficient to establish a significant relationship with K.P. Although Father ostensibly engaged in substance abuse treatment during his incarceration, the Agency never received documentation or verification оf what case plan services were completed. Likewise, there was no evidence or verification of Father‘s sobriety following his release. The three-month period between his release and the permanent custody hearing was insufficient to establish a stable period of sobriety. Furthermore, Fathеr was not employed, did not have his own housing, and was living with a friend in Lafayette, Indiana.
{24} Father takes issue with the fact that “no testimony from Father was heard,” that he was not asked about his sobriety, housing, education, or employment on the record, and that the juvenile court “did not ask him on record about his progress towards his cаse plan.” However, Father declined to testify on his own behalf and contradict the evidence submitted by the Agency that he lacked stable housing and employment and that he failed to verify the services he had completed while incarcerated and his sobriety. By declining to testify, Father forewent the oppоrtunity to present evidence in his favor.
{25} Throughout these proceedings, the Agency explored possible placements for
{26} As this court has previously recognized, “[a] child‘s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability, and security.” In re M.G., 2021-Ohio-1000 at ¶ 44. The juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody to the Agency does that. K.P. was removed from Mother‘s care on July 3, 2019, when he was four days old, and has been in foster care ever since. At the time of the September 2021 permanent custody hearing, Mother had been unable to remedy the conditions that caused K.P.‘s removal. Moreover, she was incarсerated on drug charges and was not set to be released until January 2022. K.P. has been in the Agency‘s custody for over two years and no longer qualifies for temporary custody under
{27} In light of the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court‘s decision was
{28} Father‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{29} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
- 10 -