{¶ 1} Appellants, Sarah H. and Todd H., husband and wife, appeal the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated their parental rights to Kayla H. and Joshua H. For the following reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶ 2} On March 4, 2005, Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”) filed an emergency shelter-care request for the children. 1 The petition alleged that on February 25, 2005, Sarah and Todd left the children with a babysitter for the evening and returned home around 10:00 pm. The next morning, Joshua, then three months old, could not eat, vomited repeatedly, and was cold and listless. Appellants called an ambulance; EMS responders took him to a hospital, where he was placed in intensive care and diagnosed with a subdural hematoma, consistent with shaken-baby syndrome. The magistrate, finding that Joshua was about to be released from the hospital, granted LCCS’s ex parte request.
{¶ 3} On March 7, 2005, LCCS filed a complaint in dependency, neglect, and abuse for both children, requesting temporary custody. The complaint alleged that Dale H., the children’s uncle, was babysitting the evening prior to Joshua’s hospitalization. Neither Sarah nor Todd could explain Joshua’s injury. LCCS added an allegation that Todd was a registered sex offender.
{¶ 4} On March 9, 2005, a magistrate awarded temporary custody to LCCS, based on appellants’ consent, finding that the continued residence of the children in appellants’ home was contrary to their best interest due to Joshua’s injury and unspecified “housing conditions.” The custody award also ordered Dale H. to have no contact with the children and forbade appellants to allow him any contact with the children.
{¶ 5} On March 31, 2005, LCCS filed a case plan with services for appellants, which included interactive parenting and therapy. With respect to Todd’s sex-offender status, the case plan provided: “[Todd] is a registered sex offender who has not completed any treatment. He doesn’t appear to have any remorse or thought for the crime he committed against a minor child. [Sarah] doesn’t appear to have any concerns for her children or understand the seriousness of
{¶ 6} On April 11, 2005, the trial court entered a consent judgment adjudicating Kayla a dependent child and Joshua a dependent and abused child. Dale H. was again ordered to have no contact with the children. Sarah and Todd were each ordered to pay child support to LCCS in the amount of $50 per month. The case plan filed March 31, 2005, was approved but amended to eliminate the sexual-offender treatment and counseling for Todd in lieu of his signing information releases.
{¶ 7} On June 23, 2005, LCCS filed an amended case plan. Although the consent order had amended the case plan to eliminate sexual-offender treatment for Todd, the new case plan reinstituted sexual-offender therapy and counseling for him, stating: “[Todd] will learn the dynamics of sexual offending and he will not abuse any other individual. He will learn to show empathy for victims, and he will work through his issues successfully. He will complete SOT [sexual-offender-treatment] services, * * * follow treatment recommendation, * * * and demonstrate progress.”
{¶ 8} On December 21, 2005, an administrative review noted that Todd had spent five months in SOT, “attending on a regular basis,” and that five to six months remained before SOT was completed. Todd also completed a 12-week parenting group with therapist involvement, and the parent educator reported only that he “did well.” Sarah attended all parenting classes, and observation noted “interaction and bonding good” between Sarah and the children. Caseworkers reported that Sarah completed the classes successfully, and the parent educator had “no concerns.” Both Sarah and Todd successfully completed a five-week parenting workshop. Todd was ineligible for LCCS’s parenting classes, but he completed a parenting class through Crossroads Church.
{¶ 9} On March 27, 2006, a magistrate filed an annual review entry, which noted that a caseworker reported LCCS’s intention to file for permanent custody of the children. The trial court’s review of the magistrate’s decision stated: “Case plan services for mother: Diagnostic assessment — no recommendation; Parenting — passed and successfully completed; Protective case issues at Unison — passed; Father sexual offender treatment, Unison — completing in a month; Crossroads — completed; Parents visiting at agency. Continue to have concerns of mother protecting children with regards to father being a registered sexual offender. Goal: Reunification to be changed to permanent custody/adoption.”
{¶ 11} At the outset, Todd’s attorney objected to any testimony relating to Todd’s convictions for sex offenses on grounds of relevance, because LCCS had made no allegations that the children were sexually abused. LCCS argued that testimony regarding his convictions wаs relevant to show that the risk he presented to the children had not been lowered. The court overruled the objection solely on the basis that Todd was a registered sex offender.
{¶ 12} A docket sheet containing Todd’s criminal history was admitted into evidence. In 1991, Todd pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented materials and was sentenced to an indefinite term of four to 15 years’ incarceration. Todd was originally charged with six counts of gross sexual imposition, felonies of the third degree, two counts of felonious sexual penetration, felonies of the first degree, one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, a felony of the fourth degree, and five counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented materials, felonies оf the second degree.
{¶ 13} In 1998, the sentencing court held sexual-offender-classification hearings pursuant to 1996 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 180 and classified Todd as a sexual predator (the most severe designation). On appeal, this classification was reversed and vacated; after a subsequent hearing, he was classified as a sexually oriented offender (the least severe designation) with the victim under age 13 and ordered to register annually for ten years. His probation was terminated as “successfully completed” in January 2003.
{¶ 14} LCCS called Leonard Beck, a unit manager with the Lucas County Pretrial Sentence Department, formerly Todd’s probation officer. Beck had also written the LCCS investigative caseworker a letter detailing his role in Todd’s supervision, which was admitted into evidence. Beck wrote that Todd had been unsuccessfully terminated from the therapy component of community control, as he was not able to progress from the “deniers’ group” in therapy. While Todd did not deny, per se, his offenses, he did not share or talk in group therapy unless directly confronted. For example, Todd did not tell the group that he was engaged to marry Sarah until group members saw the marriage license in the newspaper, because he believed it was “none of their business.” Beck opined, based on his experience, that Todd was at “extremely high risk” to reoffend and that probation had done nothing to lower the risk.
{¶ 16} Nancy Larson, qualified by the court as an expert in sexual-offender treatment and therapy, rendered therapy to Todd for the five years of his probation. She had concluded that Todd did not successfully complete the therapy component of his probation. Also qualified to diagnose, she assessed Todd’s psychological pathology as that of a classic pedophile, with a primary sexual attraction to children that would not change. She defined a pedophile as one “who has a primary sexual orientation that they find sex with minor children the most gratifying sexual experience that they have. It does not preclude that they may be married and engaged in sexual relations with an adult peer, same or opposite sex. But it is a fixation for them that there is a preferred sexual object and if give a choice, sexual experiences would be sought with that class and category of a person.” She classified the risk he presented to children as high and explained that, in five years of therapy, Todd had not been willing to understand the risk he presented and take steps to mitigate it. She did note that a diagnostic risk-assessment test scored Todd’s risk of reoffending as moderate. Given the diagnosis of pedophilia, however, she recommended that he have nо unsupervised contact with minor children.
{¶ 17} On cross-examination, she did admit that a number of sex offenders, including those whose victims were children or their own children, do reunite with their families. The process is gradual, involves the entire family in counseling, and requires a safety plan before the offender can cohabit with children. She would not, however, recommend family reunification for an offender diagnosed with pedophilia, although she had worked with some pedophiles who she believed could safely have families. In order for an offender to cohabit, she explained, the family first must “truly [be] able to understand that theirs is a lifelong problem and it’s not ever going to go away and that the vigilance that’s necessary would have to be extreme. * * * I think the idea of living in separate habitats is a more realistic plan * *
{¶ 18} William Emahiser, a sexual-offender counselor at Unison, a behavioral-health clinic, qualified as an expert in sexual-offender treatment, oversaw Todd’s LCCS-ordered treatment for nine months and counseled Sarah individually per LCCS’s case plan. During this therapy, Todd wrote a “victim empathy letter impact statement” in which he admitted the acts underlying his 1991 convictions.
{¶ 19} Emahiser also testified regarding an incident during supervised visitation at LCCS between Todd and Kayla. A caseworker reported that Todd had Kayla “straddled” across his lap and had to intervene to remove her from his lap. In thеrapy, Emahiser confronted Todd with how this behavior was not only inappropriate but increased his risk of reoffending; Emahiser testified that all patients are instructed to severely limit their physical contact with children. On cross-examination, he explained that not only does having a child on Todd’s lap look inappropriate, but it is more akin to sending “an alcoholic to go work as a bartender.” With respect to attempts to reunify Todd into a household with his children, severe physical boundaries would be necessary to separate Todd from physical interaction or unsupervised interaction with the children.
{¶ 20} With respect to Sarah’s therapy, Emahiser asked her whether she would consider separating from Todd; Sarah told him that she was very conflicted and she hoped she would nоt have to make that decision. He then instructed her to ask LCCS whether separating from Todd would increase her chances of keeping custody of her children; Sarah informed him that she was told that “there would be no impact one way or the other.” Since Todd had identified Sarah as his primary support person in his relapse-prevention plan, Emahiser questioned and counseled her as to what was necessary to prevent Todd from relapsing. At first, Sarah was unable to identify high-risk factors and behaviors that Todd should not engage in with children. Emahiser confronted both Todd and Sarah with his concern that Todd had identified a primary support person who was unable to identify risks and successfully implement the safety plan. Todd and Sarah were “successfully” discharged from the treatment program at that point because Todd, at least, demonstrated an understanding of his relapse-prevention plan, and
{¶ 21} A week later, Sarah contacted Emahiser, apologized, and asked for another chance to learn. Approximately two months later, Sarah re-engaged in therapy with Emahiser and had another three to four sessions. When Emahiser reassessed her ability to follow a safety plan, she was able to “regurgitate” the plan information and demonstrated a rote memorization of the concepts. With respect to the incident in which Kayla straddled Todd’s lap, Sarah understood— after therapy — why such contact dangerously increased Todd’s risk of reоffending.
{¶ 22} Emahiser also wrote a letter, at the request of LCCS, stating that Sarah had successfully completed individual counseling. He concluded that she had developed a plan to keep her children safe, demonstrated an ability to identify high-risk behaviors in Todd, and “developed specific strategies to minimize the risk” of harm to her children.
{¶ 28} As for what would be required were Todd and Sarah to jointly cohabit with the children: Emahiser instructed Sarah about the use of alarms in the house, placed on the outside of Todd’s bedroom and the inside of the children’s bedrooms; Sarah would have to ensure constant supervision. Locks should be used on the children’s doors as they age, and they should understand how to use them. A home-based therapist who specializes in sex-offender treatment could perform home visits to ensure that the home was safeguarded and work to increase the children’s understanding of physical boundaries. Emahiser acknowledged that he usually does not advocate family reunification, as it is extremely difficult. The offender cannot be unsupervised in the same room with children, and “it really puts a strain on the significant other to be everywhere all at once.”
{¶ 24} Wanda Cannon, the LCCS caseworker assigned to appellants, testified that no additional services were recommended for Sarah. Sarah successfully completed the LCCS parenting classes, including interactive parenting, and sex-offender counseling with Emahiser. Because Todd is a sex offender, he was ineligible for LCCS’s parenting classes; instead, he completed a noninteractive parenting class through Crоssroads Church, which covered basic needs.
{¶ 25} With respect to the appellants’ housing conditions, Cannon said she never saw the types of alarms that Emahiser had recommended. When she investigated the reasons Joshua was cold when his injury occurred, appellants told her that they had to keep the temperature between 54 and 64 degrees to save on heating bills, and having the temperature higher was not an option for them. Cannon mentioned no other issues with respect to providing the children food, clothing, suitable housing, or medical care. She acknowledged that Todd was employed and that the children’s basic needs were met.
{¶ 27} Christopher Cottle, the children’s guardian ad litem, filed a report recommending a grant of permanent custody of both children to LCCS. He wrote that if Joshua’s shaken-baby syndrome was the оnly concern, reunification would still be possible because no perpetrator was identified. His primary concern was Todd’s status as a sex offender and his diagnosis of pedophilia. With respect to Sarah, his concern focused on her inability to protect the children from Todd. Todd and Sarah had, at one point, suggested separating in order to regain custody; however, they indicated to Cottle that they were not planning to divorce and eventually would reunite as a family. His recommendation of permanent custody rested on the high risk of sexual abuse to the children presented by appellants continuing to cohabit with the children.
{¶ 28} The trial court granted the motion for permanent custody, finding it in the children’s best interest and finding that the children could not be reunited with their parents then оr within one year. With respect to Todd and Sarah’s unfitness, the judgment stated: “In making these findings, the Court observes that the father’s relapse prevention plan is flawed; the Court especially notes that there is shallow empathy shown in the development of the plan, and the support persons chosen to guard against relapse are inadequate. * * * The Court also has considered the fact that [appellants] have chosen to remain together as a couple and advocate for return of the children to a home they will maintain together. The Court finds that this would not be a safe environment for these children and specifically finds that the reasons for removal cannot be remedied when one of the parents is diagnosed with sexual offending behaviors such as [Todd] exhibits, which diаgnoses include that of sexual predator.”
{¶ 29} Appellants timely appealed and have submitted one assignment of error for review:
{¶ 30} “The trial court erred in granting permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services Board as Lucas County Children Services Board failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the minor child that permanent custody be awarded to Lucas County Children Services Board
{¶ 31} “A termination of parental rights is the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case. The parties to such an action must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.”
In re Smith
(1991),
{¶ 32} Parental unsuitability is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence supporting findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E). A parent’s rights may not be terminated unless the court finds evidence (1) that the child “cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be plaсed with either parent,” R.C. 2151.414(B)(2), and (2) that a grant of permanent custody of a child to a children’s service agency is in the child’s best interests. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Findings pursuant to both R.C. 2151.414(E) and (B) are required, and all findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence sufficient to “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”
Cross v. Ledford
(1954),
{¶ 33} To establish the first prong, that the children cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable amount of time, a court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the 16 statutory factors of R.C. 2151.414(E) exists. If one or more of the factors are found to exist, the court is required to find that the children cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. Id. As to Todd, the trial court found applicable the factors of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), (14), and (16). As to Sarah, the court found the factors of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), (14), and (16). Those sections state:
{¶ 35} “(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code;
{¶ 36} “ * * *
{¶ 37} “(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an аdequate permanent home for the child;
{¶ 38} “ * * *
{¶ 39} “(14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.
{¶ 40} “ * * *
{¶ 41} “(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.” R.C. 2151.414(E).
{¶ 42} The statute also enumerates certain criteria for evaluating whether permanent custody with a children services agency is in the child’s best interests. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) through (4). A court’s findings regarding the children’s best interests must also be supported by clear and convincing evidence, R.C. 2151.414(B) and
In re William S.,
supra, and will not be overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a terminаtion of parental rights have been established.
In re S.
(1995),
{¶ 44} Becausе permanent-custody proceedings divest parents of all rights, privileges, and responsibilities,
In re C.R.,
{¶ 45} We first review the trial court’s findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E) with respect to Todd. With respect to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (14), there is simply no evidence that Todd was unwilling to provide an adequate home for the children. LCCS argues that his unwillingness to move apart from the children in order to protect them from the risk that he might, possibly, sexually abuse them demonstrates his unwillingness to provide them with a permanent home. Todd made efforts, however, through therapy, to provide a home for the children in which his pedophilia was ameliorated. LCCS did not allege that he sexually abused the children or failed to protect them from abuse. Also, no evidence was presented suggesting that Todd was unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, or basic necessities for the children or that he failed to communicate and visit with them.
In re Schaefer,
{¶46} With respect to the R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) finding that Todd failed to remedy the conditions causing his children’s removal from the home, the children
{¶ 47} Nevertheless, the record does support a finding that R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) applies to Todd. In order to find that section applicable, the parent’s mental illness must be “so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home” at the time of or within one year after the dispositional hearing. The evidence must show that the mental illness affects the parent’s ability to care for his or her children.
In re D.A.,
{¶ 48} Todd argues that the parent/child relationship cannot be permanently severed unless a parent’s condition has a direct, adverse effect on the child or the home environment. His crimes occurred in 1991, no allegations of sexual offenses have been reported to LCCS, and LCCS has not alleged that Todd has abused the children. LCCS counters that the law has never required that demonstrable harm occur before removing a child from a dangerous home environment. In this case, LCCS argues, the risk Todd’s pedophilia presents to his children requires removing them from his care.
{¶ 49} Ohio courts have yet to squarely confront the issue of whether a prior sexual-offense conviction can form the sole basis supporting a finding of parental unfitness and a terminatiоn of parental rights.
2
LCCS’s arguments vacillate between supporting permanent custody because of Todd’s sexual-offender status and Todd’s multiple diagnoses as a pedophile. While a sexual-offense conviction — standing alone — would most likely not per se demonstrate that a parent is unable to provide an adequate permanent home, we need not confront the issue. Rather, the evidence sufficiently supports a finding that Todd’s repeatedly
{¶ 50} Because permanent custody is a drastic measure, judicial response to mental illness — of any sort — “should be the least intrusive that is available.”
In re William S.,
{¶ 51} Appellant contends that home-based sexual-offender therapy is available and that LCCS could still retain protective supervision after reunification. However, given the testimony regarding Todd’s risk of reoffending, intermittent home checks would likely detect harm only after abuse has occurred and would thus insufficiently protect the children. As to Todd’s safety plan, the trial court specifically found “shallow empathy” in the plan’s creation, and the record supports this determination. Therefore, due to Todd’s multiple diagnoses of pedophilia, and the еxpert testimony regarding his therapy, we conclude that Todd’s pedophilia qualifies as a “chronic mental or emotional illness” so severe that his children cannot and should not be placed in his care. Appellants’ assignment of error is therefore not well taken with respect to Todd.
{¶ 52} Turning to Sarah, LCCS sought termination of her parental rights because she continued to cohabit with Todd after learning of his condition and she is allegedly unable to protect the children from Todd. The judgment entry stated with respect to Sarah, “[t]he Court has also considered the fact that [appellants] have chosen to remain together as a couple and advocate for return of the children to a home they will maintain together.”
{¶ 53} As discussed above, Joshua’s injury precipitated the removal of the children from the home, eliminating R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Sarah was not diagnosed with a chronic mental or emotional illness as required by R.C.
{¶ 54} Just one statutory factor, R.C. 2151.414(E)(14), applies, because this finding shows that Sarah was unwilling to prevent her children from suffering sexual abuse by continuing to cohabit with a pedophile.
{¶ 55} Notably, no LCCS witness testified that Sarah was told that she would have to maintain a home separate from her husband in order to regain custody of her children. LCCS’s cаse plan did not require Sarah to cease cohabiting with Todd; instead, it required Sarah to participate in sexual-offender therapy, and LCCS sent her to Emahiser. Emahiser tasked Sarah with asking LCCS whether separating from Todd would help her case, and Sarah reported that her caseworker said that “it would not make any difference.” Additionally, Emahiser, the LCCS-sanctioned sex-offender therapist, trained Sarah as to how to integrate Todd into their home and told her that home-based, postreunification counseling would be available. He wrote — at the request of LCCS — that Sarah had developed a plan to keep her children safe and she “had demonstrated the ability to identify high risk behaviors in her husband and specific strategies to minimize the risk of her children being harmed.” Foreseeably, accomplishing the work that LCCS requested would have raised a reasonable expectation on her part that she had demonstrated her willingness to keep the children safe and that the children would be returned.
{¶ 56} The GAL and LCCS witnesses testified that they did not believe that Sarah had the ability to protect the children from Todd’s pedophilia by adequately adhering to Todd’s relapse-prevention plan. By implication, LCCS would have allowed reunification had they believed Sarah could adequately follow a relapse-prevention plan. The statute, however, requires LCCS to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that Sarah was unwilling to protect the children from sexual abuse.
{¶ 57} Further, LCCS was made aware that prior to the birth of Kayla and Joshua, a sex offender was living in a household with Sarah’s older child. LCCS received referrals regarding Sarah’s older child, Jonathan, in December 2001. LCCS’s investigative report shows that LCCS was aware that Sarah had married a sex offender and pedophile, and Todd’s parole officer warned the caseworker that he was not to be alone with children. The caseworker then told Sarah “to be very careful.” The caseworker also talked to a detective who told her that Todd “has every legal right to be in the home with” Jonathan. The caseworker closed the investigation as “unsubstantiated,” concluding that Jonathan was “at low to
{¶ 58} Even as LCCS argued that physical separation was necessary to protect the children from Todd’s pedophilia, LCCS provided Sarah with a sex-offender therapist who gave Sarah hope that reunification of her entire fаmily was possible. It seems manifestly unfair to seek termination of Sarah’s parental rights for “advocating for the return of the children to a home” with Todd present, that is, failing to establish a separate household, without providing her a clear notice and opportunity to do what was only implicitly required.
{¶ 59} However, it should also have been apparent that ceasing to cohabit with Todd was necessary. The testimony and evidence before the trial court showed that the risk of sexual abuse Todd presented to the children while cohabiting with them was high. Any person would find it practically impossible to follow the reunification plan — to parent two young children while ensuring that another adult in the household was never alone with them. Appellants gamely argue that any risk of harm to the children was sрeculative, as Todd had not reoffended in 16 years; the children, including Sarah’s oldest son, denied that sexual abuse had occurred; and a relapse-prevention plan and home-based, postreunification services were available. Sarah’s refusal to take the step of establishing a separate physical household from Todd demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the risk of sexual abuse Todd presents while cohabiting with her children. Because Sarah did not voluntarily choose to cease cohabiting with Todd, clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that she is unwilling to prevent the risk of sexual abuse to her children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(14).
{¶ 60} Since we uphold the findings of parental unfitness pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) with respect to Todd and R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) with respect to Sarah, we proceed to review whether terminating their parental rights is in Kayla’s and Joshua’s best interests. A court is required to consider all'relevant favors, including, but not limited to, the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) and 2151.414(E)(7) through (11). In its judgment entry, the trial court stated (1) that the children were in need of a legally secure permanent placement and that
{¶ 61} These considerations are sufficient to enter a determination that termination of appellants’ parental rights is in the children’s best interests. The two considerations stated by the trial court mirror the considerations of R.C. 2151.414(D)(4) and (2), respectively. Because the “best interests” list of considerations is not exhaustive, nor must eаch consideration be separately articulated in the judgment entry, we cannot say the trial court erred in its determination.
In re Nicholas
A., 6th Dist. No. L-04-1303,
{¶ 62} For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ assignment of error is not well taken. The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Appellants are ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk’s expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. At the beginning of this case, appellants also had custody of Jonathan E., Sarah’s child from a previous relationship and the children’s half-brother. Jonathan's natural father was granted custody on his motion during the pendency of this matter.
. Cases we have found addressing the issue include
In re L.M.
(2001),