In re L.C.
Gregory T. Stralka
Crown Centre Suite 600-30
5005 Rockside Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44131
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
For C.C.D.C.F.S.:
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
James M. Price
Assistant County Prosecutor
C.C.D.C.F.S.
8111 Quincy Avenue, Room 341
Cleveland, Ohio 44104
Guardian Ad Litem:
Melinda J. Annandale
20033 Detroit Road, Annex F1-1
Rocky River, Ohio 44116-2400
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court‘s decision. See
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
“I. The Department of Children and Family Services failed to establish that it complied with the provisions of
Ohio Revised Code Section 2151.414(E)(1) .”“II. The Department of Children and Family Services failed to establish that [the mother] hаd a chronic chemical dependency or mental illness that was so severe that it prevented her from providing the child with an adequate permanent home at the present time, and as anticipated, within one year.”
{¶ 2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decision. The apposite fаcts follow.
FACTS
{¶ 3} On September 19, 2006, J.C. (born January 26, 2003) and L.C. (born November 3, 2003) were removed from their mother‘s custody because she had been arrested for drug trafficking and drug possession. L.C. was with her at the time of the arrest. Police found him in the mother‘s car playing with a crack pipe. CCDCFS was granted temporary custody of J.C. and L.C. At the time of J.C. and L.C.‘s removal, she hаd not given birth to N.V. (born August 22, 2007). On April 1, 2008, N.V. was removed from
{¶ 4} The mother has four other children; none are in her custody because she was unable to complete the case plan and failed to obtain substance abuse treatment. Mother has had a drug problem for over 20 years and she is a frequent user of methadone, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The father of J.C. and L.C. is the same;2 however, N.V.‘s father is unknown.
{¶ 5} J.C. needs a high level of medical care because he suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy. He cannot walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He also must be fed through a feeding tube connected to his stomach. J.C. has been in the same foster home for the past three years and his health has improved while there. He was undernourished when he was removed from his mother‘s care and quickly gainеd weight at his foster home. He has bonded with his foster mother and foster siblings. His foster family maintains an open relationship with the mother and has given her their
{¶ 6} L.C.‘s speech and motor skills are delayed. However, these problems have improved while he has been in foster care. L.C. and N.V. are in the same foster home and have bonded with their family. The foster mother has an open relationship with the mother and allows her to visit. If the agency is granted permanent custody, the foster mother would like to adopt L.C. and N.V.
{¶ 7} J.C.‘s and L.C.‘s paternal grandmother and aunt would also like to adopt J.C. and L.C. The paternal grandmother has custody of two of the mother‘s other children. Because N.V. does not share the same father as J.C. and L.C., the paternal grandmother and aunt would not adopt her.
{¶ 8} The mother is very affectionate with her children during visitation. The children are aware that she is their mother and do have a bond with her. However, her visitation was sporadic.
{¶ 9} Mother has failed to complete the case plan requirements. The objectives of the plan were for her to obtain substance abuse treatment, attend parenting and anger management classes, and obtain the means to care for the children, including learning how to care for J.C.‘s medical needs. The mother did well with complying with the case plan when she was pregnant with N.V. She was drug-free during the pregnancy and completed
{¶ 10} Several weeks prior to the permanent custody hearing, the mother completed an in-patient drug treatment program at Turning Point. While at Turning Point, she also completed a parenting program; according to the mother‘s social worker, the parenting program did not satisfy the case plan requirements because it is not as intensive as thе one provided by Catholic Charities. Because the mother has been receiving in-patient treatment for the past three months, she has not visited with the children. While she was at Turning Point, she requested to visit with J.C. However, once visitation was arranged at the Jane Edna Hunter building, she refused to come because she had an active warrant and was afraid she would be arrested. Since the mother has been out of treatment, she has not requested to see the children.
{¶ 11} The mother obtained housing with the help of the Two Ways Home program but has not maintained the utilities. According to the social
{¶ 12} The mother claimеd to work at a bakery; however, she failed to provide requested pay stubs and failed to provide contact information for the bakery. At the hearing, the social worker was not sure if the mother was still on probation. Several messages were left with her probation officer; the officer has failed to return the agency‘s cаlls.
{¶ 13} The mother testified that she loved her children. She feels her recent treatment at Turning Point will be successful because the program also helped her mentally deal with her childhood rape. After the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a decision granting permanent custody of the children to CCDCFS.
Standard of Review
{¶ 14} A juvenile court‘s authority to awаrd permanent custody of a child to the state arises under
{¶ 15} Clear and convincing evidence is “that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence’ but not to the extеnt of such certainty required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”4 Where clear and convincing proof is required at trial, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of faсt had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.5 Judgments supported by competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.6
{¶ 16} Compliance with R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)
{¶ 18} As a preliminary matter, we note that J.C. and L.C. had been in CCDCFS‘s temporary custody for at least twelve months before the agency filed for permanent custody. Therefore, it was not necessary for the trial court to find, as it did, that J.C. and L.C. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.7 The court needed only to determine whether it was in their best interest to be placed with the agency. The mother does not dispute the court‘s best interest finding. Therеfore, our following discussion pertains to the custody of N.V. only.8
{¶ 19} The trial court‘s determination of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time is guided by
“Following the placement of the child outside the child‘s home and nоtwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the Agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parents have failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home. [
R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) ]“Mother has a chronic chemical dependency that is so severe that it makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time, and as anticipated, within one year after the court held the hearing in this matter. [
R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) ]“The parents are unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering emotional or mental neglect, as evidence by their unwillingness to successfully complete a case plan so they can provide care for the child. [
R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) ]“Parents have committed abuse or neglect to the child and the likelihood of recurrence of the abuse or neglect makes the child‘s placement with the parent a threat to the child‘s safety. [
R.C. 2151.414(E)(15) ]”
{¶ 20} Thus, the court made four findings in support of permanent custody when only one was required. On appeal, the mother only contests the first and second finding, which even if her arguments have merit, would
{¶ 21} Moreover, we conclude sufficient evidence was presented supporting the trial court‘s determination that the сhildren cannot and should not be returned to either parent because the mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that had caused the children to be placed outside the home. As to the mother‘s contention that the agency failed to set a reasonable case plan and failed to diligently assist her, the record demonstrates otherwise.
{¶ 22} The mother claims that because “the social worker and the service providers did not speak the same language as [the mother],” the agency failed to provide reasonable case planning and failed to make diligent efforts to assist her to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be
{¶ 23} The mother‘s claim that the social worker “failed to verify [her] after care program or make any additional referrals upon her discharge from Turning Point to any recommendеd treatment services” is disingenuous. The mother did not complete the inpatient program until March 13, 2009, two weeks before the permanent custody hearing. Moreover, although she did successfully complete the program, because she waited so long to obtain this case plan objective, she did not provide sufficient time to detеrmine if she would again relapse.
{¶ 24} The mother also claims the agency was not diligent because it failed to verify her income or determine whether she had complied with her parole obligation. However, as to her income, the mother failed to provide
Findings as to Chemical Dependency
{¶ 25} In her second assigned error, the mother contends the agency failed to establish that her chronic chemical depеndency was so severe that it prevented her from providing the children with an adequate permanent home or that she was unable to do so within a year. We disagree.
{¶ 26} The evidence showed that on the date of the hearing, J.C. and L.C. had been in permanent custody for over two-and-one-half years. N.V. had been in custody for over 12 months. Mоther‘s continued abuse of drugs caused her children to remain in foster care. The mother has abused drugs for 20 years. The evidence showed that over the years the mother has attended five drug treatment programs only to relapse. The mother‘s longest period of sobriety was the nine months she was pregnant with N.V. After the baby was born, she relapsed and continued abusing drugs.
{¶ 27} Two weeks prior to the hearing, the mother had just finished her sixth drug treatment program. Her failure to do so sooner, however, prevented the court from determining if she would again relapse as she has done in the past. Her children are in need of a permanent, nurturing home.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR