In re P.M.
Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological father of P.M., appeals from a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of his son to appellee, the Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services (“the Agency“). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decision.
{¶ 2} P.M. was born on January 12, 2022. At the time of his birth, both he and
{¶ 3} On March 31, 2022, thе Agency filed a complaint alleging that P.M. was an abused child. The complaint noted that despite Mother and P.M. testing positive for amphetamines, Mother had denied using the substance and had claimed she was drugged by another person. Mother refused multiple attempts by the Agency to drug test her in the weeks after P.M.‘s birth. However, once screened, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Following a hearing on March 31, 2022, the juvenile court placed P.M. in the Agency‘s temporary custody and appointed a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) fоr the child.
{¶ 4} P.M. remained hospitalized due to medical problems unrelated to his drug toxicology until April 12, 2022. When he was discharged, he was placed in a therapeutic foster home. An adjudicatory hearing was held on April 19, 2022. At that time, the Agency verbally amended its complaint to allege that P.M. was a neglected child. Following admissions made by Mother, P.M. was adjudicated a neglected child. A dispositional hearing was held on May 17, 2022. In both instances, the juvenile court continued the order of temporary custody with the Agency. Mother was granted visitation with P.M. twice a week. However, after she failed to consistently visit with the child, visitation was modified to once per week.
{¶ 5} The Agency created a case plan for Mother‘s reunification with the child, and this plan was adopted by the juvenile court. The case plan required Mother complete a substance abuse assessment and follow through with all recommended treatments, complete a mental health assessment and follow through with all recommended treatments, obtain and maintain stable housing and income, and complete parenting education classes. Though Mother began working on case plan objectives by undergoing a drug assessment with Brightview and starting outpatient services, she was
{¶ 6} On October 5, 2022, genetic testing established Father as the biological father of P.M. Father entered an appearance in the juvenile case and was added to the existing case plan with the goal of reunifying P.M. with Father. Father had the same case plan services as Mother. He was to undergo substance abuse and mental health assessments and comply with any recоmmended treatments, obtain and maintain stable housing and income, and complete parenting education.
{¶ 7} Father was granted weekly visitation with P.M. Father exercised visitation until he was arrested on October 27, 2022. Father remained in jail from October 27, 2022 until December 2, 2022, at which time he was moved to Talbert House Community Corrections Center (CCC), a lock-down residential treatment facility. Father was housed at CCC until May 1, 2023. While in lockdown at CCC, Father engaged in drug treatment, mental health counseling, and parenting classes.
{¶ 8} Once released from CCC on May 1, 2023, Father resumed visiting P.M. However, he was arrested fоr a probation violation on June 22, 2023. He was sent back to CCC for another 90 days. Upon being released from the CCC on October 1, 2023, Father again resumed visitations with P.M. While both Mother and Father were fairly consistent in visiting with P.M., they made limited progress on case plan objectives. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from a second drug treatment facility and continued to test positive for methamphetamines. Neither Mother nor Father had reported being employed to the Agency or had obtained independent, stable housing. They were reportedly staying with P.M.‘s maternal grandmother, who had аt one point sought to evict Mother from the home.
{¶ 9} The Agency requested and was granted extensions of temporary custody
{¶ 10} At the permanent custody hearing, the magistrate heard testimony from a staff attorney for the Clermont County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), the Agency caseworker assigned to P.M.‘s case, P.M.‘s foster mother, and an adoption supervisor for the Agency. The CSEA staff attorney testified that in November 2022, Mother had been ordered to pay child support in the amount of $115.52 per month. Mother had not made any support payments and had an arrearage of $1,585.25. After Father‘s paternity was established, he was ordered to pay $134.81 per month as child support. Father had not made any payments and, at the time of the permanent custody hearing, had an arrearage of $1,843.57.
{¶ 11} The Agency caseworker assigned to P.M.‘s case testified about the Agency‘s involvement, P.M.‘s placement history, and Mother‘s and Father‘s limited progress on the case plan. The caseworker explained that the Agency had been granted emergency temporary custody of P.M. on March 31, 2022. He has remained in the Agency‘s temporary custody since that date. When P.M. was released from the hospital in mid-April 2022, he was placed in a therapeutic foster home due to “significant medical concerns,” which included neurological issues and the need to obtain nutrition through a g-tube. In December 2022, hе was moved to a different therapeutic foster home, where he has remained. P.M. is “doing wonderful” in his foster placement; he is very bonded to his foster parents and another child the family is fostering. The caseworker explained that P.M.‘s current foster home was a potential “adoptive home” for the child.
{¶ 13} The caseworker testified that Mother has continued to abuse drugs throughout the pendency of the case. Mother‘s drug of choice is methamphetamine. Mother has had 19 positive drug screens since the start of the case. Mother tested positive in screens administered by the Agency and in screens administered at treatment facilities. The Agency was last able to drug screen Mother on August 24, 2023. When the Agency attempted to visit Mother in September 2023 and obtain a drug screen, Mother kicked the caseworker out of the home. Mother was placed on probation at the beginning of August 2023, and when tested by her probation officer, she screened negative for any drugs on August 10, 2023 and October 3, 2023.
{¶ 14} Mother‘s drug use has impacted her ability to complete parenting courses.
{¶ 15} Mother had been living with her mother, P.M.‘s maternal grandmother, throughout the pendency of the case. Mother‘s living situation is not stable. In September 2022, maternal grandmother filed an evictiоn action against Mother. Though maternal grandmother did not follow through with the eviction, maternal grandmother advised that Mother had to be moved out of the home by January 1, 2024.
{¶ 16} The caseworker testified the Agency tried to help Mother find housing. When Clermont Metropolitan Housing had availability, the caseworker gave Mother the organization‘s number. The Agency was prepared to help pay to get Mother moved into housing, so long as Mother was able to pay the rent moving forward. However, Mother was unable to get on Clermont Metropolitan‘s housing list and, to the caseworkеr‘s knowledge, had not found any other independent housing. Mother had also not reported any employment or income to the caseworker, though Mother recently indicated that both she and Father might be serving as caretakers for Father‘s mother, who had serious health issues.
{¶ 17} The caseworker testified that Mother has been fairly consistent in exercising her visitation with P.M. Mother‘s visitation was reduced from twice a week to once a week around the end of June 2022. Since then, Mother has routinely attended her weekly visits with P.M., missing only when she was ill or had car trouble. The caseworker tеstified Mother and P.M. appeared bonded to one another.
{¶ 19} While at CCC from December 2, 2022 until May 1, 2023, Father engaged in drug treatment and mental health counseling. When Father was released from CCC in May 2023, he had a nеgative drug screen. He went to Clermont Recovery Center for drug and mental health assessments, and it was recommended he receive treatment. Father attended a few outpatient sessions at the recovery center. However, on June 8, 2023 and June 15, 2023, he tested positive for methamphetamine. On June 22, 2023, Father was arrested for a probation violation and, when tested upon his arrest, again tested positive for methamphetamine. Father was sent back to CCC for 90 days and was released on October 1, 2023, about six weeks before the permanent custody hearing. CCC reсommended that upon his release, Father engage in outpatient drug treatment. However, Father did not immediately engage in any substance abuse or mental health treatment. He waited until November 16, 2023, the day before the permanent custody hearing, before returning to the Clermont Recovery Center to reengage their substance abuse and mental health services.
{¶ 20} In addition to participating in drug and mental health services while housed at CCC, Father also completed a parenting course. Upon his most recent release from CCC in October 2023, Father enrolled in рarenting classes at Child Focus with Mother.
{¶ 21} Father has not reported having a job or independent housing to the Agency. At one point he reported living with his parents and, at another point, reported living with Mother at maternal grandmother‘s home.
{¶ 23} In addition to testifying about Mother‘s and Father‘s progress on the case plan, the caseworker also testified about the Agency‘s attempts to find family members with whom P.M. could be placed. The caseworker explained efforts were made to place P.M. with various paternal relatives, including paternal grandparents. However, the paternal relatives never followed up with the Agency or returned the paperwork required to obtain a home study.
{¶ 24} P.M.‘s foster Mother testified that P.M. has been placed in her home since December 21, 2022. P.M. is bonded with his foster parents and his foster sibling, who is only six months younger than P.M. Foster Mother described P.M. as a “very engaged, energetic little boy” who is playful and social. P.M. is in daycare and is doing well there. Foster Mother reported P.M. had his g-tube removed in April 2023, the tremors he was born with had lessened, and he now only requires yearly checkups with a neurologist. Foster Mother testified that if the juvenile court were to grant permanent custody of P.M. to the Agency, she and her husband hoped tо adopt him.
{¶ 25} An adoption supervisor with the Agency testified that if permanent custody of P.M. was granted, the case would be transferred to the adoption unit and within 90 days, the Agency would conduct meetings to match the child with adoptive families. The Agency would reach out to any relatives of P.M. who might be interested in adopting the child, including those family members who the Agency had previously contacted about
{¶ 26} After considering the foregoing testimony, the magistrate issued a decision on January 19, 2024 in which it granted the Agency‘s motion for permanent custody. The magistrate found that P.M. had been in the Agency‘s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and that a grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in P.M.‘s best interest. Father filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, arguing that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was contrary to P.M.‘s best interest. On June 11, 2024, following a hearing, the juvenile court issued a decision overruling Father‘s objections. The court stated, in pertinent part, the following:
Upon consideration of the pertinent statutes and case law, testimony, exhibits, and case file, the Court finds that the Decision of thе Magistrate is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court finds the testimony presented by the Agency‘s witnesses to be credible based upon a review of the transcript. The Court finds in weighing the evidence that there is substantial credible evidence that is both clear and convincing to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to the [Agency].
The Court further finds, having considered the relevant statutes and facts of this case regarding the best interest of the child, that there is substantial credible evidence that is both clear and convincing that it is in the best interest of the child tо permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the [Agency].
IT IS ORDERED, that the Objections to the Decision of the Magistrate hereby be overruled in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Court affirms the decision of the Magistrate to terminate the parental rights of Mother . . . and Father . . . and grant permanent custody of the child to the [Agency].
{¶ 27} Father appealed the juvenile court‘s decision, raising the following as his
{¶ 28} THE JUVENILE COURT‘S DECISION TO TERMINATE [FATHER‘S] PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 29} Father challenges the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody of P.M. to the Agency, contending the court‘s determination that permanent custody was in P.M.‘s best intеrest was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 30} Before a parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In re K.W., 2015-Ohio-4315, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.), citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982). Under
{¶ 32} With respect to the second part of the two-part permanent custody test, the juvenile court determined that P.M. had been in the Agency‘s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period pursuant to
{¶ 33} The only issue remaining is whether an award of permanent custody to the Agency was in P.M.‘s best interest. When considering the best interest of a child in a permanent custody case, the juvenile court is required under
{¶ 34} The record reflects that the court considered the best interest factors set forth in
{¶ 35} Aftеr our review of the record, we find no merit to Father‘s argument. The juvenile court‘s best interest determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Though P.M. appeared affectionate with Father, there was evidence presented that Father failed to maintain a consistent presence in P.M.‘s life due to his incarceration. Father missed multiple months of visitations with P.M. from October 27, 2022 until May 1, 2023 and then again from June 22, 2023 until October 1, 2023 while he was in lockdown at CCC.3 Due to the inconsistent contact, the Agency caseworker could not “say for sure that [P.M.] is specifically bonded to [Father] or if [P.M.] is just simply being his happy self and happy to see someone.”
{¶ 36} Even if Father and P.M. are bonded with one another, that is but one factor in the best interest test, and “no one factor is entitled to more weight than the other factors.” In re A.C., 2023-Ohio-836, ¶ 54 (10th Dist.). In addition to considering the child‘s relationship with his biological parents, the juvenile court also considered P.M.‘s custodial history, his current living situation, his relationship with the foster family, and his wishes, as expressed through the CASA given P.M.‘s tender age. P.M. has been in the Agency‘s
{¶ 37} The juvenile court also considered Father‘s progress on case plan services, P.M.‘s need for a legally secure placement, whether such placement could be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the Agency, and whether the conditions that led to the Agency‘s involvement had been remedied. The record reflects that Father made some progress on case plan services but was ultimately unable to remedy the conditions that led to the Agency‘s involvement. The Agency first became involved in the case because P.M. and Mother tested positive for amphetamine at P.M.‘s birth. Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine thereafter. Father, once his paternity was established, was unable to care for the child, as he too had substance abuse issues as well as multiple instances of incarceration. Though Father engaged in drug treatment and mental health counseling while in lockdown at CCC, once released, Father failed to follow through on recommended substance abuse and mental health treatments. Father was released from CCC in May 2023. A month later, on both June 8 and June 15, 2023, he tested positive for methamphetamine. He was arrested for a probation violation on June 22, 2023 and once again tested positive for methamphetamine. After spending an additional 90 days at CCC, Father was released on October 1, 2023 with the
{¶ 38} Father cannot provide stability or consistency for P.M. as Father is not in a position to provide for the needs of the child. Father has not paid any amount towards his child support obligation. He does not have independent housing, but either stays with his parents or stays with Mother at maternal grandmother‘s home—a home that he and Mother have been told they had to leave by January 1, 2024. There is no evidence in the record that Father holds a job.4 As for the suggestion that Father would soon be employed to take care of the paternal grandmother, who had fallen ill, the juvenile court found that “[g]etting paid to take care of a sick relative does not appear to be a job that creates stability.” This is especially true where the record does not contain any evidence as to the type of hours Father would be working or the income that he would receive for caring for his mother.
{¶ 39} P.M. is in need of legally secure permanent placement. He has been in the Agency‘s temporary custody since March 31, 2022. The juvenile court has already granted the Agency two extensions of temporary custody, the maximum number of extensions permitted by
{¶ 40} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.