In re R.D.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 15, 2022
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD20907351 and AD20907352
Appearances:
Judith M. Kowalski, for appellant.
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ashley R. Lockemer and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant-mother R.K. (“Mother“) appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (the “juvenile court“), that terminated her parental rights and granted permanent custody of her minor children Ran.D. and Rai.D. to appellee, the Cuyahoga County Division of
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On August 31, 2020, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and temporary custody of Ran.D. (d.o.b. July 31, 2014) and Rai.D. (d.o.b. January 15, 2017) along with a motion for predispositional temporary custody. The complaint alleged that Mother “lacks appropriate decision making to provide for the children,” that on or about January 6, 2020, Mother had “left Ran.D. home alone while she went to work” with “[t]he oven * * * turned on to heat the home,” that “the home was in a deplorable condition” and that Mother was homeless and did not have stable housing in which to provide for the children. The complaint further alleged that the children‘s father, Rah.D., (“Father“) had been recently convicted of drug possession and that Father had physical limitations that precluded him from caring for the children.1 CCDCFS case worker Gabrielle Uhrin attested to the allegations of the complaint. In her affidavit in support of the agency‘s motion for predispositional custody, Uhrin further averred that the agency had made a referral for parenting
{¶ 3} On August 31, 2020, the magistrate granted the agency‘s motion for predispositional temporary custody and committed the children to the emergency temporary care and custody of the agency. In granting the motion, the magistrate noted, “[M]other is currently engaged in services but has not yet demonstrated she has benefitted from the services and additional services must be completed to alleviate the risk to the child[ren].”
A. Adjudication of Neglect and Temporary Custody
{¶ 4} An adjudicatory hearing was held on November 23, 2020. Mother stipulated to the allegations of an amended complaint,2 and the children were
{¶ 5} The agency then filed a case plan with the juvenile court. As it related to Mother, the case plan required Mother to complete a mental health assessment and comply with any recommended services, to attend a parenting program and learn proper parenting skills to make sound decisions in caring for and protecting her children, to obtain and maintain safe, clean and appropriate housing and to ensure the presence of an adequate and appropriate food supply in the home daily. As it relates to Father, the case plan required Father to maintain a relationship with his children and to financially support them as much as possible. The stated permanency goal of the case plan was reunification with Mother. The juvenile court approved the case plan but ordered the agency to submit an amended case plan that included substance abuse services for Father. The agency filed an amended case plan that required Father to undergo an alcohol and drug assessment and to comply with any recommendations.
{¶ 6} On December 22, 2020, the state filed a motion for a first extension of temporary custody. The state asserted that progress had been made on the case plan but that, because all of the case plan objectives had not yet been met, the risk to the children had not been sufficiently reduced and extension of temporary
{¶ 7} The juvenile court granted the first extension of temporary custody. As related to Mother, the juvenile court found that “Mother was referred for parenting classes, basic needs (housing), and substance abuse services” and that Mother had made “significant progress on the case plan.” As related to Father, the juvenile court stated, “Father shall build a relationship with the child[ren]. Father is engaged in case plan services. Substance abuse services were added to the case plan for Father.” The juvenile court ordered that both parents submit to “monthly, random drug testing by urinalysis,” as requested by the agency.
{¶ 8} In April 2021, the agency filed an amended case plan removing Father from the case plan because he had not been “participating in case plan service, drug screens, etc.” The magistrate approved the amended case plan.
{¶ 9} In May 2021, CCDCFS filed a motion for a second extension of temporary custody. The agency asserted that although “substantial additional progress” had been made on the case plan, because all the case plan objectives had not yet been met, the risk to the children had not been sufficiently reduced to return
{¶ 10} On June 30, 2021, the juvenile court granted the motion for a second extension of temporary custody, finding that there had been “substantial additional progress on the case plan by Mother” since the first extension of temporary custody, that there was reasonable cause to believe that the children would be reunified with one of the parents or permanently placed within the period of extension and that the continuation of temporary custody was necessary and in the best interest of the children. The juvenile court indicated that the permanency plan for the children was legal custody to Mother with no restrictions. The juvenile court once again ordered Mother to submit to “monthly, random drug testing by urinalysis,” as requested by the agency.
{¶ 12} On December 20, 2021, the agency filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. In her supporting affidavit, Uhrin (who had been assigned to the case since February 2020) averred that Mother “does not have stable and appropriate housing in which to provide for the children,” that Mother had “completed a mental health assessment which recommended substance
{¶ 13} Multiple continuances were requested due, in part, to difficulties in perfecting service on Mother. At a pretrial conference on March 2, 2022, it was noted that Mother “has been linked for [intensive outpatient] at Ohio Northern and is making progress on housing.” At a pretrial conference on April 12, 2022, a continuance was requested “so that the Mother can secure housing.” At a pretrial conference on May 16, 2022, the juvenile court ordered Mother to submit to a hair-follicle test.
{¶ 14} On May 31, 2022, Mother was indicted by a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on felony charges of robbery and theft relating to an April 3, 2020 incident in which Mother allegedly stole the victim‘s credit card, handbag, keys and/or license or services. See Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-670501-A. The criminal case was unresolved at the time of the hearing.
{¶ 15} On June 21, 2022, the juvenile court held a hearing on the agency‘s motion for permanent custody (the “permanent custody hearing“). At the time of the hearing, Ran.D. was seven years old and Rai.D. was five years old.
{¶ 16} At the hearing, the agency argued that it should be awarded permanent custody of the children because they had been in the custody of CCDCFS for more than 12 months of the 22-month period specified in
{¶ 17} Mother argued that the agency‘s motion should be denied because Mother loves her children “very much,” she, “at one point in time,” was “actually very, very close to reunification” and she had “been working very hard to get back to that point in time” and remedy the conditions that led to the removal of her children.
{¶ 18} CCDCFS caseworker, Nicole House, was the sole witness to testify at the hearing. House stated that she had been assigned to the case in April 2022 but that she was familiar with the history of the case based on discussions with the
{¶ 19} House testified that, at the outset of the case, the permanency goal was reunification of the children with Mother. She stated that the agency developed a case plan to assist Mother in addressing issues with parenting, mental health, substance abuse4 and housing. She testified that Mother had been referred for parenting services due to her failure to appropriately supervise the children and her poor parenting decisions, e.g., “leaving the kids home alone,” and that Mother had completed parenting classes through Northern East Neighborhood Center, a Community Collaborative, in 2021.
{¶ 20} House stated that, based on the assessments Mother received and her discussions with Uhrin, it was her understanding that Mother was a “chronic marijuana user,” who put her marijuana use ahead of taking care of her kids, i.e.,
To my understanding, I think mom minimizes it and a lot of people do. That‘s common because they look at marijuana as a recreational drug. I‘m just having fun. (Inaudible) legal. So they don‘t take it real serious. So I told her that a lot of her situation as far as history of lack of housing, could have possibly came from that because this is the thing.
If you‘re using marijuana, it‘s your first choice. You could at times don‘t take care of your kids. Not on purpose. I don‘t know how you want to define it, but it‘s a concern because if you make it first and you‘ve got to have it * * *.
{¶ 21} House testified that because Mother had minimized her marijuana use and was “so adamant” in denying that she had a substance abuse problem, the agency initially thought Mother might have mental health issues. She indicated that it was later determined Mother did not have mental health issues and that mental health services “was taken off the case plan.”
{¶ 22} House stated that, in an attempt to address Mother‘s marijuana use, the agency had referred Mother to four different substance abuse treatment providers but that Mother was “not consistent with drug treatment,” i.e., she would “start and then drop it and then she will start back up again with something and then stop and then back and forth,” and failed to complete substance abuse treatment programs at New Visions, Recovery Resources and The Centers.
{¶ 23} House stated that there had been two extensions of temporary custody and that because Mother had been making some progress on her case plan and “was headed in the right direction,” in or around August 2021, the children
{¶ 24} House testified that in or around October and November 2021, “things kind of unraveled” for Mother: Mother failed to appear at a court hearing for reunification; Mother had a positive drug screen and then “stopped dropping urine screens” for the agency; Mother lost her housing and began staying with various friends (the names and addresses of which were not provided to the agency) and Mother‘s overnight visits with her children stopped. Because “things ha[d] changed,” the agency withdrew its motion to terminate temporary custody and made referrals for a new assessment for substance abuse treatment services. House indicated that Mother was, at that time, referred to Recovery Resources and then to The Centers for substance abuse treatment services but that Mother did not complete substance abuse treatment services.
{¶ 26} With respect to housing, House stated that the agency had made multiple referrals for Mother for housing services but that Mother had not obtained stable and appropriate housing for the children and was currently homeless and living in a shelter, which House believed did not allow children. House indicated that although there are other shelters that would allow children, the agency would “never promote a shelter” as an appropriate living arrangement for a child. House
{¶ 27} House testified that the agency had referred Mother to the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Association (“CMHA“) and FrontLine for housing assistance but that Mother had missed multiple appointments with CMHA and had issues with her paperwork. House stated that when she took over the case, Mother was staying with a friend who “didn‘t want a social worker in their house.” House indicated that she recommended that Mother go to a shelter because after thirty days at the shelter, Mother could receive a housing voucher. Although Mother went to a shelter and obtained a housing voucher, she never secured a home. House testified that Mother‘s difficulties in obtaining housing had been further complicated by Mother‘s May 2022 indictment on felony robbery and theft charges. House indicated that she spoke with Mother about the charges but that Mother minimized them, stating “it‘s nothing, nothing‘s going to happen,” “I‘m going to get out of this free, I ain‘t do anything.” House stated that the pending criminal charges would affect Mother‘s ability to obtain housing through CMHA.
{¶ 28} House testified that there was a “good bond” between Mother and the children and that Mother had been consistent with weekly visitation, usually held at a fast-food restaurant or a park. She stated that Mother engaged with the children appropriately during visits, i.e., she was attentive to the children, purchased food for
{¶ 29} With respect to whether any additional services could be put in place to assist Mother, House stated, “maybe” a parenting coach, but that the “biggest thing with [Mother‘s] basic needs, was her lack of consistency with basic needs and her failure to understand the importance of basic needs.” House explained:
Kids need to know when they going to wake up in the morning, that they have a place to lay their head down and get up in the morning and go to sleep. I mean, they‘re not staying all over the place, going to different school districts, 50,000 people[‘s] addresses.
{¶ 30} Turning to Father, House testified that the case plan originally included substance abuse treatment services for Father but that he was removed
{¶ 31} House testified that since 2020, the children had been in three different placements. She stated that the children were originally placed with their maternal grandmother but that the grandmother disrupted the placement because she was not getting along with Mother and refused to continue to care for the children. House indicated that the children were then placed with a family friend but the caregiver disrupted the placement due to issues managing the oldest child‘s behavior. The children were then placed in their current foster placement, an adoptive foster placement, where, according to House, the children were “doing good.” House testified that the children got along “really, really good” with their foster parent, that the foster parent was meeting the children‘s basic needs, that there were no safety concerns and that the foster parent had been working on identifying and engaging tutoring services to assist Ran.D. with her educational difficulties. House indicated that both children were receiving basic counseling through Cleveland Charities and that they planned to seek an IEP to address Ran.D.‘s learning disabilities in the following school year.
{¶ 33} House stated that the agency believed permanent custody was in the children‘s best interest because Mother had “had a lot of time to do a lot of things” and had been “given a lot of opportunities to fix” her situation, but “she‘s taken this long not to do it.” Despite having more than two-and-one-half years to obtain stable housing and even after obtaining a housing voucher, Mother never secured housing for the children. With respect to her substance abuse, Mother failed to comply with agency requests and court orders requiring her to submit to random urine screens and a hair-follicle test. House indicated that although Mother was “starting back doing everything now” by attending an intensive outpatient drug treatment program, not enough progress had been made and the “last-minute” nature of Mother‘s latest efforts caused the agency to question whether Mother would “actually truly benefit from what she‘s doing right now.” House stated that there was nothing to indicate that Mother or Father could provide permanency for the children within the next several months or “in the near future.” House indicated that Mother still needed to secure a home and show “consistency” with her substance abuse treatment. She stated that the current program in which Mother
{¶ 34} Mother did not testify and did not present testimony of any other witnesses at the permanent custody hearing.
C. The Guardian Ad Litem‘s Report and Recommendation
{¶ 35} On June 21, 2021, the guardian ad litem filed a written report and recommendation. Based on a review of records filed with the court and visits or interviews with Mother, the children‘s foster mother, House and the children, he recommended that the children be placed in the permanent custody of the agency to “enable the children to flourish and develop in a safe and stable environment.”
{¶ 36} The guardian ad litem reported that Mother had had “mixed results” with her case plan. He noted that although Mother had been able to get extended visits with the children, she had lost her housing and was now living in a shelter — which he considered to be a “tenuous” placement because the program in which Mother was participating did not allow participants to have criminal cases and a capias had been issued for Mother‘s arrest. He indicated that Mother‘s failure to submit to urine screens requested by the agency, her failure to comply with the court-ordered hair-follicle test and her recent criminal charges “raises concerns about [Mother‘s] ability to stop using drugs.” He further stated that “[w]hile [Mother] clearly loves her children, and has consistently visited her children,” she
{¶ 37} With respect to Father, the guardian ad litem reported that Father had just started visiting with the children and had not yet had time to develop a strong relationship with them, that Father‘s case plan objectives “remain incomplete” and that Father was not available to care for the children due to three pending criminal matters, including a probation violation and new charges related to drug possession and trafficking and having weapons while under disability.
{¶ 38} The guardian ad litem reported that the children were “doing well” in their foster placement, that the children‘s basic needs were being met and that the foster placement provided the children a “loving, safe, and secure place to live.”
{¶ 39} At the permanent custody hearing, the guardian ad litem reiterated his recommendation that permanent custody be granted to the agency. He stated that, at first, he believed this case was one that was “going for reunification,” but that, in the last couple of months, it had “taken a huge turn downwards.” He noted that Mother had picked up felony charges for robbery, involving thefts of bank cards or credit cards, “showing an immediate need for cash” and that, during that same period, Mother had refused to comply with the random drug screens requested by the agency and the court-ordered hair-follicle test. The guardian ad litem explained that he had requested the hair-follicle test out of concern that Mother might be using
{¶ 40} The guardian ad litem indicated that he was also concerned that Mother “still finds herself residing in a shelter,” unable to obtain stable housing. He indicated that there were points in time in which Mother had stable housing, “but then her income was obviously going into other activities,” because Mother has not “consistently over the two-year period [been] able to meet the basic needs of the children.”
D. The Juvenile Court‘s Decision to Grant Permanent Custody of the Children to CCDCFS
{¶ 41} Following consideration of the evidence presented at the permanent custody hearing and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, the juvenile court granted the agency‘s motion for permanent custody, terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father as to Ran.D. and Rai.D. On June 23, 2022, the juvenile court issued written journal entries, setting forth its findings (the “permanent custody order“). The juvenile court found, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that the children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period pursuant to
{¶ 42} Mother appealed, raising the following sole assignment of error for review:
The Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court erred and abused its discretion in finding that clear and convincing evidence supported granting permanent custody of the subject children to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 43} The right to raise one‘s own child is “an essential and basic civil right.” In re N.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101390, 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67, quoting In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997); see also In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990) (a parent has a “fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management” of his or her child), quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). This right is not absolute, though. It is “always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, 86 N.E.3d 1012, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979).
{¶ 44} Because termination of parental rights is “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case,” In re J.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66, quoting In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 2002-Ohio-5368, 776 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 14, it is “an alternative of last resort.” In re Gill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79640, 2002-Ohio-3242, ¶ 21. It is, however, approved “when necessary for the welfare of a child.” In re M.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 101693 and 101694, 2015-Ohio-1028, ¶ 7, citing In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619, 624, 645 N.E.2d 812 (9th Dist.1994). “All children have the right, if possible, to parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.” In re J.B. at ¶ 66, quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102, 696 N.E.2d 1090 (8th Dist.1996). Where parental rights are terminated, the goal is to create “a more stable life for the dependent children” and to “facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.” In re N.B. at ¶ 67, citing In re Howard, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 85 A10-077, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7860, 5 (Aug. 1, 1986).
A. Standard for Terminating Parental Rights and Granting Permanent Custody to CCDCFS
{¶ 45} An agency may obtain permanent custody of a child in two ways. In re J.F., 2018-Ohio-96, 102 N.E.3d 1264, ¶ 44 (8th Dist.), citing In re E.P., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2009-11-022 and CA2009-11-023, 2010-Ohio-2761, ¶ 22. An agency may first obtain temporary custody of the child and then file a motion for permanent custody under
{¶ 46}
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period if, as described in division (D)(1) of
section 2151.413 of the Revised Code , the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state, 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.(b) The child is abandoned.
(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody.
(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1) of
section 2151.413 of the Revised Code , the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state.(e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any court in this state or another state.
{¶ 47} Mother does not dispute that CCDCFS met its burden of establishing that one of the conditions set forth in
B. Best-Interest Determination
{¶ 48}
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child‘s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child‘s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (c) The custodial history of the child * * *;
(d) The child‘s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in [
R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) ] apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 49} The best interest determination focuses on the child, not the parent. In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, at ¶ 59. A juvenile court has considerable discretion in weighing the factors set forth in
{¶ 50} In addition to the best interest factors identified in
If all of the following apply, permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall commit the child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency:
(a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the factors in [
R.C. 2151.414(E) ] exist and the child cannot be placed with one of the child‘s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.(b) The child has been in an agency‘s custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of
section 2151.415 of the Revised Code .
(c) The child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to division (A)(5) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code .(d) Prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of the child.
See also In re H.C., 7th Dist. Harrison Nos. 13 HA 5 and 13 HA 6, 2013-Ohio-5871, ¶ 32 (“[T]he
{¶ 51}
C. The Juvenile Court‘s Best-Interest Determination
{¶ 52} In this case, the juvenile court determined that CCDCFS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children‘s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency both after weighing the best interest factors specified in
{¶ 53} In its June 23, 2022 journal entries, the juvenile court identified, as to each child, the factors it considered in determining that an award of permanent custody to the agency was in the child‘s best interest and set forth specific factual findings explaining its evaluation of those factors. With respect to its findings under
With respect to the best interest of the child, the Court has considered the following factors under
O.R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) :(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child‘s parents, siblings, relatives, and foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child. The child has a relationship with mother.
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child‘s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child. GAL recommends permanent custody. (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in temporary custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency under one or more separate orders of disposition for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. The child has been in the uninterrupted custody of CCDCFS since January 2020.
(d) The child‘s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody. Child deserves a safe and stable home/environment where her needs can be met and she can thrive. The mother has failed to complete and benefit [from] case plan services that led to the removal of the child. Father has failed to engage in case plan services. No other relative or family member has been identified as willing or appropriate to care for the child.
(e) Whether any factors in [
R.C. 2151.414(E) (7) to (11) ] apply in relation to the parents and the child.
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 54} With respect to its findings under
Additionally, with respect to the best interest of the child, the Court finds that pursuant to
O.R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) that all of the following apply:(a) The Court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the factors in [
R.C. 2151.414(E) ] exist and the child cannot be placed with one of the child‘s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.(b) The child has been in the agency‘s custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody pursuant to division (D) of
section 2151.415 of the Ohio Revised Code .
(c) The child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to division (A)(5) of Section 2151.353 of the Ohio Revised Code .(d) Prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal [c]ustody.
{¶ 55} In determining that the children could not be placed with one of their parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with their parents under
The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with one of the child‘s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, pursuant to
O.R.C. 2151.414(E) :(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child‘s home and notwithstanding 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 parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child‘s home.
(2) The chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent (Mother) 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.
(4) The parent (Mother and Father) 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 adequate permanent home for the child.
(14) The parent (Mother and Father) 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.
(16) Any other factor the Court finds relevant: Mother has a pending criminal case involving Robbery. Father has a pending criminal case alleging Having Weapons While Under Disability. Father has never made an appearance in court on this case.
{¶ 56} Mother does not specifically challenge any of the particular factual findings made by the juvenile court under
{¶ 57} In support of her argument, Mother points to the fact that the agency had filed a motion to terminate temporary custody in August 2021, stating that she had “completed case plan services” and that “the children should be reunified with her.”6 Although Mother acknowledges the “unfortunate” “change in [her]
{¶ 58} Following a thorough review of the record in this case, we find that competent, credible, clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court‘s findings under
{¶ 59} Although Mother completed certain of the services specified in her case plan – i.e., parenting classes and a mental health and substance abuse
{¶ 60} The record reflects that Mother was unable to consistently maintain her sobriety and unable to consistently obtain and maintain suitable and appropriate housing for her children. Although, by the summer of 2021, Mother had made progress on her case plan objectives, it was when she was close to being reunified with her children in the fall of 2021 that Mother‘s progress derailed – Mother again lost her housing, tested positive for substance use, stopped submitting to urine screens and failed to appear for the hearing on the motion to terminate temporary custody. Although, as of the time of the permanent custody hearing – nearly nine months later and nearly two-and-a-half years after the children had been first placed in agency custody – Mother was, once again, engaging in substance abuse treatment services, she had “a long road” ahead of her. She was still using marijuana (although her “levels” were reportedly declining) and had failed to
{¶ 61} This is a difficult case. Mother clearly cares for her children and her children care for her. However, in determining what is in a child‘s best interest, the existence of a biological relationship or even a “good relationship” or “bond” with a parent is not controlling in and of itself. In re J.B. at ¶ 111, citing In re T.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 86084, 86109 and 86110, 2005-Ohio-6633, ¶ 15. “A child‘s best interests require permanency and a safe and secure environment.” In re E.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 100473 and 100474, 2014-Ohio-2534, ¶ 29. Although “[f]amily unity and blood relationship are vital factors to carefully and fully consider,” the “paramount consideration” is always the best interest of the child. In re J.B. at ¶ 111. While Mother loves her children, has visited with them regularly and has a “good bond” with them, two-and-a-half years after the children were removed from her care, Mother continues to struggle with substance use, has not completed a treatment program and is unable to provide stable, appropriate housing for her children. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Mother would be
{¶ 62} Following a thorough review of the record, we find that competent, credible, clear and convincing evidence presented at the permanent custody hearing supports the juvenile court‘s findings under
{¶ 63} Mother‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 64} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that the appellee recover from the appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 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.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
Notes
- A complaint for Neglect and Temporary Custody was previously filed on January 7, 2020 and the children were committed to the emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS since that time. That matter was not resolved within the statutory guidelines and was dismissed. See Case Nos. AD20900140-41.
- Mother lacks appropriate decision making to provide for the children. On or about January 6, 2020, Mother left Ran.D. home alone while she took child Rai.D. to daycare.
- An individual arrived at the home and discovered that the child was without supervision. The oven was turned on to heat the home and the home was in deplorable condition.
- Mother does not have stable housing in which to provide for the children. Mother is currently homeless.
- Father was recently convicted of drug possession. See Case No. CR-19-641817-A.
- Father has physical limitations which currently preclude him from caring for the children.