IN RE: S.D-M.
C.A. Nos. 27148, 27149
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
April 9, 2014
[Cite as In re S.D-M., 2014-Ohio-1501.]
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DN 11-09-0616
BELFANCE, Presiding Judge.
{1} Appellants, Ashley M. (“Mother“) and Jeremy D. (“Father“), each appeal from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated their parental rights to their minor child, S.D-M., and placed her in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services (“CSB“). This Court reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands for further proceedings.
I.
{2} Mother and Father are the unmarried parents of S.D-M., born September 12, 2011. At the time of S.D-M.‘s birth, Mother had just turned fourteen years old and Father was seventeen. Mother was in foster care, having been removed from her own mother‘s home, along with her half-siblings, six months earlier upon concerns of dependency and neglect. Father lived with his grandmother who was his legal guardian. His own mother is deceased and his father‘s parental rights had been terminated.
{4} In due course, the trial court adjudicated S.D-M. to be a dependent child and granted temporary custody of her to the agency. The court adopted a case plan that required both parents to maintain contact with the child; attend parenting classes to increase their parenting skills; and show that they can meet the daily needs of their daughter, including properly feeding, diapering, and changing her clothes. Mother was also required to complete a mental health assessment, take prescribed medications, and participate in counseling.
{5} While this case continued, the matter involving Mother‘s own custody was concluded with an order on April 18, 2013, terminating her legal relationship with her parents. Mother‘s half-siblings were placed in the legal custody of their father.
{6} CSB moved for permanent custody of S.D-M on May 17, 2013. Mother and Father each filed a motion for legal custody. Evidence was heard on these matters over the course of four days. On October 4, 2013, the trial court granted CSB‘s motion for permanent custody and denied both motions for legal custody. Mother appeals and assigns a single error for review. Father appeals and assigns two errors for review.
MOTHER‘S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT‘S DENIAL OF [MOTHER‘S] AND FATHER‘S MOTIONS FOR LEGAL CUSTODY AND GRANTING OF SUMMIT COUNTY [CHILDREN] SERVICES’ MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS REVERSIBLE ERROR[.]
FATHER‘S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT IT IS IN THE MINOR CHILD‘S BEST INTEREST THAT SHE BE PLACED IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF SUMMIT COUNTY CHILDREN [SERVICES] AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE TRIAL COURT‘S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{7} Mother and Father each contend that the trial court erred in finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of the child because the weight of the evidence does not clearly and convincingly support that finding. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in this argument.
{8} Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under
{10} Clear and convincing evidence is that which will “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. Furthermore, in reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court must determine whether the trier of fact, in resolving evidentiary conflicts and making credibility determinations, clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. See In re M.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24797, 2009-Ohio-5544, ¶ 8 and 17. See also Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20.
{11} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was satisfied because S.D-M. had been in temporary custody of CSB for at least 12 of the prior 22 months. Mother does not contest that finding, but rather challenges the second-prong finding that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. Father also challenges the second-prong finding.
{13} Over the course of two years, Mother resided in eight separate placements, two of which were returns to previous placements. S.D-M. had three placements during the same period. Most of Mother‘s placement changes were due to conflicts between Mother and her foster parents, and some were due to efforts to implement joint placements of Mother and S.D-M. Mother and child resided together twice, for a total of approximately five months.
{14} There was evidence before the trial court that Mother and S.D-M shared a bond and that Mother demonstrated some positive interaction, but also that Mother did not always engage with the baby and occasionally needed to be prompted to provide needed care or attention. According to the foster care manager, Mother would respond to directions as if she understood them, but she did not always follow through to the anticipated results. At times, the foster parents felt Mother was overwhelmed with the responsibilities of school and child care. When the baby was placed separately from Mother, the foster parents reported that she made
{15} Mother testified that she was initially hesitant about whether she could care for S.D-M. full time, but she now believes she can. She testified that she has learned to be more nurturing and a better care-giver through experiences gained in various foster homes. She also believes she now has a stronger bond with her daughter.
{16} As noted above, Father‘s case plan required him to maintain contact with S.D-M.; attend parenting classes to increase his parenting skills; and show that he can meet the daily needs of his child, including properly feeding, diapering, and changing her clothes. Father completed a parenting course, maintained employment for a year and a half, and maintained contact with his child. Testimony regarding his parenting skill and care of the child was positive. In addition, Father‘s housing arrangements were said to be acceptable. Father has consistently indicated that he would like to have legal custody of S.D-M. and raise her. He testified that he had a room, a crib, and plenty of toys for S.D-M.
{17} Over time, Father‘s visits proceeded very well. The caseworker, who observed more than 20 visits, testified that Father was very hands-on with S.D-M. She reported that he got down on the floor with her, played in the play-kitchen at the visitation center with her, played with bubbles with her, and ran and played on the playground with her. He bottle-fed her in the past and fed her appropriately as a two-year-old. He voluntarily changed her diaper, although he occasionally forgot to change her diaper at the end of visits. The caseworker reported no concerns about his ability to discipline S.D-M. She testified that Father responded well to taking directions, and that he demonstrated that he has the ability to parent. The CSB permanency planning social worker similarly described his interaction as “attentive” and “engaged.”
{19} Ms. Snyder, the foster care case manager, described Father‘s interaction with his daughter as “wonderful.” She observed a particular visit at the home of Father‘s aunt, where Father was staying at the time. She stated that the baby went straight to Father and they did well together. Father was able to calm her when needed, and he got down on the floor to play with her. She reported that the home of Father‘s aunt seemed fine, and noted that the aunt was willing to assist Father with the child. Ms. Snyder said that the child was calm and content at the end of the visit. The witness indicated that she had received no negative reports about Father‘s interactions with S.D-M.
{20} Father testified on his own behalf about playing with his daughter in the back yard, changing diapers, feeding her, and maintaining her sleep schedule. He testified that his visits with his daughter “mean the world to me. Just to get to see her [is] a blessing.” When the child‘s foster parent sent a developmental journal to a visit, Father was happy to learn that he was familiar with some of the baby‘s favorite songs and that the foster mother had packed her Christmas dress because he wanted to take her to see Santa and take pictures. Father had plans to obtain a medical card and food stamps for the child. He also anticipated using day care during his work hours.
{21} Father‘s visits progressed to the point of having four-hour unsupervised visits at his residence. The caseworker made unannounced visits and found that Father had appropriate
{22} At that point, with unsupervised visits going well and overnight visits about to begin, Father apparently told the caseworker that he occasionally used marijuana to help him sleep and to deal with stress from his job at a fast food restaurant. He later testified that he never used marijuana around S.D-M. The caseworker reported that, upon hearing this, she asked him to stop using the drug and told him that he would have to do drug screens. She said that she told Father that S.D-M. could not come to his home and he could not have unsupervised visits until the test results were negative. She also suggested that Father participate in Fame Fathers, a support program for fathers who are raising children.
{23} Following this discussion, Father‘s case plan was not amended to include a requirement of drug screens or attendance in the Fame Father‘s program. Ultimately, Father‘s case plan was never so amended, nor was such an amendment ever presented to or adopted by the trial court. Father did not perform the drug screens and did not participate in Fame Fathers.
{24} At the permanent custody hearing, Father testified that he did not believe his case plan included drug screens or the Fame Fathers program. He also stated that he never used marijuana around S.D-M. This Court has previously held that evidence of marijuana use by a parent may be a relevant consideration in a permanent custody case where the case plan addresses substance abuse, however “the conduct of a parent is relevant * * * solely insofar as that parent‘s conduct forms a part of the environment of this child.” In re A.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24817, 2009-Ohio-5884, ¶ 44, quoting In re Burrell, 58 Ohio St.2d 37, 39 (1979). See also
{25} Notwithstanding, it is apparent from the record that the failure to comply with this purported component of his case plan was viewed by the service providers as a major stumbling block to any efforts to place S.D-M. with Father. In light of the facts in this case and our legal precedents, we find it significant that drug screens and participation in the Fame Fathers program were never added to Father‘s case plan, nor were they otherwise made an order of the trial court. Because these matters were not added to Father‘s case plan and were not otherwise made an order of the trial court, Father was not and should not be bound by them as comprising his case plan.
{26} The procedures for the creation and amendment of a case plan are statutorily mandated. See
{27} The statute further provides that any party may propose changes to a substantive part of the case plan. The additional requirements of drug screens and attendance at a support group are substantive matters and are therefore, subject to “the mandatory procedure” set out in
{28} Even emergency amendments, generated to prevent immediate or threatened harm, which may be implemented immediately by the agency, require the agency to notify the court and all parties by the next day and, in addition, require the agency to file a statement of the proposed change with the trial court within three days and give written notice of the proposed change to all parties.
{29} The creation and substance of a case plan is critical because it is the primary reunification tool of children services agencies as contemplated by Chapter 2151. It is no less important where, as here, a trial court relies on
{30} Here, the record demonstrates that CSB did not file a proposal for a routine change, nor did CSB file a statement in support of an emergency change in regard to either drug screens or the Fame Fathers program. Additionally, the trial court did not journalize an amended case plan that included these matters. Thus, drug screening and participation in the Fame Fathers program were never part of Father‘s case plan.
{31} Despite the foregoing, it is clear from the testimony and the nature of the questions posed to the witnesses that the CSB caseworker, the CSB attorney, and the guardian ad litem were under the mistaken impression that drug screening was part of Father‘s case plan. It is also clear that the guardian ad litem based her recommendation that permanent custody be
{32} Considering all the evidence discussed above and the fact that Father‘s failure to undergo drug screening should not have negatively weighed against him, we cannot conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence presented demonstrating that permanent custody with CSB was in S.D-M.‘s best interest. Instead, when the evidence presented under the actual case plan is considered, much of it weighs in Father‘s favor. The record demonstrates that Father had a positive relationship and very good interaction with his child. See
{33} We offer no opinion as to whether the parental rights of S.D-M.‘s parents should be preserved. The termination of those rights is an alternative of last resort, and the parents have no burden to prove that their rights should not be terminated. See In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619, 624 (9th Dist.1994). Under the circumstances presented in this case, we cannot conclude that CSB demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of parental rights was warranted. See
FATHER‘S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
OHIO REVISED CODE § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT IMPOSED A STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAL UNFITNESS OF [FATHER] IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF [FATHER] AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.
III.
{35} Mother‘s sole assignment of error and Father‘s second assignment of error are sustained. Father‘s first assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
EVE V. BELFANCE
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant Mother.
JASON D. WALLACE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant Father.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
LINDA BENNETT, Guardian Ad Litem.