In re S.G.
Dated: June 15, 2015
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Brian J., appeals from a judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated his parental rights to his minor child, S.G., and placed her in the permanent custody of Wayne County Children Services (“CSB“). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} S.G. was born on June 26, 2013, to unmarried parents, Autumn G. (“Mother“) and Brian J. (“Father“). At the time of S.G.‘s birth, Mother had an existing custody case with CSB regarding her three older children. Mother recently surrendered her parental rights to two of those children, while the third remained in the temporary custody of the agency. Father was not a party to that action.
{¶3} Two days after S.G.‘s birth, CSB filed a complaint, alleging that S.G. was a dependent child under
{¶4} The trial court initially permitted Mother to retain custody of the infant with protective supervision in CSB. Within two weeks, however, the court ordered the removal of S.G. from the home because of a domestic violence incident between Mother and Brad Clark, the man with whom she was in a current relationship. S.G. was placed in foster care.
{¶5} In the meantime, Father established paternity of S.G. and, on August 15, 2013, filed a pro se motion to obtain visitation with S.G. He expressed a desire to visit S.G. and a willingness to cooperate with CSB and the juvenile court.
{¶6} On August 22, 2013, the case proceeded to adjudication and disposition. Both parents agreed to a finding of dependency under
{¶8} After six months of progress, however, things began to change and CSB became concerned about Father. Father missed counseling appointments, stopped attending visitation, and his behavior was noticeably different. As a consequence, on May 30, 2014, CSB moved for permanent custody of S.G. At the start of the permanent custody hearing, Mother voluntarily surrendered her parental rights. The hearing proceeded upon cоnsideration of Father‘s parental rights. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted permanent custody of S.G. to CSB. Father filed a notice of appeal and has assigned three errors for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE WAYNE COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE MINOR CHILD WAS ABANDONED[.]
{¶9} Father contends that the trial court erred in determining that S.G. was abandoned in satisfaction of the first prong of the permanent custody test.
{¶10}
{¶11} The factors contained within
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF S.G. TO [CSB] BECAUSE [ITS] DETERMINATION THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY GRANTING OF PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶12} Father next challenges the trial court finding on the second prong of the permanent custody test and asserts that the trial court erred in finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of the child.
{¶14} The first best interest factor requires consideration of the relevant personal interactions and interrelationships of the child. Father initially worked very hard on his case plan and created a bond with his daughter. He was present at her birth and consistently expressed his love for S.G. as well as a desire to provide for her.
{¶15} By December 2013, Father had completed a parenting class and regularly attended a Men of Honor program, substance abuse appointments, and mental health appointments. He was consistently visiting with his daughter. Mental health professionals reрorted that Father had been diagnosed as bipolar manic moderate, but he was stable and his referral problems were being addressed. In addition, Father was compliant with the terms of his probation. Father even voluntarily engaged in more programs than were required by his case plan.
{¶16} In January 2014, visits were increased and werе moved to Father‘s home. All of his drug screens were negative. Father was receiving disability insurance and was seeking part-time work. The caseworker stated that, at that point, Father “had really worked hard for [S.G.]”
{¶17} Then, at the end of February and beginning of Marсh 2014, Father began having difficulties. Father‘s grandmother, who had been a significant support in his life, died. His compliance with case plan services began to change drastically. He failed to maintain contact with his caseworker and service providers, and he violated the terms of his probation. Father relapsed into substance abuse and no longer maintained his apartment. He stopped visiting with his daughter. His last visit was on April 8, 2014.
{¶18} During Father‘s last few visits with S.G., the caseworker developed concerns because Father seemed “kind of erratic and was just real antsy and anxious.” At his last visit, Father told the case aide that he was battling depression and had some schizophrenic episodes that he had not had in years. She believed that his demeanor suggested that he was visibly struggling “within himself” and he appeared to be depressed. Father assured the case aide that he was going to get help because he did not want his daughter to have to contend with this. Father stopped attending visits and serviсes, and he maintained no contact with his caseworker either. The caseworker was concerned about Father, but was unable to locate him until September 2014, despite repeated visits to his apartment and contacting Father‘s counselor, case manager, and probation officer.
{¶19} When the casеworker finally located Father, she discovered that his whole demeanor had changed. While he had been attending services and taking his medication, he was
{¶20} Father testified in his own behalf. He stated that in March and April 2014, he had become overwhelmed with his many commitments, the pressure and stress of court situations, not being able to understand everything, and the death of his grandmother. He stated that he had hаd panic attacks for a long time, but most recently after his grandmother‘s death. He used marijuana in an effort to deal with them. He started feeling that no matter what he did, it was never enough.
{¶21} Father testified that after he was prescribed Abilify, he was unable to sleep and was jittery. Within a couple days, he felt “totally like off the wall.” Then, frоm mid-March 2014 until late April 2014, he was given Buspar and immediately became very depressed and slept constantly. He said the medications basically put him back into the psychosis that he had not experienced in so long. He was unable to get back to the conditions he experienced prior to February 2014.
{¶23} There was little evidence of relationships between the child and other relatives. Father‘s mother attended one visit at Father‘s home. Father‘s grandmother unfortunately passed away during this case.
{¶24} The caseworker testified that S.G. gets along well with the foster family. She appears to be attached to them and shows affection towards them, especially the foster mother. They provide for her needs. According to the caseworker, they are interested in adopting the child.
{¶25} The wishes of thе child were conveyed by the guardian ad litem. In her report, she concluded that permanent custody was in the best interest of the child. The guardian ad litem attended the hearing and stated that she had not changed her opinion after hearing the evidence presented.
{¶26} S.G. resided with Mother for the first three weeks of her life. During that time, the child was also under the protective supervision of CSB. Then, because of a domestic violence incident between Mother and her current boyfriend, S.G. was removed from Mother‘s home and placed with a foster family. There was no evidence that Father was involved in those events. S.G. resided with a single foster family for the nеxt fifteen months until the time of the permanent custody hearing.
{¶28} Father clearly loves his daughter and initially made significant strides, but unfortunately, he was not able to maintain that progress and overcome barriers to reunification. Father has not been able to demonstrate an ability to provide a stаble, secure permanent home for her.
{¶29} This Court has carefully reviewed the evidence before the trial court. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court. Furthermore, we cannot say that the trial court clearly lost its way in concluding that permanent custody to CSB was in the best interest of the child. See Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. Father‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CASEWORKER AND PROBATION OFFICER TO TESTIFY REGARDING [POSITIVE] DRUG SCREENS[.]
{¶30} Father argues that the trial court erred in allowing the caseworker and probation officer to testify regarding two positive drug test results.
{¶31} The CSB caseworker attempted to introduce evidence of two positive drug test results and Father successfully argued that the caseworker was not a qualified witness to properly authenticate them. The trial court denied the admission of the test results. However, the trial court permitted the caseworker and probation officer to testify about the results. On appeal, Father asserts that permitting such testimony was error.
{¶33} Father took the stand on his own behalf and testified, on direct examination, to his use of marijuana during the course of the trial court proceedings as well as to his previous use of both marijuana and cocaine. Father also admitted his use of drugs to the case aide, caseworker, and probation officer, and they each testified to Father‘s admissions. Evidence of Father‘s lack of stable housing and mental health issues further demonstrated that Fаther was not able to provide a stable permanent home for S.G. at the present time or within a reasonable time. Consequently, Father was not prejudiced by the allowance of testimony by the caseworker and probation officer regarding the drug test results. In his supporting argument, Father also asserts that testimony elicited by the trial judge should not be used to render this assignment of error harmless. We conclude that evidence of Father‘s drug use was otherwise established without considering the answers elicited by the trial judge. Father‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶34} Father‘s three assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Juvеnile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal еntry 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. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
CONRAD G. OLSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and MELODY L. BRIAND, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
NIKKI REED, Guardian ad Litem.