In re S.S.
Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Vivian L. Martin, for child
Beth Bullock, for CASA/GAL
M. POWELL, J.
{1} Appellant (“Mother“) appeals a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her teenage daughter Sylvia to appellee, Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services, Children‘s
{2} Sylvia was born in June 2009. Her father died of a drug overdose in 2014. On December 28, 2021, the Agency filed a complaint in the juvenile court alleging that Sylvia was a neglected child. The complaint alleged that when Mother was in prison in 2019 on drug related charges, she asked her then boyfriend to be Sylvia‘s guardian. Upon her release from prison, Mother dropped Sylvia off at a couple‘s home in June 2021, subsequently took little to no responsibility for the child, and provided no financial assistance despite receiving social security death benefits on behalf of Sylvia as a result of Sylvia‘s father‘s death. Caring for Sylvia became too difficult for the couple and the Agency became involved. The Agency requested that the juvenile court place Sylvia in its temporary custody. The court granted the Agency temporary custody of Sylvia who was then placed with a paternal aunt. The juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL“) for the child.
{3} The Agency filed a case plan for reunification. The case plan required Mother to complete a substance abuse assessment and substance abuse treatment program and obtain stable housing and employment. Sylvia was adjudicated dependent on January 12, 2022, and placed in the temporary custody of the Agency as disposition on February 17, 2022.
{4} In February 2022, Sylvia was removed from her aunt‘s care because the aunt was unable to meet Sylvia‘s needs. Subsequently, Sylvia was moved to four different foster homes through no fault of hers. In July 2022, Sylvia was placed in a new foster home. She ran away from that home on August 28, 2022. Two days later, the police located Sylvia at a gas station, scared and alone; she was placed in juvenile detention. She remained there until September 27, 2022, when she was placed in the Midwestern Group Home. She ran
{5} On November 29, 2022, the Agency moved for permanent custody of Sylvia, alleging she had been abandoned by Mother and could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time. A hearing on the motion was held before a magistrate on January 20, 2023. Mother did not attend the hearing. The magistrate heard testimony from a caseworker of the Agency, the GAL, an adoption supervisor for the Agency, and a staff attorney with the Clermont County Child Support Enforcement Agency. The staff attorney testified that effective May 17, 2022, Mother was ordered to pay child support; Mother never made a payment.
{6} The caseworker‘s testimony revealed that Mother was never gainfully employed, may have used the social security death benefits to purchase drugs in the past, and never had stable housing, instead “couch surfing” at friends’ houses. The testimony also showed that Mother did not visit with Sylvia until October 2022 and that subsequent visits were inconsistent and sporadic. Despite multiple occasions for Mother to check into a substance abuse treatment center, thanks in large part to the GAL‘s diligent efforts, Mother checked into a treatment center only once, only to leave within 24 hours. Regarding Sylvia, the caseworker and the GAL both testified that the current group home placement had provided the structure, stability, and consistency Sylvia needs to grow and heal in a healthy environment, and that Sylvia had come a long way and was doing really well. The caseworker testified that Sylvia worries more about Mother than about herself and is sad Mother has not done anything to reunify with her. While Sylvia indicated she would like to stay in contact with Mother, what she really wanted was to be adopted by a family who will love and take care of her. The GAL recommended that permanent custody of Sylvia be
{7} On January 23, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision granting permanent custody of Sylvia to the Agency. Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, asserting, “For reasons that shall be stated once a transcript has been prepared, and for many others that shall become clear at the objections hearing, the Mother is filing her objections[.]” After the transcript of the custody hearing was filed, Mother neither filed supplemental objections nor attended the objections hearing. Mother‘s attorney asked that Mother be given another opportunity to rehabilitate herself so she could reunite with Sylvia.
{8} On April 3, 2023, the juvenile court overruled Mother‘s objections and granted the Agency permanent custody of Sylvia. The juvenile court found that Sylvia could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time because Mother had failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program, provide a home, and obtain employment, and further found that it was in Sylvia‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency.
{9} Mother now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF [MOTHER] WHEN IT GRANTED THE STATE‘S MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY.
{11} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody of Sylvia to the Agency. Mother asserts that the decision is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the court erred in finding a grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in Sylvia‘s best interest.
{12} “The juvenile rules require written objections to a magistrate‘s decision.” In re C.D., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-02-014, 2019-Ohio-4911, ¶ 15. Objections to a magistrate‘s decision must be “specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.”
{13} Although Mother filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, she did not specifically object to the magistrate‘s findings under
{14} Nowhere within Mother‘s brief does she assert a claim of plain error. This court has previously ruled that unless the appellant argues a claim of plain error, the appellant has waived claimed errors not objected to below. In re K.S., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-09-081, 2023-Ohio-1951, ¶ 34. “Therefore, under normal circumstances, Mother would ordinarily be precluded from challenging the juvenile court‘s permanent custody decision on appeal.” In re P.E., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2023-04-021, 2023-Ohio-2438, ¶ 12. Nevertheless, because permanent custody decisions are tantamount to the death penalty in a criminal case, we will consider whether the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of Sylvia to the Agency constitutes plain error. Id. The plain error doctrine is not favored in civil cases and is only applicable in rare cases where the error
{15} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). Generally, an appellate court‘s review of a juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody is limited to considering whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court‘s determination. In re W.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-09-091, 2023-Ohio-334, ¶ 24. An appellate court will reverse a juvenile court‘s finding that the evidence was clear and convincing only if there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented. In re T.P., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-164, 2016-Ohio-72, ¶ 18.
{16} Pursuant to
{17} On appeal, Mother does not dispute the juvenile court‘s finding that Sylvia cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time because Mother failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program, provide a home, and obtain employment, and we note that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support this finding. The only issue, therefore, is whether the juvenile court erred by finding it was in Sylvia‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency. See In re R.D., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2021-05-017 and CA2021-05-018, 2021-Ohio-3780. Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that permanent custody was in Sylvia‘s best interest where Mother was diligently trying to regain custody of her daughter by enrolling in rehabilitation treatment centers, was making progress on the case plan, and was in frequent contact with Sylvia during the proceedings.
{18}
{19} Upon considering the best interest factors set forth in
{20} Upon thoroughly reviewing the record, we find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support each of the juvenile court‘s best-interest findings, and thus there is clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court‘s determination that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in Sylvia‘s best interest. Noncompliance with a case plan is a consideration for the termination of parental rights. In re N.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-12-314, 2008-Ohio-1993, ¶ 35. Throughout the pendency of the case and despite multiple opportunities to do so, Mother failed to complete or even pursue
{21} We therefore find that the juvenile court did not commit an error, plain or otherwise, in determining that a grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in Sylvia‘s best interest. Finding no error in the juvenile court‘s decision, Mother‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{22} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.