In Re Shifflet
{¶ 3} On July 13, 2005, the court placed Herschel in ACCS's custody by an ex parte emergency custody order. On July 14, 2005, the court conducted a hearing and continued the ex parte emergency custody order. The court also granted ACCS's request for paternity testing to determine whether Father was Herschel's biological father.
{¶ 4} On August 10, 2005, ACCS filed a case plan with the court, identifying its concerns and stating the actions that the parents needed to take to resolve those concerns. The trial court conducted an adjudication hearing on August 12, September 6, September 9, December 7, and December 15, 2005.1 During the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court heard the testimony of ACCS caseworker, Liesl Gyurko; Lt. Michael Walton, of the Logan Police Department; Sharon Burt, L.I.S.W., a supervisor at Tri-County Mental Health who was involved in Mother's treatment; Mother's sister, Rebecca Harden; Mary Ann Howard, Mother's case manager at Tri-County Mental Health; and ACCS caseworker, Kathi VanMeter.
{¶ 5} On December 19, 2005, the trial court adjudicated Herschel neglected and dependent. The court found that the parents demonstrated that they are unable to adequately care for the child and that they did not have appropriate housing for him. Further, the court found: "[Father] was arrested and incarcerated both after and immediately before the complaint was filed. The mother has chronic, severe mental health problems for which she is prescribed medication and counseling. She did not take the medications and did not attend counseling as required. The mental health agency case manager would take the time to go to the mother's home and the mother would refuse to meet with her. The mother was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital [after] the child was taken into protective custody. Further the mother did not take the steps necessary to ensure adequate pre-natal care even though she has had 3 other children permanently removed from her care, 2 through involuntary termination of her parental rights. Further the father did not encourage the mother to attend her pre-natal care doctor's visits, and has actively discouraged her from taking her mental health medications."
{¶ 6} The court also found that ACCS provided the family with foster care, visitation, a Help Me Grow referral, counseling referrals, and case management, but that the services did not make it possible for the child to return home, as the circumstances leading to his removal from the home still exist. Consequently, the court found that returning Herschel to the parents' home would not be in his best interest. Finding that there was no suitable relative available to take custody, the trial court continued ACCS's temporary custody pending the outcome of the disposition hearing.
{¶ 7} The court conducted a dispositional hearing on January 19, 20, and 31, 2006. During that hearing, the court heard testimony from: Cheryl Shifflet, Father's former wife; Father; Mother; ACCS case aide Kelly Forshey; Herschel's guardian ad litem, Marilyn Neason; ACCS caseworker Kathi VanMeter; Herschel's foster mother, Terry Beitzel; Mary Ann Howard, Mother's case manager at Tri-County Mental Health; Mother's guardian ad litem, Elaine Wetzel; and Mother's psychiatrist, Dr. Margaret Messerly.
{¶ 8} On March 21, 2006, the trial court awarded permanent custody to ACCS. The court found that permanent custody would serve the child's best interests. In evaluating the best interest factors enumerated in R.C.
{¶ 9} The court also found that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with the parents. The court explained:
{¶ 10} "Regarding R.C.
{¶ 11} "Regarding R.C.
{¶ 12} "While it is not legally necessary to make this finding with respect to [Mother], given the existence of prior involuntary terminations, it is her severe mental illness and history of resistance to treatment and medications that compel the finding that she will not be able to provide an adequate, permanent home — presently, and as anticipated, within the one year period of R.C. 2151.414(E)(2)."
{¶ 13} The trial court also made a finding, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} "The unacceptable shortcomings of these parties are a combination of their limited abilities and their general irresponsibility. Even with two highly experienced attorneys and a guardian-ad-litem for mother, these parents failed to attend a physical therapy appointment for their son in the last week of this proceeding. As judge, I had specifically urged them to attend and explained the importance to them. Father's excuse was that he had a chance to "look for work". Mother didn't have reliable transportation. Neither parent asked for help or even called to say they wouldn't be attending."
{¶ 15} The trial court noted that, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 16} "These efforts did not prevent or eliminate the need for removal because mother and father were unable or unwilling to provide an adequate permanent home and stable conditions for raising a child. This child was removed from the hospital at birth, primarily because of mother's mental health issues and lack of parenting skills. Parentage had to be established and Mr. Shifflet's circumstances needed to be investigated. That investigation revealed that he had no permanent residence, no income, no operator's license, no children in his care or custody, a history of non-support, violations of court orders, domestic violence allegations by this mother, and a criminal record, including a felony for which he served six months.
{¶ 17} "In short, these two are and will remain dependents of our society. There is some testimony suggesting that [Mother's] mental condition can become more stabilized if she is faithful to her treatments, medications and counseling. This is encouraging for this twenty-three year old woman. However, it is not convincing evidence that she can handle the reasonable responsibilities of parenting."
{¶ 18} Therefore, the trial court awarded ACCS permanent custody of Herschel. Father timely appeals, raising the following assignments of error: I. "The trial court erred by granting Children Services' request for permanent custody in the absence of reasonable efforts by the agency, denying appellant substantive due process rights to the care, custody and control of his child. II. "The trial court denied the appellant his substantive due process and equal protection rights to both federal and state constitutions when it predicated its decision to terminate his parental rights on his poverty."
{¶ 20} A parent has a "fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child." Santosky v.Kramer (1982),
{¶ 21} There are two ways that an authorized agency may seek to obtain permanent custody of a child under Ohio Law. The agency may first obtain temporary custody and then subsequently file a motion for permanent custody, or the agency may request permanent custody as part of its original abuse, neglect, or dependency complaint. See R.C.
{¶ 22} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 23} R.C.
{¶ 24} In determining whether to grant permanent custody to a children services agency, a trial court should be guided by the underlying principles of R.C. Chapter 2151, "To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child from the child's parents only when necessary for the child's welfare or in the interests of public safety[.]" R.C.
{¶ 25} When a children services agency obtains temporary custody of a child, the agency is statutorily required to develop a case plan for the child in their custody. See R.C.
{¶ 26} Moreover, the statute provides that the child's health and safety shall be paramount in determining the reasonableness of the agency's efforts. Id. We have recognized that: "In determining whether the agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the home, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under the statute." In reLewis, Athens App. No. 03CA12,
{¶ 27} ACCS bears the burden of proving its case, including the fact that it has made reasonable efforts with respect to Father, by clear and convincing evidence. In re Schmidt (1986),
{¶ 28} We will not reverse the judgment of the trial court if there is some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case. State v. Schiebel (1990),
{¶ 29} Here, the trial court found that ACCS made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child from the home, and to make it possible for the child to return safely to the home. The record reflects that ACCS implemented a case plan for both parents pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 30} ACCS caseworker Kathi VanMeter testified that the agency provided this family with gas vouchers, financial assistance, transportation, and foster care. Father acknowledged that ACCS provided financial assistance to repair Mother's car upon her request.
{¶ 31} Ms. VanMeter also indicated that she attempted to perform a home study to determine whether Mother and Father's residence on Bethel Hill Road was suitable for Herschel, and even went so far as to set up a date and time to go, but stated that the parents told her not to come. In her testimony she indicated that the parents repeatedly represented that they were fixing up the home, and that it was not ready for her to see. Ms. VanMeter acknowledged that the agency did not offer Mother and Father any assistance with the repairs to the Bethel Hill Road residence. However, she also noted that trailer was located on the land of Mother's sister property, and even if it were fixed up and suitable for Herschel, it would not have been a permanent residence for the family.
{¶ 32} Additionally, Ms. VanMeter testified that the agency was in contact with two relatives regarding the possibility of placing Herschel in their custody. She indicated that the agency completed home studies for both relatives, but that the relatives decided not to pursue Herschel's placement in their respective homes.
{¶ 33} The testimony of Ms. VanMeter and ACCS case aide Kelly Forshey revealed that the agency scheduled the parents a total of forty-six visits with Herschel from the time the agency assumed emergency custody until the date of the final dispositional hearing. Ms. Forshey indicated that, of the thirty-five visits she was present and assigned to supervise, Father only attended ten times. He attended one additional visit, supervised by Ms. VanMeter, and one of Herschel's medical appointments. Ms. VanMeter indicated that when she arrived at the doctor's office for Herschel's appointment, Father "made a beeline for the door," and indicated that he had to leave to go to work. Ms. VanMeter testified that she sent calendars with the time and date that the visits would occur to the Bethel Hill residence, and further indicated that when she talked to Father about the dates and times of the visits, he indicated that they were fine for his schedule.
{¶ 34} Both Ms. VanMeter and Ms. Forshey testified that Father never called to cancel or otherwise notify them that he would be unable to attend scheduled visits. In his testimony, Father admitted that he did not call to cancel his visitations during the times that he was not in jail because it "slipped my mind."
{¶ 35} Ms. VanMeter testified that in addition to the parents' scheduled visits with Herschel, the parents were also invited to attend Herschel's physical therapy appointments. At the conclusion of the January 20, 2006 dispositional hearing, the trial court and counsel discussed Herschel's physical therapy appointment scheduled for the following Thursday. Despite the court informing the parents about the importance of their attendance, and the court's effort to ensure that they were aware of both the time and the location of that appointment, neither Father nor Mother attended.
{¶ 36} As demonstrated by the foregoing, the record contained substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that ACCS made reasonable efforts to reunify Herschel with Father, despite the fact that the agency sought permanent custody as the original disposition in the case. However, the record reveals that Father failed to fully utilize the services offered to him. Accordingly, we find that Father's first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 38} However, our review of the trial court's decision and the record reveals that the court did not rely solely upon Father's poverty to determine the award of permanent custody to ACCS. While the court did consider Father's lack of income, it also determined that Father's failure to regularly exercise visitation and failure to attend the child's physical therapy appointments demonstrated Father's lack of commitment to the child in accordance with R.C.
{¶ 39} Additionally, the trial court noted that Father: (1) failed to support his other two children, as evidenced by his substantial child support arrearage; (2) had a history of domestic violence, and was jailed for violating a domestic violence civil protection order issued to the mother of his other two children; (3) was twice charged with domestic violence against Mother; and (4) was incarcerated for a period of time during the pendency of this action. The record supports these findings, and Father does not dispute them.
{¶ 40} Furthermore, the trial court also determined that the child's best interests warranted the award of permanent custody to ACCS, and we note that Father has not assigned any error with regard to the trial court's best interest determination. Because, the trial court did not rely solely upon Father's poverty, but looked to all of the relevant statutory factors in determining that ACCS should receive permanent custody of Herschel, we overrule Father's second assignment of error. See In re Link,
Athens App. Nos. 05CA23, 05CA24, and 05CA25,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Athens County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as the date of this Entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Harsha, P.J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion.
McFarland, J.: Concurs in Judgment Only.