IN THE MATTER OF: T.P.
CASE NO. CA2016-03-012
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
9/12/2016
[Cite as In re T.P., 2016-Ohio-5780.]
Aaron J. Manter, 285 East Main Street, Suite 6, Batavia, Ohio 45103, guardian ad litem
Dever Law Firm, Scott A. Hoberg, 9146 Cincinnati-Columbus Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellant, S.M.
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee, Clermont County Department of Job & Family Services
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological mother of T.P. (“Mother“), appeals a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of T.P. to appellee, the Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services (“CCDJFS“). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On October 15, 2013, CCDJFS filed a dependency complaint and requested
{¶ 3} Mother‘s case plan for reunification included housing, income, mental health treatment, drug treatment, and parenting education. Mother did make some progress in the completion of her case plan, particularly with her completion of a substance abuse treatment program. However, the record indicates that CCDJFS found it necessary to exercise caution with respect to Mother since she exhibited a co-dependency on T.P.‘s father (“Father“), an individual with a history of drug involvement and allegations of domestic abuse. Throughout the pendency of these proceedings, Father has failed to take any steps to control his drug involvement and has otherwise shown no interest in reunification with T.P.
{¶ 4} Meanwhile, T.P. has thrived in his foster family and is overcoming the very serious medical concerns that were present during the early stages of his life. For instance, the record reflects that T.P. had severe drug withdrawal symptoms from the time of his birth and was prescribed methadone and phenobarbital to overcome those withdrawals. However, at the time of the permanent custody hearing, T.P. had completed occupational therapy and physical therapy and was receiving continued care for cognitive delay and fine motor skills.
{¶ 5} On March 19, 2015, CCDJFS moved for permanent custody. In support of permanent custody, CCDJFS introduced the testimony of the caseworker, the foster mother, and the guardian ad litem (“GAL“). The caseworker testified about Mother‘s use of
{¶ 6} The foster mother testified about T.P.‘s condition at birth and progress while under her care. Due to medical concerns, T.P. was in the hospital for 31 days following his birth and was placed on a number of medications for withdrawal symptoms. In their care, T.P. is now meeting development goals and is well-bonded with the family and his older sister.
{¶ 7} The GAL recommended that permanent custody be granted in favor of CCDJFS. Although the GAL testified that Mother has shown progress in her case plan, the GAL noted that there were concerns about the security of placement with Mother and her relationship with T.P.‘s father. The GAL testified that Mother‘s mental health and stability are agency concerns.
{¶ 8} As part of her case, Mother acknowledged prior issues with drug addiction and T.P.‘s health issues, but focused on the progress that she has made in recent months. Mother introduced the testimony of her older and younger sisters. Mother‘s older sister testified that Mother had undergone a dramatic change and has been working on her mental health issues. The older sister also agreed that Mother is much better without a relationship with Father. Mother‘s younger sister also testified that she had been residing with Mother for
{¶ 9} After taking the matter under advisement, the juvenile court magistrate granted the motion for permanent custody. Mother then filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which were overruled. The juvenile court, while recognizing Mother‘s recent efforts, concluded that Mother cannot provide a legally secure placement for T.P. and it was in T.P.‘s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency. Mother now appeals the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody to CCDJFS, raising one assignment of error for review.
{¶ 10} IN A CHILD CUSTODY CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE AGENCY DESPITE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody of T.P. to CCDJFS was not in T.P.‘s best interest. In support of her claim, Mother alleges the juvenile court‘s decision was not supported by sufficient clear and convincing evidence and was otherwise against the manifest weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we find Mother‘s assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 12} Before a natural parent‘s constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of 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). An appellate court‘s review of a juvenile court‘s decision granting permanent custody is limited to whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court‘s determination. In re M.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-06-130 and CA2014-06-131, 2014-Ohio-5009, ¶ 6. A reviewing court will reverse a finding by the juvenile court that the evidence was clear and convincing only if
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that T.P. had been in the temporary custody of CCDJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period as of the date the agency filed for permanent custody. Mother does not dispute this finding. Rather, Mother contests the juvenile court‘s finding that granting permanent custody of T.P. to CCDJFS was in his best interest.
{¶ 15}
[T]he court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not
limited to the following: (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, including whether 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 * * * * * *.
(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 divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 16} In granting the motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court considered each of the best interest factors in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. With respect to
{¶ 17} In its consideration of
{¶ 18} With respect to
{¶ 19} In considering
{¶ 20} The juvenile court further addressed Mother‘s relationship with Father as a source of instability. While Mother maintains that she is not in a relationship with Father and he does not live in her apartment, the juvenile court noted that her “on and off again relationship does not bode well for her ability to provide a safe and secure environment.” The juvenile court stated that Mother‘s home is not secure if she allows Father to exercise his influence over her again. The juvenile court addressed Father‘s involvement with drugs and history of domestic violence and stated that those issues have not been sufficiently
{¶ 21} The juvenile court stated that T.P. needs a home where he can receive care in a consistent manner. The juvenile court also found that Mother did not approach her drug treatment consistently and has had difficulty scheduling transportation in a consistent manner. T.P. requires transportation to doctors, clinics, and necessary therapeutic services. Although Mother‘s sisters have indicated a willingness to help, the juvenile court noted that the sisters may not always be readily available when needed. Simply, the juvenile court found that Mother “progress came too late in this case to show a solid record of consistency and dependability.”
{¶ 22} On the other hand, the juvenile court found that the foster family has a proven track record of consistency and dependability. The foster family has been present to provide comfort through the withdrawal process and has transported T.P. to all appointments and activities. Furthermore, the juvenile court found there are no safety or security issues in the foster family‘s home. The foster family has expressed interest in adopting T.P. if permanent custody were granted to the agency, just as they did with T.P.‘s sister.
{¶ 23} Finally, with respect to
{¶ 24} Based on these findings, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in T.P.‘s best interest to grant permanent custody to CCDJFS. On appeal, Mother disputes the juvenile court‘s findings and argues that she can provide a secure environment for T.P. and the decision granting permanent custody was not in T.P.‘s best interest. Mother asserts that she can maintain housing and income. Mother also contends that she has undergone a dramatic change throughout her treatment over the eight
{¶ 25} We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and find that the juvenile court‘s determination regarding the best interest of T.P. is supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Though Mother had substantially completed her case plan and has made significant strides in the months leading to the grant of permanent custody, “[i]t is well-established in Ohio that the completion of case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services agency.” In re Mraz, 12th Dist. Brown Nos. CA2002-05-011 and CA2002-07-014, 2002-Ohio-7278, ¶ 13. A case plan is merely a means to a goal and not a goal in itself. In re S.U., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-07-047, 2014-Ohio-5166, ¶ 35. In the present case, there are compelling reasons to weigh the best interest factors in favor of permanent custody to CCDJFS considering the lingering concerns regarding Mother‘s continued improvement in drug and mental health treatment, her financial stability, and the relationship that she has with Father.
{¶ 26} Again, since his release from the hospital, T.P. has received appropriate care from his foster family. The evidence showed that T.P. is bonded with the foster family in the only home that he has known since birth and shares a strong bond with his sister who has been adopted by the foster family. The foster family has taken great care of T.P. throughout his life and is providing him with all necessary tools to overcome the serious developmental issues that were forced on him. Therefore, we find the juvenile court‘s decision was supported by the evidence and find no error in the juvenile court‘s decision to grant permanent custody to CCDJFS. Mother‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.