2005 Ohio 5018 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2005
{¶ 3} Mother and Father's remaining biological child, Millard Meadows, Jr., was born on September 8, 2003 at the Southern Ohio Medical Center in Scioto County, Ohio. Shortly after Millard's birth, his nurse became extremely alarmed after witnessing Father's behavior and Mother's apathy toward Millard. Specifically, she observed Father become angry with Millard while attempting to feed him. Father threw the bottle on the floor, dropped Millard on the bed, and began cursing Millard. Mother did not react at all to Father's behavior or attempt to care for Millard. The nurse was so alarmed that she feared for Millard's safety and felt uncomfortable leaving Millard alone with his parents. She took Millard to the nursery and contacted the social worker on call.
{¶ 4} Three days after Millard's birth, SCCSB sought an ex-parte order for emergency temporary custody and a motion for permanent custody. In an order granting SCCSB temporary custody, the trial court found that the agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the child's removal.
{¶ 5} SCCSB did not offer Mother or Father any services, such as parenting classes or a family aide, to help them achieve reunification with Millard. However, SCCSB did offer Mother and Father regular visitation with Millard. Mother attended eleven of the forty scheduled visits; Father attended four of the forty.
{¶ 6} The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for Millard, and appointed counsel for Mother and for Father. Additionally, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for Mother.
{¶ 7} At the Adjudicatory Hearing in March 2004, Dr. Robin Rippeth testified that SCCSB asked her to conduct cognitive and intelligence testing on Mother and Father. Dr. Rippeth stated that she was unable to complete her evaluation of Mother because Mother did not show up for the second half of the testing. However, everything that Dr. Rippeth observed in Mother was consistent with the previous evaluations contained in Mother's SCCSB records, which described severe psychological and mental deficiencies beyond Mother's control. In essence, Mother had been diagnosed as borderline retarded and suffering from severe cultural deprivation. Father did not attend any of his scheduled appointments with Dr. Rippeth.
{¶ 8} Based upon Dr. Rippeth's observations in the portion of the testing that Mother attended, her professional opinion was that Mother is not able to provide appropriate or assertive parenting to a young child. Mother's inability to parent appropriately is related to her cognitive limitations. Dr. Rippeth further testified that Mother's three previous failures with parenting classes, including in-home parenting classes, would be consistent with Mother's intellectual functioning capabilities. Dr. Rippeth predicted that Mother's parenting skills will not improve due to Mother's cognitive limitations. The trial court determined that Millard is a dependent child.
{¶ 9} Subsequently, the trial court held the Dispositional Hearing where Dr. Joseph Carver testified about Mother's parenting abilities. Dr. Carver testified that he evaluated Mother in 1997 to determine her ability to profit from educational or rehabilitation efforts. Dr. Carver determined that Mother suffers major impairment in all areas of functioning. He concluded that Mother would have a great deal of difficulty benefiting from parenting classes due to her intellectual limitations.
{¶ 10} SCCSB caseworker Karen Kinker also testified. Kinker testified that SCCSB has worked with Mother from 1997 through 2002, offering parenting classes, in-home parenting classes, and case management services. Kinker testified that SCCSB exhausted all the services it has to offer, and none were successful in reuniting Mother with her previous children. Kinker also testified that no other helpful services or programs have become available since SCCSB's last involvement with Mother.
{¶ 11} Kinker testified that Millard is doing very well in his foster home and that his foster parents want to adopt him. Kinker further testified that Mother only attended one scheduled visitation during the past five and one-half month period, and has not seen Millard at all in three and one-half months. She also testified that Father has not visited Millard since November of 2003. Since SCCSB took custody of Millard, Mother has reported to Kinker that she resided in at least seven different places, including a garage, the back of a van in parking lot, and a place Mother refers to as a "dump."
{¶ 12} Millard's guardian ad litem filed a report and recommendation in which he concluded that Mother is not capable of providing a home or appropriate care for Millard. The guardian ad litem recommended that the court grant SCCSB's motion for permanent custody.
{¶ 13} The trial court granted SCCSB's motion and terminated Mother and Father's parental rights to Millard. Mother appeals, asserting the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred when it granted permanent custody of the minor child, Millard Meadows, Jr., to the [SCCSB] and found that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child from the home and that efforts were made to return the child home.
{¶ 15} A permanent custody determination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Baby Girl Doe,
{¶ 17} Here, the trial court found that SCCSB made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of Millard from the home and to eliminate his continued removal from the home. Mother notes that SCCSB did not, in fact, make any efforts to reunify her with this child. This contention is technically correct. However, in connection with its finding, the trial court noted that SCCSB has a long and unsuccessful history of reunification attempts with Mother and her other children. The court also found that Mother's mental impairment is so severe that it makes Mother unable to benefit from reunification efforts such as parenting classes.
{¶ 18} Although the agency made no efforts in this case, the mother's history with the agency and the evidence concerning her current cognitive deficiencies force us to conclude any reunification efforts would be futile. A finding that reunification would be futile would have been more appropriate than the apparent boilerplate language of the entry. But because the record clearly indicates that attempting to implement a reunification plan would be futile in this case, we hold the error was harmless.
{¶ 20} R.C.
{¶ 21} R.C.
{¶ 22} In making the determinations required under R.C.
{¶ 23} Here, the trial court made factual findings relating to the R.C.
{¶ 24} The court also looked to the factors enumerated in R.C.
{¶ 25} The trial court also found, under R.C.
{¶ 26} The trial court noted that Mother's intellectual capabilities are so limited that she is unable to learn to make the changes necessary to provide her child with an adequate home. Additionally, the trial court noted that Mother is not motivated to change. Mother does not see any problem with the fact that she has lived in seven places over ten months, including in a garage and in the back of a van. Nor does she seem motivated to change the fact that she lacks income and relies upon church handouts for food. The SCCSB caseworker indicated that Mother has exhausted all of the services that SCCSB has to offer, with no improvement. The court concluded that the mental condition of Mother is so severe that it renders her unable to provide an adequate home for Millard within one year.
{¶ 27} We often caution our colleagues who are charged with the weighty responsibility of terminating parental rights to use permanent custody sparingly in the context of an initial disposition. However, we agree with the trial court that this is one of those rare situations where it is in the child's best interest.
{¶ 28} Because the record contains clear and convincing evidence that implementing a reunification plan would be futile, that Millard cannot or should not be placed with either parent, and that granting SCCSB permanent custody is in Millard's best interest, we overrule Mother's assignment of error.
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 Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 for the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion.
Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment Only.
