Court Opinion

ID: 9882924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:59.165735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:11.110556
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re R.B., 2023-Ohio-3146.]

                                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           WARREN COUNTY

 IN RE:                                            :

          R.B.                                     :      CASE NO. CA2023-04-035

                                                   :              OPINION
                                                                   9/7/2023
                                                   :

                                                   :

                                                   :

             APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                             JUVENILE DIVISION
                             Case No. 20-D000083

Dearie, Fischer & Martinson, LLC, and John A. Fischer, for Mother.

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Clouse Law Firm Co., LPA, and Lauren L. Clouse, for appellant.

The Logsdon Law Office, LLC, and Brooke L. Logsdon, for CASA.

        S. POWELL, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, the father of "Roger," appeals the decision of the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the child to
                                                                                Warren CA2023-04-035

Warren County Children Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons outlined below, we

affirm the juvenile court's decision.

        {¶ 2} On December 18, 2020, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that Roger, a

child born on December 14, 2020, was a dependent child. The complaint states that Mother

was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder

("PTSD"), obsessive compulsive disorder ("OCD"), chronic depression, and anxiety, but

stopped taking medications for her mental health in 2016.                     Mother exhibited cutting

behaviors and was last hospitalized for a suicide attempt in 2018. While at the hospital for

Roger's birth, Mother claimed that she saw things coming out of the walls.

        {¶ 3} The complaint further alleged that Mother had difficulty caring for Roger while

at the hospital, including difficulties breastfeeding the child.              Due to complications in

producing sufficient breastmilk, the child was not receiving full feedings and did not produce

any urine or feces for the first 24 hours after his birth. Mother was resistant to using formula

to supplement her breastmilk, and due to the lack of nutrition, Roger had lost one-half pound

since birth. The complaint also alleged that Mother was agitated with Roger at the hospital

and lacked any problem-solving skills to resolve her increasing anxiety, frustration, and

annoyance with Roger's needs.

        {¶ 4} Regarding Father, the complaint alleged that although he lived with Mother,

he worked 12 hours per day. Mother did not want anyone around the baby when she

returned home from the hospital, and refused any help taking care of Roger until he was

old enough to speak. The complaint indicated Mother did not make much progress in caring

for Roger between December 14, 2020 and December 18, 2020, despite help from the

hospital.

1. "Roger" is a pseudonym adopted in this opinion for purposes of privacy and readability.
                                                    -2-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-04-035

       {¶ 5} Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted emergency temporary custody

to the Agency and Roger was placed in a foster home. The juvenile court appointed counsel

for Mother and Father, as well as a court appointed special advocate ("CASA") to represent

Roger, and counsel to represent CASA. Approximately two months later, in February 2021,

Roger was placed with his current foster mother in a foster-to-adopt home.

       {¶ 6} On February 17, 2021, Roger was adjudicated dependent.                  After a

dispositional hearing on March 17, 2021, the Agency was awarded temporary custody of

the child, and he returned to the foster home.

       {¶ 7} The Agency prepared a case plan with reunification as the goal. The case

plan indicates the Agency wanted Father to obtain and maintain safe and stable housing;

demonstrate mental health stability; obtain and maintain employment and provide a steady

source of income; and to not associate with any known substance abusers. The case plan

also noted concerns regarding Father's parenting, including working 12-hour shifts, as well

as his lack of engagement with Roger during visits. To address the Agency's concerns, the

case plan required Father to submit to random drug screens; submit to a psychological

evaluation and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and

follow all recommendations; and to sign all necessary releases for the Agency. The case

plan identified similar concerns for Mother, but also detailed the Agency's concerns relating

to her mental health and cognitive abilities.

       {¶ 8} Mother and Father made progress on their case plans and as a result, the

juvenile court extended temporary custody twice throughout the case. The Agency also

expanded the parents' visitation time with Roger, which advanced from four hours of

supervised visitation at the Agency to two four-hour visits per week at maternal

grandmother's home, where the couple was living at the time. Four hours of their visitation

time was unsupervised, while the remaining four hours were supervised by an employee

                                                -3-
                                                                      Warren CA2023-04-035

from Agape for Youth ("Agape"), a program that works with families through either

enhanced visitation or reunification services. In May or June of 2022, Father was awarded

eight additional hours of unsupervised visitation time, however, he did not take advantage

of the additional time with Roger.

       {¶ 9} On November 28, 2022, approximately one month following the final

extension of Mother and Father's visitation time, CASA moved to terminate Mother and

Father's parental rights and for an order awarding permanent custody of Roger to the

Agency. While the motion was pending, Mother and Father continued exercising their eight

hours of visitation time with Roger. Thereafter, on March 6 and 14, 2023, the juvenile court

held a two-day hearing on CASA's motion. During the hearing, the juvenile court heard

testimony from 11 witnesses, including Mother, Father, Roger's foster mother ("Foster

Mother"), a caseworker and caseworker supervisor from the Agency, Roger's CASA, the

psychology assistant who conducted Mother's psychological assessment, two family

support specialists from Agape, an employee from Help Me Grow, and Mother's former

mental health therapist. In addition to testifying at the permanent custody hearing, Roger's

CASA also submitted a report recommending that permanent custody be awarded to the

Agency.

       {¶ 10} On March 21, 2023, the juvenile court issued a decision granting permanent

custody of the child to the Agency. In analyzing the best interest factors, the juvenile court

found that Roger is bonded to his foster family and is doing well. It further found that Roger's

need for a legally secure permanent placement could not be achieved without a grant of

permanent custody to the Agency, as Mother and Father are unable to meet Roger's needs,

despite having ample time to remedy the conditions that caused his removal from their care.

The court noted that Mother chooses to ignore her mental health issues and is incapable of

parenting Roger or understanding what he needs. The court detailed its concerns regarding

                                              -4-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-04-035

Father, including his lack of knowledge regarding Mother's mental health issues, as well as

his reliance upon Mother for housing due to his undocumented status and lack of support

outside of the home. The court ultimately concluded that the best chance for Roger was

adoption and that awarding permanent custody to the Agency was in Roger's best interest.

       {¶ 11} Father now appeals the juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody

of Roger to the Agency, raising the following assignment of error for our review:

       {¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING

EVIDENCE, THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, PURSUANT TO THE

FACTORS SET FORTH IN R.C. 2151.414(D), WAS REACHED BY GRANTING

PERMANENT CUSTODY TO WARREN COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES.

       {¶ 13} On appeal, Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding, by clear and

convincing evidence, that it was in the best interest of Roger to grant permanent custody to

the Agency.

       {¶ 14} Before a parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and

custody of his or her children may be terminated, the state must prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In

re K.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-124, 2015-Ohio-4315, ¶ 11, citing Santosky v.

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate court's review of a juvenile

court's decision granting permanent custody is generally limited to considering 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. "This

court will therefore reverse a juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody only if

there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented." In re L.S., 12th Dist. Brown Nos.

CA2019-03-001 and CA2019-03-002, 2019-Ohio-3143, ¶ 17, citing In re K.A., 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2016-07-140, 2016-Ohio-7911, ¶ 10. "However, even if the juvenile court's

                                             -5-
                                                                        Warren CA2023-04-035

decision is supported by sufficient evidence, 'an appellate court may nevertheless conclude

that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.'" In re C.S., 12th Dist.

Clinton No. CA2020-04-006, 2020-Ohio-4414, ¶ 15, quoting In re T.P., 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2015-08-164, 2016-Ohio-72, ¶ 19.

       {¶ 15} In determining whether a juvenile court's decision to grant a motion for

permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court

"'weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost

its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be

reversed and a new trial ordered.'" In re S.M., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-08-088 thru

CA2018-08-091 and CA2018-08-095 thru CA2018-08-097, 2019-Ohio-198, ¶ 16, quoting

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. "In weighing the evidence,

there is a presumption in favor of the findings made by the finder of fact and evidence

susceptible to more than one construction will be construed to sustain the verdict and

judgment." In re M.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-129, 2019-Ohio-5367, ¶ 15, citing

In re C.Y., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-11-231 and CA2014-11-236 thru CA2014-11-238,

2015-Ohio-1343, ¶ 25.

       {¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court may terminate parental

rights and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court

makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. In re G.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-

248, 2014-Ohio-2580, ¶ 9; In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102, ¶ 18. First, the

juvenile court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best

interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D). In re D.K.W.,

12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶ 21. Second, pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e), the juvenile court must find that any of the following apply: (1) the

                                                -6-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-04-035

child is abandoned; (2) the child is orphaned; (3) the child has been in the temporary

custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; (4) where

the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within

a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; or (5) the child or another child

in the custody of the parent from whose custody the child has been removed, has been

adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions. In re

C.B., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-04-033, 2015-Ohio-3709, ¶ 10. Only one of these

findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.

In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio- 3188, ¶ 12.

       {¶ 17} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that

the child had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months of a

consecutive 22-month period. The juvenile court also found that the child could not be

placed with Mother or Father within a reasonable period of time, or should not be placed

with them. Father does not dispute that the child has been in the temporary custody of the

Agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and concedes this

finding is supported by the record. As noted above, only one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)

findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.

Id. As such, because Father does not challenge the juvenile court's "12 of 22" finding, we

need not review the issue further. In re G.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-

Ohio-3865, ¶ 43.

       {¶ 18} In light of the above, the only issue remaining is whether an award of

permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best interest. When considering the

best interest of a child in a permanent custody case, the juvenile court is required under

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to consider all relevant factors. In re D.E., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.

CA2018-03-035 and CA2018-04-038, 2018-Ohio-3341, ¶ 32. These factors include, but

                                              -7-
                                                                         Warren CA2023-04-035

are not limited to: (1) 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; (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the

child or through the child's guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) 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; and (5) whether any

of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) thru (11) apply in relation to the parents and

child. In re J.C., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2017-11-015, 2018-Ohio-1687, ¶ 22, citing R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(a) thru (e). The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) involve a

parent's having been convicted of or pled guilty to specific criminal offenses against the

child, the child's sibling, or another child who lived in the parent's household; a parent's

withholding of medical treatment or food from the child; a parent's repeatedly placing the

child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or drug abuse; a parent's abandoning

the child; and a parent's having had parental rights as to the child's sibling involuntarily

terminated. In re B.M., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2022-11-028, CA2022-11-029, and 2023-

Ohio-1112, ¶ 54.

       {¶ 19} Based upon its consideration of the R.C. 2151.414 factors, the juvenile court

found that it was in Roger's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency. On

appeal, Father argues the juvenile court's finding was in error, as the testimony at trial

revealed that Father positively interacts with Roger and that he could successfully parent

Roger. Father also claims the criticisms noted by the court, namely his failure to obtain

independent housing, working too much, lack of a driver's license, and his status as

undocumented, are not justifiable reasons for permanently severing his parental rights.

After our review of the entire record, we find no merit to Father's claims.

       {¶ 20} While the testimony at the permanent custody hearing largely focused on

                                                -8-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-04-035

Mother's mental health diagnoses and her inability to parent Roger, it also revealed that

Father is entirely codependent upon Mother for housing and childcare, yet remains oblivious

to the serious concerns relating to her mental health and ability to care for Roger. Beginning

with the couple's relationship, the record indicates that Mother and Father have engaged in

a somewhat strained relationship for approximately four years. The Agency had concerns

regarding the nature of their relationship, including Mother's statement that she stays with

Father because he "fill[s] certain" sexual and financial "needs" for her, as well as Father's

reliance upon Mother for housing and other necessities he cannot obtain due to his

undocumented status. Neither Father nor Mother have a driver's license, but Father drives

himself and Mother when necessary. Father does not speak English and relies upon Mother

to translate for him if no translator is present during visits. At one point, Mother stopped

translating for Father because she became unhappy with the Agape family support

specialist.

       {¶ 21} The testimony at the hearing also revealed that the Agency had many

concerns relating to the parenting of Roger. Specifically, the Agency remained concerned

regarding Mother and Father's ability to co-parent Roger, as well as Father's ability and

desire to reunify with and parent Roger on his own. Regarding the couple's co-parenting,

the record reflects that Mother struggled to allow Father to parent Roger without her

interference or direction.   According to the caseworker supervisor, Mother was easily

frustrated by Father and did not like the way he performed basic tasks like changing Roger's

diapers or feeding him. As a result, Father tended to step away from Roger. Additionally,

the couple bickered frequently, including in front of the child, and Mother kicked Father out

of their home on several occasions.        Even when no translator was present, others

understood Mother and Father were bickering based upon their demeanor and actions

toward one another. The couple has also engaged in physical altercations in front of the

                                             -9-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-04-035

child, including one occasion where Mother smacked Father hard on the arm and another

where she threw a pair of shoes at him. Roger has displayed an increase in aggressive

behavior after his extended visits with his parents and was described as staring wide-eyed

when Mother and Father were bickering.

       {¶ 22} There were also concerns regarding recent changes to Father's behavior

during visits. Although Father typically followed Mother's lead during visits with Roger, he

was initially very engaged and interacted appropriately with Roger. However, in the weeks

and months preceding the permanent custody hearing, the CASA noticed Father's behavior

had changed, and that he was not as involved with the child and tended to allow Mother to

take care of Roger on her own. Father did not assist Mother when she was visibly frustrated

and yelling at Roger, which was different from earlier visits where he would step in if Mother

was having difficulties. As a result of this change in behavior, the CASA observed that

Roger did not go to Father for comfort like he had in the past.

       {¶ 23} Regarding Father's ability to parent Roger on his own, the record reflects

Father did not take advantage of any opportunity to visit Roger without Mother. In the

summer of 2022, Father was awarded an additional eight hours of unsupervised visitation

with Roger.    Due to his belief that the visits were cancelled because of issues with

transportation, Father did not exercise any of the additional time with Roger.            The

transportation issues related to Father's reliance on maternal grandmother for

transportation.   The record indicates the caseworker spoke with Father "on multiple

occasions" regarding the additional visitation, and indicated that, although maternal

grandmother was not approved to transport after improperly buckling Roger's car seat in

the past, Father could provide alternative transportation options or take advantage of other

Agency resources like transit tickets. Mother and Father elected to provide a list of alternate

transportation options, but the named individuals never responded to the Agency, and

                                             - 10 -
                                                                     Warren CA2023-04-035

Father never followed up on his additional visitation time. Instead, and because he could

not locate anyone other than maternal grandmother with a valid license, Father chose to do

nothing.

       {¶ 24} The Agency also noted concerns regarding Father's ability to parent Roger on

his own due to his demanding work schedule and reliance upon Mother for childcare and

housing. Father works for a construction company in Liberty Township, Ohio. When the

complaint was filed, Father was working 12-hour days, six or seven days a week. Father

indicated he could not be Roger's primary caretaker at that time without Mother's help. By

the time of the permanent custody hearing, Father had reduced his work schedule to nine-

hour days on Monday through Thursday, an eight-hour day on Friday, and four hours on

Saturday. If Roger was returned to his care, Father planned to have Mother care for the

child while he worked.

       {¶ 25} In addition to childcare, Father also relies upon Mother for housing, which was

a major concern throughout the case. Prior to Roger's birth, the couple lived in a trailer with

friends.   Shortly before Roger was born, Mother and Father moved in with maternal

grandmother. Although Father testified Mother and maternal grandmother had a "normal"

relationship, the record indicates they have had an inconsistent relationship since Mother

was young, and that maternal grandmother is responsible for some of Mother's mental

health diagnoses and most of her past traumas. Although Mother testified that she and

maternal grandmother get along, she also stated they argue a lot and that maternal

grandmother oftentimes wants Mother and Father out of the home. Mother and maternal

grandmother were involved in physical altercations in the home, including one occasion in

2022 where maternal grandmother kicked in Mother's bedroom door and attacked Mother

with a broom. Notably, the Agency recommended family therapy to address some of these

concerns, but maternal grandmother refused to participate. As a result of the hostile

                                             - 11 -
                                                                    Warren CA2023-04-035

relationship between Mother and maternal grandmother, the Agency considered the home

environment to be toxic.

       {¶ 26} Throughout the case, multiple providers worked with Mother and Father to

find alternative housing but were ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. In February 2022,

Father informed the caseworker that he had been looking for an apartment but planned to

buy a house after saving enough money. By the time of the permanent custody hearing,

Father's housing situation had not changed, despite another year passing and applying for

approximately 30 apartments. Father testified he and Mother now planned to buy a trailer

and to buy a house after Mother's credit improved, but he was unsure when that would

happen, as he was unfamiliar with the process in the United States.

       {¶ 27} The record indicates that much of Mother and Father's difficulty in finding

independent housing related to Father's status as undocumented and Mother's status as a

resident. Although the Agency did not consider Father's status as undocumented to be

concerning on its own, it remained concerned that his status inhibited him from acquiring

independent housing. Father and Mother testified that obtaining citizenship would alleviate

their issues with finding housing, as well as receiving their licenses, but neither party had

taken any legitimate steps toward changing their legal status at the time of the hearing.

Father indicated he spoke with an attorney at one point, but decided not to pursue

citizenship at that time because the process would have taken three to four years to

complete. Mother, on the other hand, relied upon maternal grandmother to assist her with

the citizenship process. Thus, in light of their inability to obtain independent housing,

Mother and Father planned to continue residing with maternal grandmother if Roger was

returned to their care.

       {¶ 28} The testimony at the hearing reflects that, although the Agency did not have

the same concerns with Father's mental health as it did with Mother's, it was concerned that

                                            - 12 -
                                                                      Warren CA2023-04-035

Father does not understand the significance of Mother's mental health illnesses. At the

hearing, evidence was presented that Mother has an extensive history of mental health

concerns, including significant past trauma relating to sexual assault by relatives when she

was a child, as well as sexual assault perpetrated by men maternal grandmother allowed

to live in her home. Mother began mental health treatment at 16 years old and had been

hospitalized for mental health issues more than 15 times. Mother has a history of self-harm

and suicide attempts, which have persisted throughout the case. Notably, Father and

Foster Mother had noticed marks on Mother from where she had been self-harming, and

there were reports that Mother had suicidal ideations as recently as the fall and winter of

2022.

        {¶ 29} After an assessment in 2021, Mother was diagnosed with borderline

personality disorder ("BPD"), which is "a set of maladapt personality traits that create

difficulties in an individual's interpersonal relationships."   Common symptoms of BPD

include frequent threats of harm, turbulent interpersonal relationships, impulsivity, and rapid

mood changes. Mother was also diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder by history,

cannabis use disorder moderate in early remission, unspecified depressive disorder by

history, intellectual disability mild, PTSD by history, and a "rule out" diagnosis for excessive

compulsive personality disorder and OCD.

        {¶ 30} The most effective way to treat BPD is through a process called dialectical

behavioral therapy ("DBT"), which is an intensive combination of individual and group

therapies that typically lasts two years.     Given her diagnoses, it was the psychology

assistant's clinical opinion that Mother should engage in individual therapy, as well as group

therapy, using the DBT methods. Despite these recommendations, Mother discontinued

DBT after three months, and had disengaged from therapy entirely by the time of the

permanent custody hearing.

                                             - 13 -
                                                                  Warren CA2023-04-035

      {¶ 31} In early 2022, Mother's former therapist became concerned when Mother

asked for a diagnosis assessment update, which occurs when a client feels he or she has

been misdiagnosed.     At that time, the therapist concluded Mother was not reporting

symptoms of BPD. A few months later Mother reported that she agreed with the BPD

diagnosis, but her boyfriend, Father, had instructed her to say that she did not have the

disorder in order to "get the baby back faster." At the hearing, Father denied that he

instructed Mother to dispute her diagnosis, but Mother later acknowledged that he had done

so. Additionally, the supervisor testified that Father encouraged Mother to misrepresent

her symptoms to her providers on several occasions.

      {¶ 32} Mother tended to downplay her therapist's concerns and would respond that

everything was going smoothly or was fine, a pattern noticed by the caseworkers as well.

Towards the end of his sessions with Mother, the therapist felt Mother was giving push back

on the things he was attempting to address with her and that, due to her lack of response

to him, he could not progress any farther with Mother on an individual basis. As a result,

he suggested that group therapy would be the best treatment for her at that time. A few

months after this recommendation, Mother requested to discontinue therapy entirely, which

her therapist did not support. Nonetheless, Mother had ceased all therapy by the time of

the hearing, and believed she could fix her mental health problems with "sheer

determination." Mother had also stopped taking any medication for her mental health,

despite being prescribed several, for reasons like potential weight gain and a friend's

recommendation.

      {¶ 33} Although Mother testified she was making strides in her mental health, Foster

Mother recently observed cutting marks on Mother's arms and Mother attempted to commit

suicide in February 2022. Father testified he was unaware that Mother had attempted

suicide in February 2022, as Mother had informed him that everything was fine at that time.

                                           - 14 -
                                                                   Warren CA2023-04-035

On a separate occasion in February 2022, Mother was placed on a 72-hour hold at the

Lindner Center due to statements to her caseworker that she would kill herself if the

caseworker did not "give the baby back." The Lindner Center recommended Mother to

complete in-patient services, but she did not do so.

      {¶ 34} When discussing Mother's mental health, Father initially testified he was

unaware of Mother's existing issues, but later acknowledged he knew Mother had mental

health issues because of the trauma she suffered when she was a child. Father indicated

he did not like to ask Mother about her past traumas, nor did he ask what her therapy

sessions were about. Although Mother testified that she and Father discussed her mental

health concerns and therapy sessions, Father indicated to the caseworker that he did not

know much about Mother's mental health, aside from her mood changes, and that she was

on medication. According to Father, he learned the specifics of Mother's mental health

issues throughout the instant proceedings.

      {¶ 35} Despite Mother's efforts, the record reflects many of Mother's former

therapist's concerns existed at the time of the permanent custody hearing.             Most

importantly, Mother continued to have trouble with her interpersonal relationships, and the

denial of her existing mental health problems inhibited her from developing a normal parent-

child bond with Roger and from engaging with him in an appropriate way. Mother also has

difficulty reading Roger's cues and her providers are concerned she is not capable of

understanding Roger's developmental stage or needs. Given these concerns, Mother's

decision to address her mental health issues on her own, without the assistance of trained

professionals or medication, emphasizes her inability to understand the seriousness of her

diagnoses and their impact on her ability to parent. Father likewise fails to appreciate or

understand the severity of Mother's mental health, nor does he recognize its effect on her

ability to care for Roger in an appropriate manner. This is especially troubling considering

                                             - 15 -
                                                                       Warren CA2023-04-035

Mother's mental health was a primary reason for Roger's removal from the parents' care in

2020. Father's indifference to Mother's mental health is also concerning given the extent

of Mother's mental health history, her specific diagnoses, and the time she has spent either

hospitalized or in treatment.

       {¶ 36} The record also reflects the Agency was concerned with Father's desire to

reunify with Roger independently. Specifically, the Agency believed Father lacked any

initiative throughout the case, and never showed a willingness to reunify with Roger

independently. To that point, the caseworker testified that after Mother's suicide attempt

and commitment to the Lindner Center in February 2022, the Agency informed Father of

the steps he would need to take in order to reunify with Roger. The first step was separating

himself from Mother. According to the caseworker, a translator was present during this

conversation and Father understood at that time that he needed to find housing separate

from Mother. As discussed above, Father made no progress in obtaining separate housing

by the time of the permanent custody hearing and had not otherwise separated from Mother.

       {¶ 37} After carefully reviewing the record, and in light of all of the above, we find the

juvenile court's determination regarding the best interest of Roger is supported by clear and

convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although

there was testimony that Father interacted well with the child, could have provided for him,

and could have eventually reunified with him, Father did not take the necessary steps to do

so. Although he completed some case plan requirements, it is well established that the

completion of certain case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent

custody. In re Mraz, 12th Dist. Brown Nos. CA2002-05-011 and CA2002-07-014, 2002-

Ohio-7278, ¶ 13; In re S.U., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-07-047, 2014-Ohio-5166, ¶

35 ("case plan is merely a means to a goal and not a goal in itself"). Here, despite Father's

progress on his case plan, several serious concerns remained at the time of the permanent

                                              - 16 -
                                                                       Warren CA2023-04-035

custody hearing. Ultimately, the record reflects that Father is unable to care for Roger

without the assistance of Mother, and Mother does not understand how to properly care for

Roger due to her untreated and unmedicated mental illnesses.

       {¶ 38} "A child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent

situation that fosters growth, stability, and security.'" In re D.E., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.

CA2018-03-035 and CA2018-04-038, 2018-Ohio-3341, ¶ 60, quoting In re Keaton, 4th Dist.

Ross Nos. 04CA2785 and 04CA2788, 2004-Ohio-6210, ¶ 61. In this case, the Agency has

been involved with Roger since his birth in 2020. Thus, at the time of the permanent custody

motion, Father had been given approximately two years to remedy the Agency's concerns.

During this time, Father took no initiative to rectify his situation, and instead ignored

Mother's mental illness and focused on making her appear "better" to her various providers.

This behavior highlights Father's codependency on Mother to parent and reunify with Roger.

As correctly found by the juvenile court, Roger needs a legally secure placement, and

Father has demonstrated that he cannot, or is unwilling to attempt to, provide such an

environment for Roger within a reasonable time.

       {¶ 39} The juvenile court, just like this court on appeal, must act in a manner that

places Roger's best interest above all else. In re G.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-

003, 2019-Ohio-1586, ¶ 54. The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody to

the Agency does just that. See, e.g., In re A.J., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-08-063,

2019-Ohio-593 at ¶ 43 ("simply because [appellant] may have the ability to provide for [the

child] does not mean it would be in the child's best interest to be placed in [his] care"). This

is because, as the juvenile court noted, Roger has been out of the home for over two years

and is now thriving in a stable and secure environment with his foster family.

       {¶ 40} In light of all of the foregoing, we conclude that it is in the best interest of the

child for permanent custody to be awarded to the Agency. As such, we find the juvenile

                                              - 17 -
                                                                  Warren CA2023-04-035

court’s decision to grant permanent custody of Roger to the Agency was supported by clear

and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

      {¶ 41} Accordingly, Father’s assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.

      PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

                                           - 18 -