Court Opinion

ID: 9947477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:09:49.000478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:28.938449
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re C.G.V., 2024-Ohio-789.]

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                PORTAGE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:                                   CASE NOS. 2023-P-0085
                                                              2023-P-0086
C.G.V. AND J.B.,
DEPENDENT CHILDREN                                  Civil Appeals from the
                                                    Court of Common Pleas,
                                                    Juvenile Division

                                                    Trial Court Nos. 2021 JCC 00255
                                                                     2021 JCC 00256

                                             OPINION

                                         Decided: March 4, 2024
                                          Judgment: Affirmed

Benjamin J. Plough, 221 South Freedom Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Appellant,
Shannon L. Rhoads).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Appellee, Portage
County Department of Job and Family Services).

Gerrit denHeijer, Giulitto Law Office, 222 West Main Street, P.O. Box 350, Ravenna, OH
44266 (Guardian ad litem).

Sarah G. Ogden, Megargel, Eskridge, & Mullins, LLP, 231 South Chestnut Street,
Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Minor, C.G.V.).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Shannon Rhoads (“Mother”), appeals the order of the Portage

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her
minor children, C.G.V. and J.B., to Portage County Department of Jobs and Family

Services (“PCDJFS”).

       {¶2}    Mother is the biological mother of C.G.V. (born 03/12/2015) and J.B. (born

09/06/2020). During the pendency of this case in the trial court, a paternity test

established that Justin A. Brown (“Brown”) is the biological father of J.B. Mother is legally

married to Joshua Vitrano (“Vitrano”), who is the biological father of C.G.V., but Mother

does not currently communicate with him. Paternity was established for C.G.V. through

marriage. Neither Brown nor Vitrano appealed the termination of their parental rights.

       {¶3}    On May 12, 2021, C.G.V. and J.B. were removed from the home of Mother,

after she tested positive for fentanyl, THC, and amphetamine.1 At the time of removal,

C.G.V. was six years old and J.B. was under 12 months of age.

       {¶4}    The complaint filed by PCDJFS on May 13, 2021 alleged that C.G.V. and

J.B. were abused, neglected, and dependent children. A case plan was filed on June 1,

2021. The children were adjudicated dependent on June 4, 2021. A dispositional hearing

was held, and temporary custody was granted to PCDJFS on July 26, 2021. A motion for

a six-month extension of temporary custody was filed, granted, and then a second motion

for a six-month extension was filed on October 25, 2022. That motion was also granted.

By April 25, 2023, when PCDJFS filed for permanent custody, the children had remained

in the temporary custody of PCDJFS for 23-consecutive months.

       {¶5}    A permanent custody hearing was held on September 22, 2023. The

following facts were presented at the hearing:

1. J.R. (born 07/08/2005) was also removed from the home. J.R. has since aged out of the system and is
not subject to the order on appeal.
                                                  2

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
        {¶6}    Matthew Levitas (“Mr. Levitas”), a toxicologist employed at Forensic Fluids

Laboratories, testified that his facility processed Mother’s drug screens from May 2021

through July 2023. His facility processed a total of 18 screens, ten of them being positive,

and eight of them being negative. Mr. Levitas testified that Mother tested positive on: (1)

May 4, 2021, for amphetamine, methamphetamine, THC, and fentanyl; (2) July 1, 2021,

for amphetamine and methamphetamine; (3) July 13, 2021, for amphetamine and

methamphetamine; (4) August 11, 2021, for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and

fentanyl; (5) August 23, 2022, for amphetamine and methamphetamine; (6) October 19,

2022, for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC; (7) November 7, 2022, for THC;

(8) February 8, 2023 for THC; (9) May 1, 2023 for THC; and, (10) July 17, 2023 for

amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mr. Levitas testified that Mother’s screens were

oral   fluid   screens,     where     the   window        of   detection   for   amphetamine   and

methamphetamines is approximately 72 hours.

        {¶7}    Kodie McCully (“Mr. McCully”), a Chemical Dependency Counseling

Assistant at Town Hall II, testified he has been working with Mother for the past two-and-

a-half to three years. Mr. McCully testified that he worked with Mother co-facilitating an

IOP, while she was in Horizon House.2 He testified that Mother was in Horizon House

twice, and the second time she was there she was close to completion. She had been

there six or seven weeks, but she left the house through a window and was dismissed.

        {¶8}    Mr. McCully stated that it was a significant accomplishment for Mother to

come into Horizon House the second time on her own, without being court ordered, and

that it was rare for a patient to re-admit themselves. He testified that Mother has been

2. IOP stands for “Intensive Outpatient Treatment.”
                                                      3

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
much more engaged during her second visit to Horizon House. Mr. McCully testified the

success rate of anyone completing Horizon House is around 40 percent. Mr. McCully

asserted that once one is dismissed, one typically cannot return, and there is only one

other treatment center similar to Horizon House locally. That center usually has a waiting

list. Mr. McCully observed that most people do not maintain sobriety attending Horizon

House the first time. Instead, it takes at least a second opportunity and that odds for

maintaining sobriety increase at that point.

       {¶9}   Mother also testified at the hearing. She stated that she remembers

becoming involved with PCDJFS in 2021 but did not remember the details of the case

plan objectives assigned to her. Mother testified “I never got the whole printout, like the

whole case plan. I never did get the full thing. * * * I had to go to detox and I had to do - -

I don’t remember all of them, but get through drug treatment or have an assessment done

and have a mental assessment done.” Mother testified that she first engaged in detox in

2021 with First Step Recovery “four days after my kids were taken.” Mother testified that

she was there for four days. She left after four days because she thought she could

complete detox on her own. She testified that her engagement with Town Hall II for IOP

was “on and off. * * * I never really completely stopped. * * * I went back to the Horizon

House in July * * * [for] four or five weeks * * *.” Mother stated she left Horizon House

before being unsuccessfully discharged because she broke a rule and left a window open.

She explained she engaged in IOP three times between the time her children were

removed to the date of the hearing. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged two of those

three times. At the time of the hearing, Mother was engaged in IOP for one week

                                               4

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
        {¶10} Mother testified that her only employment since May of 2021 was “under-

the-table” employment doing odd jobs. Mother testified that she had $1,500.00 in savings

but was not employed. Mother said that she has consistently attended visits with the

children every two weeks, for two hours at a time. Mother also stated she has only

cancelled visits early in the children’s removal when she experienced car trouble. Mother

testified that during visits with her sons they play games, paint, and make crafts.

        {¶11} Kate Miley (“Ms. Miley”) from Place of Peace, where visitation is held,

testified about Mother’s visits with her children. Ms. Miley testified that though C.G.V.

became frustrated and angry with Mother during the visits over the past two years, Mother

had started managing his behaviors better. Ms. Miley testified that during the September

6, 2023 visit with Mother, C.G.V. became upset because she was trying to take something

away from him. He hit Mother several times and the staff had to intervene. Ms. Miley

testified that she had to stop giving a ten-minute warning signaling the ending of the visits

in front of C.G.V. because it escalated his behavior.

        {¶12} Ms. Miley testified that Vitrano attended two visits at Place of Peace.3

Although they interact positively, she stated that CGV’s father would make promises he

does not keep. In regards to J.B., Brown also had two visits. Ms. Miley testified that Mother

has been consistent with most of her visitation with C.G.V. and J.B., and only canceled

one visit in the last year. Several other visits were canceled by other individuals. Mother

was given the opportunity to make up those canceled visits, so long as the schedule

allowed it.4

3. The judgment entry states that Vitrano visited the child five times.
4. The GAL report, filed with the trial court on August 9, 2023, and referenced in the August 16, 2023 order,
states that the GAL reviewed all of the records from this family’s supervised visits, and that through July 17,
                                                      5

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
        {¶13} Mya Clemons (“Ms. Clemons”), C.G.V.’s counselor, testified she began

seeing C.G.V. monthly in 2021, then twice a month, and now sees him weekly. Ms.

Clemons testified that C.G.V.’s aggressive behavior and lying have increased recently

and attributes it to being in foster care and some recent difficult visits with Mother.

        {¶14} Joh’Vonnie Mosely (“Ms. Mosely”) is a social worker who worked with

Mother while employed at PCDJFS. Ms. Mosely stopped working on Mother’s case in

May of 2022. Ms. Mosely testified that C.G.V. was doing better in his placement with

counseling and treatment for ADHD, and J.B. was developmentally on track and thriving

in his placement. The children are placed together with the same foster parents.

        {¶15} Kimberly Kitchen (“Ms. Kitchen”), another caseworker who worked with

Mother during the pendency of her case, testified that she took over Mother’s case in May

of 2022. Ms. Kitchen testified that she met with C.G.V. and J.B., and the foster parents,

and that they all seemed to have a close bond. The foster parents have enrolled C.G.V.

in swimming lessons and a Christian camp. Also, J.B. has started school. Ms. Kitchen

testified that she met with Mother in June of 2022, and at that point, Mother had not

completed any of the objectives of her case plan. Ms. Kitchen testified Mother has had

the same housing in Streetsboro throughout the pendency of her case.

        {¶16} Ms. Kitchen testified that both children have a close bond with Mother.

Although, because of C.G.V.’s behaviors during visits, and because of J.B.’s young age,

J.B. would often play independently while Mother directed her attention to C.G.V. Ms.

Kitchen testified Vitrano has a bond with him, but C.G.V.’s bond is more like a friendship

2023, Mother attended 60 visits with the children. 31 visits were cancelled. Of those 31, 15 were attributed
with the visitation center, illness of the children, or conflicts with the children’s schedules. The GAL report
states that Mother’s cancelled visits were due to illness or transportation.
                                                      6

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
than a bond with a parent. Ms. Kitchen testified she never saw J.B.’s biological father

interact with J.B. Ms. Kitchen also testified that Brown had no contact with J.B. prior to

the case, and during the pendency of the case has been incarcerated. She testified J. B.

has no bond with his biological father.

       {¶17} Ms. Kitchen testified the children do not have a bond with any other

maternal or paternal relatives. Ms. Kitchen testified in regards to Mother’s case plan, that

Mother completed the required parenting assessment and has maintained appropriate

housing. Mother had not completed any other case plan objectives. Specifically, Mother

did not obtain employment and did not complete any of the treatment or recommendations

that were a result of the mental health and substance abuse assessments. Ms. Kitchen

also testified that Mother’s sobriety has been inconsistent and her last positive screen for

the agency was in July 2022. She testified that Mother has refused at least three drug

screens; one in June of 2022, and two in August of 2022.

       {¶18} Ms. Kitchen testified that Vitrano got out of prison in November of 2022. She

testified Vitrano threatened her during a phone call about C.G.V.’s behavior where he

said “Kim, don’t make me pull up on you * * *.” Ms. Kitchen testified that Vitrano began

hollering at her and she hung up on him. Ms. Kitchen testified that at the time of the

permanent custody hearing, Vitrano had a warrant for disorderly conduct and was

currently on probation for a drug charge.

       {¶19} Ms. Kitchen testified that she believes it is in the best interests of the

children that they remain in the permanent custody of their foster placement and that

returning the children to Mother, or to either biological father, would not be a safe for the

                                             7

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
children. She further testified that none of the parents have remedied the conditions that

led to the children’s removal.

       {¶20} Gerrit denHijer, the Guardian ad Litem (“the GAL”) testified that he met with

C.G.V. two times during the pendency of this case. He testified that the first visit was at

the beginning of the case, when C.G.V. was young. He felt C.G.V. was too immature to

express a desire regarding his placement. The second visit was at the conclusion of the

case when C.G.V. was older. On both occasions C.G.V. expressed a desire to go home

with Mother. The GAL testified he never observed any interactions between Mother and

C.G.V. He reviewed visit notes from the Place of Peace, after receiving the notes in July

of 2023. The GAL testified he believed that when the discussion of permanency was

broached with C.G.V. is when his negative behaviors began. The GAL testified that

severing a relationship with Mother is a contributing factor to C.G.V.’s behaviors. The GAL

testified that he did not believe it was in the best interests of the children to be returned

to Mother.

       {¶21} Neither Vitrano, father of C.G.V., nor Brown, father of J.B., appeared at the

September 22, 2023 permanent custody hearing. However, Vitrano was represented by

counsel at the hearing.

       {¶22} On September 27, 2023, PCDJFS was awarded permanent custody of

C.G.V. and J.B.

       {¶23} Mother appeals and raises the following assignment of error: “The trial

court’s order granting permanent custody to the agency was not based upon sufficient,

clear and convincing evidence, was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and it

erred in finding permanent custody to be in the best interest of the child.”

                                             8

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
       {¶24} “Termination of parental rights has been described as ‘the family law

equivalent of the death penalty.’ (Citations omitted.) State v. Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92,

2002-Ohio-5368, 776 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 14. However, “[t]he rights of a parent to his or her

child, while fundamental, ‘are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child.’” 33,

(Citation omitted.) In re. L.M.R., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-096, 2017-Ohio-158, ¶ 33,

citing In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 105, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979). “[T]he

termination of the rights of a natural parent should occur as a last resort, * * * when

necessary for the welfare of the child. Id.

       {¶25} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently clarified the standard of review for

permanent custody cases under R.C. 2151.414 in In re Z.C., --- Ohio St.3d ----, --- N.E.3d

----, 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 7, 11:

              Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court may grant
              permanent custody of a child to the agency that moved for
              permanent custody if the court determines, “by clear and
              convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child”
              to do so and that one of five factors enumerated in R.C.
              2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies. “Clear and convincing
              evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more
              than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the
              extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable
              doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of
              the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
              sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469,
              120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

               ***

              Given that R.C. 2151.414 requires that a juvenile court find by
              clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements
              are met, we agree with those appellate courts that have
              determined that the sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or
              manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards of review are the
              proper appellate standards of review of a juvenile court’s
              permanent-custody determination, as appropriate depending

                                              9

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
                on the nature of the arguments that are presented by the
                parties.

       {¶26} The Court further explained that:

                But “even if a trial court judgment is sustained by sufficient
                evidence, an appellate court may nevertheless conclude that
                the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
                Eastley at ¶ 12. When reviewing for manifest weight, the
                appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable
                inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and
                determine whether, 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. Id. at ¶
                20. “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must
                always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of
                fact.” Id. at ¶ 21. “The underlying rationale of giving deference
                to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that
                the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe
                their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these
                observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered
                testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio
                St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).

Z.C. at ¶ 14.

       {¶27} As noted above, R.C. 2151.414 requires that two prongs are met: “(1) that

one of the circumstances set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) is present, and

(2) that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency

moving for custody. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).” In the Matter of G.C.M.G., 11th Dist. Portage

Nos. 2023-P-0024, 2023-P-0025, 2023-Ohio-3018, ¶ 24.

       {¶28} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) states:

          (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not 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, or has not
              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 if,
              as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the
                                               10

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
             Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary
             custody of an equivalent agency in another state, and the child
             cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a
             reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's
             parents.

          (b) The child is abandoned.

          (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child
              who are able to take permanent custody.

          (d) 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, or 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 and, as described in
              division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the
              child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent
              agency in another state.

          (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or
              parents from whose custody the child has been removed has
              been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child
              on three separate occasions by any court in this state or
              another state.

      {¶29} Here, the trial court found that the children were adjudicated dependent on

June 4, 2021 based on the need for services to address substance abuse within the

family. A case plan was adopted and made binding on the parties. The children were

placed into temporary custody of PCDJFS. The trial court found that the children were in

the temporary custody of PCDJFS for more than 12 months during a consecutive 22-

month period, satisfying prong one of the statutory requirements.

      {¶30} The trial court, in its order, articulated its reasoning for finding permanent

placement in the best interests of the children. The trial court found that neither father

have maintained contact with their children. Neither child has a bond with their fathers.

                                           11

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
Neither father appeared for the court proceedings. While Vitrano was represented by

counsel, he did not have any contact with his counsel. The court found that the children

have a bond with Mother, and that she has consistently visited both children. The trial

court acknowledged that C.G.V. has expressed a desire to live with his mother and has

exhibited anger at his mother for failing to take the necessary steps to come home. The

trial court found the children have a strong bond with their foster parents and they have

lived with them for over two years. The trial court found that the children have developed

a bond with their “foster” grandparents, and that both children are involved in activities,

and are receiving medical and emotional support from their foster placement.

        {¶31} The trial court found that the GAL recommended that the children be placed

in permanent custody of PCDJFS for adoption.5 The trial court determined that C.G.V.

and J.B. had been in PCDJFS’ temporary custody for 26-consecutive months, and that

they are in need of a stable, secure, and loving home, and there are no appropriate

relatives who are available to take custody of them.

        {¶32} The trial court found that reunification was unlikely because both parents

refused to complete their case plan. The trial court determined that though Mother had

taken steps to get treatment, it was not enough to outweigh C.G.V.’s and J.B.’s need for

permanent placement. The trial court found that Vitrano did not establish a relationship

with C.G.V. and has outstanding warrants. The trial court found that the parents have

5. On August 8, 2023, the GAL filed a Notice to Court of conflict in his reports, where he initially stated
C.G.V. was too young to express a wish as to custody, and later C.G.V. expressed a clear bond with his
mother. The trial court noted in its decision to grant permanent custody that appropriate weight was given
to the GAL’s testimony as the GAL fell below minimum standards required of Ohio Sup.R. 48, requiring that
the GAL observe the child with each parent and visit the child where they reside. The GAL was appointed
on May 13, 2021, but never observed any of the visits between the C.G.V. and his parents, and he visited
C.G.V. two times.
                                                    12

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
failed to remedy the conditions causing the children to be removed from the home.

PCDJFS has made reasonable efforts to prevent continued removal from the home and

made intensive efforts to locate a kinship caregiver. The trial court found these facts to

satisfy prong two of R.C. 2151.414’s requirements.

       {¶33} The trial court clearly and convincingly found sufficient, credible evidence

that met the statutory requirements of R.C. 2151.414. Testimony provided at the

permanent custody hearing demonstrated that while Mother has recently made some

progress towards meeting her case plan goals, she has not met most of her case plan

objectives. Mother’s attempts at Horizon House, though close to completion, ended

because Mother either left on her own or was asked to leave for breaking rules. While

Mother has taken positive steps towards successful sobriety, at the time of the permanent

custody hearing, she had only been engaged with a new IOP for one week. Mother’s

substance abuse is the predominant reason for the removal of her children, and she has

not taken substantial steps to gain control of her substance abuse. Mother has not

obtained employment to provide financial support and stability for the children. The social

workers and GAL testified that the children are thriving in their placement with their foster

parents, are involved in activities, and have bonded with their foster parents.

       {¶34} The trial court acknowledged the children’s bond and desire to be with

Mother were outweighed by the lack of Mother’s ability to provide a secure and stable

home for the children and their need for permanency. Sufficient evidence was produced

to support the trial court’s decision, and giving deference to the trier of fact, we cannot

say that the trial court clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.

                                             13

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086
The trial court’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is consistent with the

manifest weight of the evidence. Mothers’ sole assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶35} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Portage County

Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

                                           14

Case Nos. 2023-P-0085 and 2023-P-0086