Court Opinion

ID: 9947751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 16:11:44.117763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:31.159597
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re S.R., 2024-Ohio-693.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       GALLIA COUNTY

In the Matter of:                           :     Case No.     23CA11

S.R.                                        :     DECISION AND
                                                  JUDGMENT ENTRY
Dependent Child.                            :
                                      RELEASED 2/22/24
______________________________________________________________________
                            APPEARANCES:

Steven H. Eckstein, Washington Court House, Ohio, for appellant.

Jason Holdren, Gallia County Prosecutor, and Emily VanSickle, Gallia County Assistant
Prosecutor, Gallipolis, Ohio, for appellee.
______________________________________________________________________
Hess, J.

        {¶1}     S.R.’s mother appeals a judgment of the Gallia County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of S.R. to the Gallia County Job &

Family Services, a.k.a. Gallia County Children’s Services (the “Agency”). The mother

assigns one error asserting that the permanent custody award was against the manifest

weight of the evidence. For the reasons which follow, we overrule her assignment of error

and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

                             I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶2}     On August 18, 2021, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that S.R., born

September 25, 2017, was a dependent child. The complaint alleged that S.R. was in the

care and custody of her mother and stepfather. The biological father’s address was

unknown. The Agency had received a report in January 2021 that mother and stepfather

appeared to be “under the influence” and that the mother had admitted to using heroin
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                2

and methamphetamine. A safety plan was put in place at that time but ended in March

2021 due to significant progress on the case plan. However, afterwards mother tested

positive for fentanyl and stepfather had been pulled over in his vehicle “with a cap of

suspected illegal substances.” A second safety plan was put in place and S.R. was placed

with stepfather’s mother. All interactions between mother, stepfather, and S.R. were to

be supervised by stepfather’s mother. However, during an unannounced visit, the Agency

found S.R. in the unsupervised care of mother, stepfather, and an uncle. The complaint

alleged that mother was not in compliance with her drug treatment and had been

discharged from receiving services due to belligerent behavior. Neither mother nor

stepfather had a valid driver’s license, yet both had been observed driving with S.R. in

the vehicle. The complaint also alleged that neither mother nor stepfather have been

compliant in receiving their mental health treatment. The complaint requested a grant of

temporary custody to the Agency. The juvenile court granted temporary custody that day

and set the matter for an adjudication on September 9, 2021.

      {¶3}   On September 9, 2021, the juvenile court conducted an adjudication on

dependency. Mother admitted the allegation of dependency. The juvenile court accepted

the admission, found S.R. a dependent child whose guardianship should be assumed by

the state under R.C. 2151.04(C), and ordered that S.R. remain in the temporary custody

of the Agency. A month later, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing and mother

stated that she agreed with S.R. remaining in the temporary custody of the Agency while

she continued to work on completing the case plan. The biological father did not appear.

Thus, the juvenile court ordered S.R. to remain in the Agency’s custody and for mother

to complete the court-approved case plan.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                 3

      {¶4}   On December 9, 2021, the juvenile court held a review hearing and was

informed that mother was noncompliant with her case plan and had very little contact with

the Agency. The biological father did not appear and was not participating in the case

plan. The court ordered S.R. to remain in the temporary custody of the Agency and the

mother to continue to work on the case plan. Another review hearing was held in February

2022 at which the court was informed that mother was “now in drug rehab and back in

compliance with her case plan.” The biological father did not appear and was not

participating in the case plan. The court ordered S.R. to remain in the Agency’s custody

and for mother to continue to work on the case plan. At the April 2022 review hearing,

the court was informed that mother completed her 30-day in-patient drug treatment

program but has since tested positive for illegal drugs and has not obtained suitable

housing or income. The Agency recommended a 90-day in-patient drug treatment

program for mother. The juvenile court ordered S.R. to remain in the Agency’s custody.

      {¶5}   At a review hearing in June 2022, mother was making progress in drug

rehabilitation, but still had not found suitable housing or income. S.R. was ordered to

remain in the Agency’s custody. At an August 2022 review hearing, mother had

completed in-patient drug rehabilitation and found appropriate housing, but she had not

obtained employment or obtained a mental health evaluation or counseling. S.R.

remained in the Agency’s custody. At an October 2022 review hearing, the court found

that mother had obtained a mental health evaluation and was compliant with mental

health counseling, but “still needs to maintain sobriety, make repairs to and exterminate

her residence.” S.R. was ordered to remain in the Agency’s custody. However, at a

December 2022 review hearing, the court found that mother was not in compliance as
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                  4

she was no longer attending mental health or drug counseling and was unemployed. The

Agency indicated that it would file for permanent custody if no progress was made. S.R.

was ordered to remain in Agency custody. At a February 2023 review hearing, the

mother’s status had not changed; she continued to be noncompliant with the case plan.

The biological father was located and awaiting transport to prison for 5 years.

      {¶6}    On March 16, 2023, the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody

pursuant to R.C. 2151.413, R.C. 2151.414 and 2151.415. In support of the motion, the

Agency contended that S.R. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable

time, S.R. should not be placed with either parent, and S.R. has been in the temporary

custody of the Agency for 12 or more months or a consecutive 22-month period. In fact,

at the time of the motion, S.R. had been in the Agency’s custody for 18 months and 6

days. The Agency contended that mother was noncompliant with the case plan, struggled

with substance abuse issues throughout the case, failed to comply with mental or drug

counseling, was unemployed, only sporadically attended child visitation sessions, and

failed to have her residence assessed by the Agency since October 2022. The Agency

also stated that a foster parent had shown interest in adopting S.R. or becoming her legal

guardian. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion for May 2023. Prior to the

permanent custody hearing, an April 2023 review hearing was held, and the court found

that mother continued to be noncompliant with the case plan, had not engaged in mental

health counseling, and was unemployed, but had resumed drug counseling. Additionally,

prior to the permanent custody hearing, the guardian ad litem filed a report which

recommended S.R. be placed in the permanent custody of the Agency.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                     5

       {¶7}   The permanent custody hearing took place on May 2, 2023. Lindsey Wolfe

testified that she was employed with the Agency’s Ohio Start program, which is a

voluntary program for families with substance use issues that tries to keep families

together. Wolfe had been involved with S.R.’s case since January 2021 and the safety

plans that were implemented in early 2021 prior to the Agency’s application for temporary

custody. Wolfe testified that mother was not compliant with the safety plans, had failed

multiple drug screens, failed to comply with drug and mental health counseling, and was

transporting the child in a vehicle without a valid driver’s license. As a result, the Agency

applied for temporary custody in August 2021. Wolfe testified that the case plan required

mother to have a mental health evaluation and to be compliant with any mental health

medication and counseling requirements, complete random and scheduled drug

screenings, enroll in school or have employment, and maintain a clean, stable home

environment. Wolfe testified that mother did have a mental health evaluation but was not

compliant with the follow-up counseling. Mother also failed to gain employment, dropped

out of an education program, and has made no further progress. The mother had entered

a rehabilitation facility in Cincinnati; however, she had only entered the program the day

before the permanent custody hearing.

       {¶8}   Wolfe testified that mother also failed to establish safe, stable housing

throughout the case. Wolfe was not able to make steady contact with mother to be able

to see and approve the housing situation. Wolfe was able to perform one apartment

inspection but could not complete a full evaluation because she was unable to inspect the

bedrooms. In areas she could inspect, there were “clothes laying all over the floor. It

appeared very messy, hadn’t been cleaned.” Wolfe testified that mother was inconsistent
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                    6

in her struggles with substance abuse, testing positive for illegal substances and failing

to show a commitment to her sobriety. Wolfe testified that mother’s visitations with S.R.

have “been on and off” with repeated no call, no shows. As a result, visitations were put

on hold until mother could establish a plan in place to show up for the visitations. Wolfe

was unable to assess mother’s parenting abilities due to the inconsistencies in visitation.

Mother never progressed beyond supervised visitation. Wolfe testified that she does not

believe S.R. could be returned to mother now or in the immediate future. The biological

father was in prison and Wolfe did not believe that custody of S.R. could be placed with

him at that time or the immediate future. The stepfather had not completed any of the

case plan. Wolfe testified that she believed it was in S.R.’s best interest to be placed in

the permanent custody of the Agency and that the Agency had made reasonable efforts

to prevent the removal of the child from the home. Wolfe testified that a teacher at S.R.’s

elementary school has stated that she is willing to do kinship placement and/or adoption

of S.R.

       {¶9}   Chelsey Kloes, the guardian ad litem, testified that she visited S.R. monthly,

but numerous meetings and conversations with mother failed because mother did not

respond to telephone calls. Kloes testified that mother was noncompliant with the case

plan and lacked commitment to sobriety and maintenance of sobriety. Kloes testified that

S.R. loves her mother and is disappointed that visitations with her were not consistent.

Mother was not visiting S.R. in January 2023 and had not visited S.R. prior to the

permanent custody hearing in May 2023. Kloes testified that there are no viable family

placement options, and, in her opinion, it was in S.R.’s best interest to be placed

permanently with the Agency.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                        7

       {¶10} Mother testified that she was currently in a residential drug rehabilitation

center in Cincinnati, Ohio that allows for mother and child to be reunited while she is

staying there. Mother testified that she would love to have S.R. reunited with her while

she resides in the rehabilitation facility and is “willing to do whatever I can * * * to get

[S.R.] back home.” Mother testified that she did not understand the proceedings, “when

this began I kind of misunderstood. Like I had thought they was [sic] taking permanency

[sic] custody of her then. * * * I didn’t really realize I still had you know, more time to keep

her to myself.” She testified she enrolled into the Cincinnati rehabilitation program

because she was told “this is the end of the case plan. I don’t know what else that I can

do.” Mother agreed she had not made any progress in the last couple of months but it

was because she believed the Agency had already taken permanent custody of S.R. She

admitted she “kind of fell off” the case plan when the Agency talked about taking

permanent custody of S.R. Mother testified that if given more time, she would get back

involved with her case plan. Mother testified she gets along great with S.R. and they share

a mutual love of each other. Mother testified that she had telephone problems that made

it challenging for her to get in touch with the case worker and others.

       {¶11}    On May 26, 2023, the court issued a judgment entry granting the Agency

permanent custody of the child. The court found that S.R. had been in the temporary

custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period for

purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). The court also found that it was in the best interest

of the child to award permanent custody to the Agency.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                  8

                              II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       {¶12} Mother presents one assignment of error:

       The trial court’s grant of permanent custody to the Gallia County Job and
       Family Services Children’s Division was against the manifest weight of the
       evidence.

                                  III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

                               A. Permanent Custody Award

       {¶13} In her sole assignment of error, mother contends that the permanent

custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother asserts that her

testimony “strongly counters that of the Agency’s witnesses.” She argues that she

testified that she “misunderstood the status of the case and so gave up on the

reunification case plan.* * * Had she thought otherwise she would have tried harder, as

shown by her placing herself in rehab so close to the permanent custody hearing and in

a place where the child could live with her.”

                                 B. Standard of Review

       {¶14} “A reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s judgment in a permanent

custody case unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re C.S., 4th

Dist. Pike No. 19CA899, 2019-Ohio-5109, ¶ 21. We have explained:

       “To determine whether a permanent custody decision is against the
       manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must weigh the
       evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the
       witnesses, and determine whether in resolving evidentiary conflicts, the trial
       court 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 T.J., 4th
       Dist. Highland Nos. 15CA15, 15CA16, 2016-Ohio-163,] ¶ 25, citing Eastley
       v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 20.
       In reviewing evidence under this standard, we defer to the trial court’s
       determinations of matters of credibility, which are crucial in these cases,
       where demeanor and attitude are not reflected well by the written record.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                         9

       Eastley at ¶ 21; Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d
       1159 (1997).

       In a permanent custody case the dispositive issue on appeal is “whether the
       trial court’s findings * * * were supported by clear and convincing evidence.”
       In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 43; R.C.
       2151.414(B)(1). “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; State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 149 Ohio St.3d 273,
       2016-Ohio-5725, 74 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 14. “[I]f the children services agency
       presented competent and credible evidence upon which the trier of fact
       reasonably could have formed a firm belief that permanent custody is
       warranted, then the court’s decision is not against the manifest weight of
       the evidence.” In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, 997 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 55 (4th Dist.).

(First alteration added.) Id. at ¶ 21-22.

                           C. Statutory Framework and Analysis

       {¶15} Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court may grant permanent custody

to a public children services agency if the court determines by clear and convincing

evidence that (1) any of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) apply,

and (2) it is in the best interest of the child. In this case, the juvenile court found that R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied, i.e., “[t]he child has been in the temporary custody of one or

more public children services agencies * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive

twenty-two-month period * * *.”       Mother does not dispute that the child was in the

temporary custody of the Agency for the requisite time; therefore, we must affirm the

permanent custody award unless the juvenile court’s best interest determination is

against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                    10

       {¶16} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) states:

       In determining the best interest of a child * * * the 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
       * * * 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.

       For the purposes of division (D)(1) of this section, a child shall be
       considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the
       earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the
       Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child
       from home.

No one factor has “greater weight or heightened significance.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d

73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 57.

                    1. Interactions and Interrelationships of the Child

       {¶17} There is evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the child “has

bonded with a foster caregiver. There is a strong possibility of adoption.” While the child

had some relationship with the mother during the proceedings, there was evidence that

mother failed to attend visitation regularly and did not progress beyond supervised

visitation. Mother did not visit the child at all in the four months prior to the permanent
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                 11

custody hearing. There is evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the mother

“demonstrated a lack of commitment towards [S.R.] by failing to regularly support, visit,

or communicate with the child when able to do so.”

                                  2. Wishes of the Child

       {¶18} The child was too young to express wishes.

                                   3. Custodial History

       {¶19} The child was removed from the mother’s custody when the child was three

years old. The child was in the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months

of a consecutive 22-month period. At the time of the permanent custody hearing the child

had been in the Agency’s custody for over 18 months.

                        4. Legally Secure Permanent Placement

       {¶20} The Ohio Revised Code does not define the phrase “legally secure

permanent placement,” but “this court and others have generally interpreted the phrase

to mean a safe, stable, consistent environment where a child’s needs will be met.” In re

M.B., 4th Dist. Highland No. 15CA19, 2016-Ohio-793, ¶ 56. “A legally secure permanent

placement is more than a house with four walls. Rather, it generally encompasses a

stable environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults

who will provide for the child’s needs.” Id.

       {¶21} Evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that a legally secure

permanent placement could not be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the

Agency. The Agency presented evidence that the child has been doing well in the

Agency’s temporary custody and that a teacher at S.R.’s school is interested in adoption.

As the juvenile court found, the mother “has failed to remedy the problems that led to the
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                       12

child’s removal.” Mother was struggling with substance abuse issues in January 2021

and continued to struggle with them throughout the case up to the May 2023 hearing.

Evidence also supports the juvenile court’s finding that “the child cannot and should not

be returned to the custody of either parent within a reasonable time.” The biological father

was incarcerated for a five-year term. The juvenile court noted that it was glad to hear

that mother was again in a rehabilitation program, but “she only entered the facility the

day before this permanent custody hearing.” Additionally, while the mother secured an

apartment during the proceedings, the Agency was not able to determine its suitability

due to the lack of communication from the mother. Therefore, there was evidence

supporting the juvenile court’s finding that the residence was “unsatisfactory.” The

juvenile court further noted that mother had been granted an additional six months in

which to complete the case plan, but despite this extra time, she had not succeeded.

Although mother testified that she was confused about the status of her case, she

appeared at numerous review hearings, had appointed counsel, and never expressed

confusion or asked questions. As the state correctly argues, every filing and journal entry

prior to the permanent custody hearing states that the child is in the temporary custody

of the Agency while the mother continues to work on the case plan of reunification.

Whether mother was truly confused or whether, as the state argues, her testimony was

“self-serving” is a question of credibility for the juvenile court’s determination. The juvenile

court was in the best position to judge credibility, and we defer to its credibility

determinations. In re C.S., 4th Dist. Pike No. 19CA899, 2019-Ohio-5109, ¶ 21.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                                     13

                        5. R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (E)(11) Factors

       {¶22} The juvenile court did not identify any factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to

(E)(11) and there is nothing in the record to indicate they are applicable to this case.

                             6. Totality of the Circumstances

       {¶23} Based on the foregoing, we conclude the juvenile court’s best interest

finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.        The Agency presented

competent and credible evidence upon which the court reasonably could have formed a

firm belief that a grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in the best interest of the

child. Accordingly, we conclude that the permanent custody award is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence, overrule the sole assignment of error, and affirm the

juvenile court’s judgment.

                                                                 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Gallia App. No. 23CA11                                                               14

                                   JUDGMENT ENTRY

         It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that appellant shall pay the
costs.

         The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Gallia
County Common Pleas Court, 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 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Smith, P.J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.

                                   For the Court

                                   BY: ________________________________
                                       Michael D. Hess, Judge

                                 NOTICE TO COUNSEL

       Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with
the clerk.