Court Opinion

ID: 9395055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:08:07.979577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.110937
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re T.H.C., 2023-Ohio-1654.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                  TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 IN RE: T.H.C. AND S.H.H.                      JUDGES:
                                               Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
                                               Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

                                               Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 &
                                               2022 AP 10 0037

                                               OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Tuscarawas County
                                               Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
                                               Division, Case No. 21 JN 00001

 JUDGMENT:                                     Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       May 15, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Appellee                                  For Appellant M.H.P.

 LISA VITALE ARNOLD                            NICHOLAS A. DOUGHTY
 Tuscarawas County Job &                       401 Tuscarawas Street, W., Suite #201
 Family Services                               Canton, Ohio 44702
 389 – 16th Street, S.W.
 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663

 Guardian ad Litem                             For Appellee B.H.C.

 DONOVAN R. HILL                               LISA CALDWELL
 122 Market Avenue, N.                         203 Fair Ave, N.E.
 Canton, Ohio 44702                            New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
    Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                          2

Hoffman, P.J.
          {¶1}     In Tuscarawas App. Nos. 2022 AP 09 0036 and 2022 AP 09 0037, appellant

M.H.P. (“Father”) appeals the September 3, 2022 Judgment Entry entered by the

Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated his

parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities with respect to his two minor child (“Child

1” and “Child 2,” individually; “the Children”, collectively) and granted permanent custody

of the Children to appellee Tuscarawas County Job and Family Services (“TCJFS”).

                                   STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

          {¶2}     Father and B.H.C. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of the Children.1

Following a shelter care hearing on January 6, 2021, the trial court issued an emergency

order of removal of the Children and placed them in the temporary custody of TCJFS.

The following day, January 7, 2021, TCJFS filed a complaint, alleging the Children were

neglected and dependent. The trial court appointed Attorney Donovan Hill as Guardian

ad Litem (“GAL”).

          {¶3}     The complaint set forth the following particulars. TCJFS has a history with

the family. In October, 2018, the Children were placed in the temporary custody of TCJFS

due to concerns about domestic violence between Parents, Mother’s untreated mental

health issues, Father’s alcohol issues, and a cockroach infestation in the home. The

Children were ultimately returned to Mother and Father and the case was closed in

September, 2019. TCJFS was involved with the family again from August, 2020, to

October, 2020, due to reported concerns about Mother’s ability to care for the Children.

1   Mother is not a party to this Appeal.
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                        3

During the investigation, TCJFS learned Mother and Father were drinking excessively

and a verbal altercation ensued during which Mother stated, in front of the Children, she

and the Children were going to die together. Mother is schizophrenic and spent a few

days in a psychiatric hospital to stabilize. TCJFS received concerns on January 5, 2021,

regarding domestic violence and excessive drinking. Police were called to the home on

January 3, 202, after Parents were involved in a physical altercation during which the

Children were present. Father was intoxicated when police arrived. Mother had bruises

on her body. Father admitted hiding Mother’s medication for her schizophrenia. Further,

the home was under investigation due to the cockroach infestation.

      {¶4}   Following an adjudicatory hearing on February 4, 2021, the trial court found

Child 1 and Child 2 to be neglected and dependent. The trial court held a dispositional

hearing on March 3, 2021, and ordered the Children remain in the temporary custody of

TCJFS. The trial court conducted review hearings on April 19, June 28, and October 4,

2021, and January 4, and March 28, 2022, and maintained the status quo. On March 24,

2022, TCJFS filed a motion to modify prior disposition to permanent custody. The GAL

filed a final guardian report on August 23, 2022, recommending permanent custody of the

Children be granted to TCJFS.

      {¶5}   The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on August 30, 2022. The

following evidence was presented:

      {¶6}   Dr. Aimee Thomas, a licensed psychologist with Lighthouse Family Center,

completed an assessment of Father. Father reported the domestic violence incident

which led to the removal of the Children occurred because of his drinking and Mother

calling the police. Father indicated he had a high tolerance level to alcohol, and 6 to 8
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                         4

beers did not impact him. Dr. Thomas noted Father was difficult to engage and was

reluctant to provide information.

       {¶7}   Father denied anger management problems, but acknowledged anger

issues were the reason he was referred for the evaluation. Father admitted he was

inclined to become angry when he drank alcohol. Dr. Thomas diagnosed Father with

alcohol dependency, intellectual disabilities, and attachment difficulties. Dr. Thomas

recommended Father participate in drug and alcohol treatment, participate in 12-step

meetings, submit to random alcohol screens, participate in parenting skills training, and

engage in anger management treatment. Father scored a 40 on the intelligence test,

which indicates he is on the lower extreme of intellectual ability. Dr. Thomas explained

Father functions at the level of a 5-year-old in terms of problem solving. Dr. Thomas

added Father had difficulty learning and applying new information.

       {¶8}   Father engaged in counseling through Guidestone.       His last appointment

was on November 21, 2021, although he had not been discharged from treatment.

Father’s counselor attempted to contact him on January 3, January 18, and February 2,

2022. On February 9, 2022, Father was discharged due to his lack of contact with his

counselor. Father contacted his counselor on March 4, 2022, to re-engage in counseling,

but was informed his case was closed and he would need to complete a new intake.

Father never followed through with the new intake and did not contact his counselor again.

       {¶9}   Jennifer Fire, the supervisor of the Goodwill Parenting Program, testified

Father earned a certificate of participation from Goodwill Parenting. Father had perfect

attendance, participated with his non-verbal skills, and completed an average amount of

participation. Father engaged in visitation through Goodwill Parenting. He was present
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                          5

for 11 of 12 visits. One of the Children was sick on the day of the 12 th visit, but the

Children and Father visited by video. Father provided all required meals for the Children

and engaged in conversation with the Children during mealtime. He conversed with the

Children about their interests. He actively engaged in playtime with the Children. He

supervised the Children and was very attentive.

       {¶10} Fire conducted a home visit on December 2, 2021. The home needed a

thorough cleaning, “the floors were exceptionally dirty, very sticky.”       Transcript of

Permanent Custody Hearing at 33. Fire found the home infested with cockroaches, and

the insects were buried in the trim of the doors and windows. Fire noted a number of

safety concerns including razors and knives within reach of the Children. Fire did not

believe the home was an appropriate place for the Children to reside. However, Parents’

current home is clean and appropriate for the Children.

       {¶11} Fire noted Father’s weaknesses included difficulty understanding protective

capacity and knowing what type of individuals would be safe for the Children to be around.

Father was unable to identify appropriate caregivers for the Children.            Parents

acknowledged engaging in sexual conduct while the Children were present.            Father

continued to drink alcohol during the pendency of the case. Father completed only one

of his three individual goals, and only three of the eight program goals.

       {¶12} Malissa Cantarero, the on-going TCJFS caseworker assigned to the family,

testified the instant matter is the second ongoing case with the family. Cantarero added

there have been ten other reports involving the family over the years. All of those reports

included domestic violence and substance abuse. The Children were removed in 2018,

due to concerns of domestic violence, Mother’s mental health and the fact she was
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                       6

unmedicated, and Father’s substance abuse. The Children were in foster care from

October 2, 2018, until July 14, 2019. Parents completed their case plan services and the

case was closed on September 24, 2019.

      {¶13} Cantarero indicated Father did not complete substance use disorder

(“SUD”) treatment and recommendations. Father did not commence anger management

treatment due to his failure to complete SUD treatment. The two main areas of concern

regarding Father were substance abuse and anger management, which Father never

addressed.

      {¶14} On August 19, 2020, TCJFS received a new report of emotional

maltreatment and neglect. Mother had been hospitalized, stayed with her sister upon her

discharge, then went to a domestic violence shelter. During the investigation, Mother

advised TCJFS Father was drinking again, abusing her, and hiding her medication.

Services were put into place. The case was eventually closed. The Children were not

removed from the home during the pendency of that case.

      {¶15} With respect to the instant case, Cantarero stated TCJFS received a report

on January 5, 2021, indicating Mother and Father were involved in a physical altercation

the previous weekend. Father was drunk at the time of the incident. Mother claimed

Father was hiding her medication.      The Children were present and observed the

altercation. During the investigation, Father admitted to drinking, hitting Mother, and

hiding Mother’s medication. The Children were removed on January 5, 2021, and TCJFS

received temporary custody on January 6, 2021.

      {¶16} Cantarero indicated the Children are doing well in foster care. They have

been in the same home since their removal. Cantarero described the Children as caring,
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                         7

respectful, and well-behaved. They are attached to their foster parents. The Children

are doing well in school. Although unhappy TCJFS requested permanent custody, the

Children had accepted the decision and recognized such was in their best interest. The

Children were acutely aware history would repeat itself.

      {¶17} Cantarero expressed concerns over the Children being returned to Father’s

care. Cantarero explained Mother’s mental health cannot be remedied, and, even with

medication, there are times when Mother is catatonic. Cantarero believed Mother would

never be able to care for the Children.

      {¶18} The GAL, Attorney Donovan Hill, testified he concurred with the concerns

raised by Dr. Thomas and Jennifer Fire. The GAL noted he was also the Guardian ad

Litem during the 2018 case. The concerns which resulted in the removal of the Children

in October, 2018, remained. Neither Mother nor Father had remedied those concerns.

The GAL believed it was in the best interest of the Children to grant permanent custody

to TCJFS.

      {¶19} Via Judgment Entry filed September 3, 2022, the trial court terminated

Mother and Father’s parental rights and granted permanent custody of the Children to

TCJFS. The trial court found Mother and Father “failed continually and repeatedly to

substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.” September 3, 2022 Judgment

Entry at 6-7, unpaginated. The trial court further found the Children could not and should

not be placed with either Mother or Father within a reasonable time and it was in the

Children's best interest to grant permanent custody to TCJFS.

      {¶20} It is from this judgment entry Father appeals.
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                        8

       {¶21} In Tuscarawas App. Nos. 2022 AP 09 0036 and 2022 AP 09 0037, Father

raises the following identical assignments of error:

              I. THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT CHILD COULD NOT BE

       PLACED WITH APPELLANT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WAS

       AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

              II. THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT TUSCARAWAS COUNTY

       JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES USED REASONABLE EFFORTS TO

       PREVENT REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM THE HOME WAS AGAINST THE

       MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

              III. THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT THE BEST INTERESTS

       OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY A GRANT OF

       PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND

       SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶22} These cases come to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered

in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

                               TUSC. APP. NO. 2022 AP 09 0036

                                               I, III

                               TUSC. APP. NO. 2022 AP 09 0037

                                               I, III

       {¶23} We elect to address Father’s first and third assignments of error together.
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                             9

        {¶24} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the

credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent

and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v.

Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA5758. Accordingly, judgments supported by

some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not

be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v.

Foley Constr. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279.

        {¶25} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when

deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court

schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody

of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has

temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long term foster care.

        {¶26} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to

grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court

determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant

permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not

abandoned or orphaned, 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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or

more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or

more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,

1999.
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                        10

       {¶27} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial

court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial

court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d)is present before proceeding to a determination regarding

the best interest of the child.

       {¶28} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the

child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not

be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all

relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter

such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the

factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the

child's parents.

       {¶29} As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there

was sufficient and substantial competent evidence Father failed to remedy the problems

which initially caused the removal of the Children from his home. Father was diagnosed

with alcohol dependency, intellectual disabilities, and attachment difficulties. Father

stopped attending counseling and, although he inquired about re-engaging, he failed to

follow through with the necessary intake appointment. Despite a diagnosis of alcohol

dependency, Father admitted to drinking throughout the pendency of the case. Father

becomes violent when he drinks.         Father did not complete SUD treatment and

recommendations. Father did not commence anger management treatment due to his

failure to complete SUD treatment. The two main areas of concern regarding Father were

substance abuse and anger management, which Father never addressed.
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                          11

       {¶30} The Children are doing well in foster care. They have been in the same

home since their removal. The Children are described as caring, respectful, and well-

behaved. They are attached to their foster parents. The Children are doing well in school.

The Children were acutely aware history would repeat itself if they are returned to Mother.

       {¶31} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding the Children could

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

him is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We further find the trial court's

finding it was in the Children's best interests to grant permanent custody to TCJFS is not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶32} Father's first and third assignments of error are overruled.

                               TUSC. APP. NO. 2022 AP 09 0036

                                                II

                               TUSC. APP. NO. 2022 AP 09 0037

                                                II

       {¶33} In his second assignment of errors, Father asserts the trial court’s finding

TCJFS used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the Children from the home was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Father submits the trial court’s

finding TCJFS made reasonable efforts was erroneous as TCJFS failed to include

developmental disability services as part of Father’s case plan.

       {¶34} The Ohio Revised Code imposes a duty on the part of children services

agencies to make reasonable efforts to reunite parents with their children where the

agency has removed the children from the home. R.C. 2151.419. “Case plans are the

tools that child protective service agencies use to facilitate the reunification of families
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                           12

who * * * have been temporarily separated.” In re Evans, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-01-75, 2001

WL 1333979, *3, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4809 (Oct. 30, 2001). To that end, case plans

establish individualized concerns and goals, along with the steps that the parties and the

agency can take to achieve reunification. Id.

       {¶35} “ ‘Reasonable efforts means that a children's services agency must act

diligently and provide services appropriate to the family's need to prevent the child's

removal or as a predicate to reunification.’ ” In re H.M.K., 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos. 16-12-

15 and Wyandot Nos. 16-12-16, 2013-Ohio-4317, ¶ 95, quoting In re D.A., 6th Dist. Lucas

No. L-11-1197, 2012-Ohio-1104, ¶ 30. “In determining whether the agency made

reasonable efforts [pursuant to R.C. 2151.419(A)(1)] to prevent the removal of the child

from the home, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but whether

it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under the statute.” In re Lewis, 4th

Dist. No. 03CA12, 2003-Ohio-5262, at ¶ 16. “ ‘Reasonable efforts’ does not mean all

available efforts.” Id. A “reasonable effort” is “* * * an honest, purposeful effort, free of

malice and the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver,

79 Ohio App.3d 59, 63, 606 N.E.2d 1011 (12th Dist. 1992).

       {¶36} As stated, supra, the issue is not whether there was anything more the

agency could have done, but whether the agency's case planning and efforts were

reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. We find TCJFS's case

planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of this case.

The issues which caused the removal of the Children from the home included Father’s

alcohol abuse and domestic violence between Parents. Father’s case plan focused on

those issues. Further, because Dr. Thomas did not recommend any developmental
 Tuscarawas County, Case Nos. 2022 AP 10 0036 & 2022 AP 10 0037                       13

disability services for Father, we can infer she did not believe such services were

necessary.

       {¶37} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in concluding TCJFS made

reasonable efforts to reunite Father with the Children. We further find no plain error in

TCJFS's failure to provide Father with developmental disability services.

       {¶38} Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶39} The judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile

Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur