Court Opinion

ID: 9942337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 20:11:25.334012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.306325
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.S., 2024-Ohio-509.]

                                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                         CLERMONT COUNTY

 IN RE:                                           :

          B.S.                                    :      CASE NO. CA2023-11-073

                                                  :              OPINION
                                                                  2/12/2024
                                                  :

                                                  :

                                                  :

          APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                           JUVENILE DIVISION
                           Case No. 2021JC5435

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas A. Horton,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        BYRNE, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant ("Mother"), the mother of minor child B.S. ("Beth"), appeals the

decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting

permanent custody of the child to the Clermont County Department of Job and Family
                                                                           Clermont CA2023-11-073

Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's

decision.

                            I. Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶ 2} Beth was born to Mother in May 2012. In 2021, Beth resided with Mother

and Mother's live-in boyfriend, Harold Suddarth, in an RV, moving from campsite to

campsite. On October 12, 2021, based on a report that Beth had been subjected to

sexual abuse by Suddarth, the Clermont County Prosecutor's Office filed a complaint in

the juvenile court alleging that Beth was an abused child and requesting pre-dispositional

temporary custody be granted to the Agency. A hearing was held the same day and the

juvenile court found that there was probable cause to believe Beth was abused, found

that removal was necessary for Beth's protection, and granted pre-dispositional

temporary custody to the Agency. On November 10, 2021, Beth was adjudicated as

neglected and dependent, and on November 30, 2021, the juvenile court awarded

temporary custody of Beth to the Agency.

        {¶ 3} Of great concern to the Agency, Mother chose to continue living with

Suddarth despite the sexual abuse allegations against him, and even after Beth was

removed from her custody because of those allegations. After Suddarth was arrested

several months later, Mother still remained in contact with him at the Clermont County

Jail.

        {¶ 4} On November 3, 2021, the Agency filed a case plan for Mother with the goal

of reunification. The plan was updated multiple times with the last changes approved on

December 15, 2022. The case plan required Mother to: (1) maintain stable housing and

income; (2) undergo a mental health assessment and treatment; (3) cooperate with the

1. "Beth" is a pseudonym adopted in this opinion for purposes of privacy and readability. In re D.P., 12th
Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2022-08-043 and CA2022-08-044, 2022-Ohio-4553, ¶ 1, fn. 1.
                                                    -2-
                                                                Clermont CA2023-11-073

Agency while Beth was in foster care; (4) understand Beth's mental and physical health

needs and follow all recommendations made by Beth's medical providers; and (5)

complete parenting education.

      {¶ 5} On March 15, 2022, a child support order was issued in Clermont County.

Beth's father ("Father") last visited Beth on March 17, 2022, made no child support

payments, and has effectively abandoned her. Mother has been largely compliant in

paying child support and has been able to maintain suitable employment and housing.

      {¶ 6} Pursuant to the case plan, Mother was engaged with LifeStance Mental

Health for virtual therapy sessions.    However, Mother had problems discussing her

trauma with her therapists, did not take her medication as prescribed, and missed

appointments, leading to Mother being terminated from LifeStance's program.           The

Agency then requested a full psychological evaluation, which Mother completed in

October 2022. This full evaluation revealed a number of significant diagnoses including

schizophrenia, borderline intellectual functioning, borderline personality disorder, and

unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorders.       A referral was made for more

intensive treatment in November of 2022, but Mother did not pursue further treatment for

three months, until she finally began her first assessment at Greater Cincinnati Behavioral

Health on January 30, 2023.

      {¶ 7} Although Mother began engaging more with her therapy around that time,

she made minimal progress. Since 2012, Mother has had a history of reporting false

pregnancies, suicidal ideations with plans, hearing voices telling her to harm herself or

others, and beliefs that people were watching her, all of which continued through the

pendency of this case. Mother went so far as to carry around ultrasound pictures that

she had printed from the internet to convince Beth and others that she was pregnant,

when she was not. Mother also devised a plan to buy a gun from a friend, go up on a

                                             -3-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-11-073

mountain, and kill herself if Beth was taken away. Mother was referred for joint therapy

with Beth in order to help Beth heal from her sexual assault, but due to delays in Mother's

progress, joint therapy had not yet begun at the time of the permanent custody hearing

on May 17, 2023.

       {¶ 8} Beth was placed in several different foster families until she was finally

placed with her current foster family on July 30, 2022. Beth's current foster mother

("Foster Mother") testified that Beth came into her home desiring to be "in charge and tell

everybody what to do," but Foster Mother has been working to redirect Beth to understand

that adults are (supposed to be) authority figures in the household.

       {¶ 9} When Beth was still living with Mother and Suddarth, they moved between

various R.V. parks and did not have a consistent community of friends and neighbors.

Despite Mother's own lack of education, Mother chose to homeschool Beth. Beth is far

behind in both her educational and social development, and has difficulty playing and

relating with other children her own age. During Mother's supervised visits with Beth, it

was apparent through their interactions that Beth had assumed a parenting role over

Mother. Beth would often try to comfort her Mother, put Mother's needs before her own,

and would answer provider questions for her Mother. When Mother (falsely) told Beth

she was pregnant, Beth was concerned with how Mother would be able to take care of

another child. As Foster Mother observed, Beth had undergone a "parentification" in her

relationship with Mother.

       {¶ 10} Foster Mother also recognized that Beth has difficulty in school and is

performing below her grade level. Beth now has an individual education plan at school

and has extra time to finish her assignments. Foster Mother is also in touch with Beth's

teachers at least once, and often twice, each week. Beth's foster placement has been

beneficial for her socialization as well as for providing for her educational needs.

                                             -4-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-11-073

       {¶ 11} Beth not only requires counseling due to the sexual abuse she suffered, but

also has a variety of physical and developmental issues that require attention. Notably,

Beth suffers from Townes-Brocks Syndrome and requires therapy to address symptoms

such as hearing loss, vision issues, lack of coordination, and short bones. Prior to coming

into foster care, Beth was not provided with any medical intervention for her condition,

despite the fact that Mother knew of Beth's Townes-Brocks diagnosis when she was born.

As a result, Beth has severe problems with flexibility in her ankles, causing her to walk

only on the tips of her toes. While in foster care, Beth's caregivers finally pursued

appropriate medical treatment, obtaining prescription leg braces, new glasses, and

hearing aids for Beth.

       {¶ 12} Under the case plan, Mother was required to engage personally in medical

appointments for Beth in order to gain a greater understanding of Beth's needs. Beth has

six to ten medical appointments per month, including nephrology, physical therapy, and

mental health therapy. The Agency's caseworker, Shyla Jump, kept Mother apprised of

the dates and times for all of Beth's appointments and encouraged Mother to attend.

However, since receiving the case plan, Mother only attended three or four appointments

and did not reach out to any of Beth's caregivers to keep abreast of Beth's progress.

Foster Mother testified that at those few appointments Mother did attend, Mother was not

aware of the medical care being provided to Beth, could not answer questions from the

medical care provider, and did not ask any questions herself.

       {¶ 13} Parenting education could not be addressed with Mother until she started

making progress on the mental health aspect of her case plan. As a result, Mother did

not start classes with Child Focus until March of 2023.         Mother did not make any

significant progress with regard to parenting skills by the time of the permanent custody

hearing.

                                             -5-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-11-073

       {¶ 14} The juvenile court granted a first extension of temporary custody on

September 12, 2022, and a second extension on March 28, 2023. The Agency filed for

permanent custody on February 10, 2023 and a permanent custody hearing was held on

May 17, 2023. On October 19, 2023, the juvenile court granted the Agency's motion for

permanent custody. Mother appealed the juvenile court's permanent custody decision on

November 3, 2023.

                                    II. Legal Analysis

       {¶ 15} Mother's sole assignment of error states:

              THE JUVENILE COURT'S DECISION TERMINATING
              [MOTHER'S] PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS AGAINST THE
              WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

       {¶ 16} On appeal, Mother argues that the juvenile court's decision granting

permanent custody of Beth to the Agency was against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Specifically, Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in its analysis when it

held that terminating her parental rights was in Beth's best interest. Mother argues: (1)

the juvenile court failed to properly consider the interaction and interrelationship between

her and Beth, as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a); (2) the juvenile court failed to

properly consider Beth's wishes, as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b); and (3) when

considering Beth's need for legally secure placement, the juvenile court should have given

more weight to the progress Mother made with respect to her mental health treatment

and her ability to maintain stable housing and income.

                     A. Applicable Law and Standards of Review

       {¶ 17} "Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the

care and custody of [her] child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been

met." In re M.G., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2022-11-010, 2023-Ohio-1316, ¶ 44; R.C.

                                             -6-
                                                                  Clermont CA2023-11-073

2151.414(E). Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the 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 K.P., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2021-11-016,

2022-Ohio-1347, ¶ 17. First, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides that the juvenile court must

find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the "best interest" of the child.

In re M.H., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2021-08-047 thru CA2021-08-049, 2022-Ohio-

48, ¶ 35. Second, the juvenile court must find that one of the circumstances set forth in

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e) apply. In re R.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2022-01-003

and CA2022-01-004, 2022-Ohio-1705, ¶ 31. Those circumstances include, but are not

limited to: (1) the child is abandoned, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b); (2) the child is orphaned,

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(c); (3) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more

public children services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month

period, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); and (4) none of the previous three circumstances applies,

and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time

or should not be placed with the parents, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Only one of these

circumstances need apply to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody

test. In re C.S., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2020-04-006, 2020-Ohio-4414, ¶ 16.

       {¶ 18} "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 A.S., 12th Dist. Butler Nos.

CA2019-05-071 thru CA2019-05-073, 2019-Ohio-4127, ¶ 19. However, "[e]ven if there

is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision, an appellate court may

nevertheless reverse a permanent custody judgment if it finds the judgment to be against

the manifest weight of the evidence." In re G.A., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-11-

079, 2023-Ohio-643, ¶ 18, citing In re F.S., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and

                                              -7-
                                                                  Clermont CA2023-11-073

CA2020-08-012, 2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 61.             In determining whether a juvenile court's

judgment 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. The presumption

in weighing the evidence favors the finder of fact, which we are especially mindful of in

custody cases. In re R.K., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2021-03-027 and CA2021-03-028,

2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 15.       Therefore, if the evidence is susceptible to more than one

construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it the interpretation that is consistent

with the verdict and judgment. In re D.S., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2021-10-030 and

CA2021-10-031, 2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 63.

        B. First Part of the Permanent Custody Test: Best Interest Analysis

       {¶ 19} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that in considering the best interest of a child

in a permanent custody hearing, a juvenile court must 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 or private child placing agencies
              for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month

                                                -8-
                                                                   Clermont CA2023-11-073

               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.

        {¶ 20} A juvenile court may also consider any other factors it deems relevant to the

child's best interest. In re A.J., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-08-063, 2019-Ohio-593,

¶ 24.

        {¶ 21} Here, the juvenile court carefully considered each of the best interest factors

set out in R.C. 2151.414(D) and found that it was in Beth's best interest to grant

permanent custody to the Agency. We agree with the juvenile court.

        {¶ 22} As to the first best interest factor—that is, the interaction and

interrelationship of the child with her parents, foster caregivers, and others, R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(a)—the evidence demonstrates that Mother and Beth have a close bond,

albeit a very unhealthy one. "It is well established that permanent custody is not contrary

to a child's best interest simply because a parent loves their child and the two share a

strong bond." In re G.A., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-11-079, 2023-Ohio-643, ¶ 27.

This is instead "one factor to be considered when determining the best interest of a child

in a permanent custody proceeding." In re G.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-003,

2019-Ohio-1586, ¶ 48. Mother argues that this factor weighs in her favor because Beth

regularly expresses concern for Mother, Mother's supervised visits with Beth have gone

well, and the guardian ad litem for Beth testified that visitation should continue even after

Beth's adoption because she and Mother have a strong connection. However, Beth's

interactions with Mother demonstrated a concerning role reversal where Beth would

assume a parenting role over Mother. Beth habitually attempted to answer questions on

                                               -9-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-11-073

Mother's behalf, and when Mother was falsely claiming to be pregnant, Beth expressed

concern for how Mother would be able to take care of another child. This "parentification"

has led Beth to try to assume an authority role in her foster home and to attempt to solve

everyone else's problems. The evidence suggests Mother's behavior facilitated this

improper role reversal.

       {¶ 23} As to Mother's role in her relationship with Beth, Mother has demonstrated

a serious lack of responsibility and awareness for Beth's needs and well-being. Mother

failed to recognize the sexual abuse Beth had suffered at the hands of Suddarth, and

even maintained contact with him after his arrest despite the Agency's instruction not to

do so. Although Mother was aware of Beth's Townes-Brocks diagnosis when she was

born, Mother failed to provide for Beth's medical needs, with Beth's "toe walking" left

entirely unaddressed until she was placed in foster care. When Beth came into the care

of the Agency, neither her hearing aids nor her glasses fit properly, and she needed both

replaced. Although Mother was encouraged to participate in Beth's medical appointments

while in foster care, Mother only attended three or four appointments and demonstrated

a lack of understanding and engagement. Mother did not ask any questions of the

medical staff and in turn could not answer their questions.

       {¶ 24} By contrast, in her foster placement Beth has received attentive medical

care, proper socialization, and increased attention in school. The juvenile court properly

found that the first best interest factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent

custody.

       {¶ 25} As to the second best interest factor—the wishes of the child, R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(b)—the juvenile court interviewed Beth in camera. Beth expressed that

she wished her mother could take care of her, but also realized and accepted that Mother

may not be capable of doing so, and therefore returning to her Mother's care may not be

                                             - 10 -
                                                                Clermont CA2023-11-073

possible. This factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

      {¶ 26} As to the third best interest factor—the custodial history of the child, R.C.

2151.414(D)(1)(c)—at the time the Agency filed its motion for permanent custody, Beth

had been in the Agency's custody for a period in excess of 12 out of 22 consecutive

months. This factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

      {¶ 27} As to the fourth best interest factor—the "child's need for a legally secure

permanent placement," R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)—the juvenile court recognized that

Mother has an extensive and ongoing history of mental health problems. Mother argues

that more weight should have been given to her ability to maintain stable housing and

income, as well as to the progress she did make in her mental health treatment. However,

the record indicates that Mother has been inconsistent at best in pursuing mental health

treatment. Mother's lack of progress in her own mental health treatment prevented her

from participating in joint therapy with Beth before the permanent custody hearing, and

prevented her from making significant progress in parent education classes under the

case plan. Mother's delusions, paranoia, and suicidal ideations indicate that she is not

suited to provide for Beth's own extensive healthcare and socialization needs. Children

with numerous special needs require an environment where their needs will be met on a

consistent basis. In re L.R., Ninth Dist. Summit Nos. 29266 and 29271, 2019-Ohio-2305,

¶ 52. Again, this factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

      {¶ 28} In a recent permanent custody decision, we stated:

             The credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their
             testimony are primarily matters for the finder of fact. In re
             R.B., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-03-032, 2023-Ohio-
             3145, ¶ 26. Where evidence is susceptible to more than one
             construction, we are required to give it the interpretation most
             favorable and consistent with the verdict and judgment. Id.
             Although Mother presented some favorable testimony at trial,
             we find that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that it
             was outweighed by other evidence of Mother's severe and

                                            - 11 -
                                                                           Clermont CA2023-11-073

                ongoing mental health problems and her inability to provide
                appropriate care to [her child]. Accordingly, the juvenile court
                did not err in finding the best interest factors weighed in favor
                of awarding permanent custody to the agency.

In re J.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2023-06-065, 2023-Ohio-4244, ¶ 25. All of these

statements apply equally here. The juvenile court did not fail to properly consider the

interaction and interrelationship between her and Beth, did not fail to properly consider

Beth's wishes, and did not give too little weight to the progress Mother made with respect

to her mental health treatment and her ability to maintain stable housing and income. We

conclude that the juvenile court did not err in finding the best interest factors weighed in

favor of awarding permanent custody to the Agency.

                       C. Second Part of the Permanent Custody Test

        {¶ 29} Mother on appeal does not challenge the juvenile court's finding under R.C.

2151.414(B)(1)(d) that Beth had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least

12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. Because Mother does not challenge this

"12 of 22" finding, we need not review the issue further.2 In re J.N.L.H., 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-Ohio-3865, ¶ 26.                     However, we note that the record

unquestionably establishes that the "12 of 22" finding was met in this case because Beth

was adjudicated dependent in November 2021, and Beth remained in the Agency's

custody through the date the agency filed for permanent custody, in February 2023.

                                            III. Conclusion

        {¶ 30} In light of the foregoing, we conclude the juvenile court did not err by

determining that it was in Beth's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency.

2. In her brief, Mother suggests that she could have made more progress on the case plan had the juvenile
court waited 22 months before granting permanent custody, but concedes that there is no statutory
requirement to do so. More precisely, there is no requirement that the Agency wait until a child has been
in its custody for 22 months before filing a motion for permanent custody. See In re N.M.P., 160 Ohio St.3d
472, 2020-Ohio-1458, ¶ 23. We note that in fact the juvenile court granted permanent custody to the
Agency over 24 months after Beth had been removed from Mother's custody.
                                                    - 12 -
                                                              Clermont CA2023-11-073

As such, we find the juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of Beth to the

Agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Mother's sole assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶ 31} Judgment affirmed.

      PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

                                           - 13 -