Court Opinion

ID: 9966246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 15:10:37.11349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:00.403948
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.G., 2024-Ohio-1731.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                        PREBLE COUNTY

 IN RE:                                            :

        B.G.                                       :          CASE NO. CA2024-01-001

                                                   :                   OPINION
                                                                        5/6/2024
                                                   :

                                                   :

                                                   :

             APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                             JUVENILE DIVISION
                              Case No. 20213109

David J. Fierst, for appellant.

Martin P. Votel, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean Brinkman, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        HENDRICKSON, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant ("Mother"), the mother of "Bridget," appeals the decision of the

Preble County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of

the child to Preble County Children Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons outlined

1. "Bridget" 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.
                                                                 Preble CA2024-01-001

below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.

                        I. Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶ 2} Bridget was born to Mother in 2015. Bridget's father is unknown. In 2021,

Bridget lived with Mother and Mother's boyfriend, Ron. In October of 2021, the Agency

received a referral and became involved with Bridget due to concerns of domestic

violence in the home. Mother was arrested for domestic violence and assault against

Ron, and Bridget was reported to have been accidentally struck by an object during the

altercation. Mother and Ron pursued restraining orders against each other, and the

Agency closed its case as it appeared the two were not going to have further contact with

one another. However, only a few weeks later, the Agency received reports that Mother

had moved back into Ron's home and Bridget was having problems with tardiness and

missing school. On October 28, 2021, Bridget was dropped off at a neighbor's house

after school and Mother could not be reached to pick her up. Bridget missed school the

following day.

       {¶ 3} On November 1, 2021, the Agency received another referral reporting that

there was another altercation between Mother and Ron where law enforcement was

called. On November 2, 2021, a pick-up order was requested and issued, and Bridget

was placed in the temporary custody of the Agency. On November 3, 2021, a complaint

was filed alleging that Bridget was a dependent child.       Further proceedings were

continued several times by agreement of the parties. On March 3, 2022, Mother admitted

that Bridget was a dependent child, and the juvenile court ordered that Bridget remain in

the temporary custody of the Agency.

       {¶ 4} In November 2021, the Agency prepared a case plan with the goal of

reunification, and on January 6, 2022, the juvenile court approved the case plan. The

case plan required Mother to participate in case management services through the

                                           -2-
                                                                            Preble CA2024-01-001

Agency, to complete a parenting class, complete a domestic violence assessment and

follow the recommendations of the provider, and to complete a full psychological

evaluation and follow the recommendations of the provider. On October 17, 2022, an

amended case plan was approved with the same requirements for Mother.2

        {¶ 5} On October 10, 2022, the Agency filed a motion for permanent custody. On

January 17, 2023, the CASA filed a report supporting permanent custody. The juvenile

court held a permanent custody hearing on January 19, 2023 and March 7, 2023. No

transcripts of these hearings were filed in the present appeal. On April 12, 2023, the

juvenile court denied the Agency's motion for permanent custody and ordered that Bridget

remain in the temporary custody of the Agency. In that decision, the juvenile court found

that, except for finishing the parenting class, Mother had made little progress in

completing the objectives of her case plan. However, the particular domestic violence

program that was originally specified in the case plan had ceased to be offered by the

provider at some point after the case plan was put into place. Therefore, the juvenile

court decided that Mother would be provided additional time to complete a different

domestic violence assessment along with the other case plan objectives.

        {¶ 6} Mother failed to make further progress on her case plan, and on May 5,

2023, the Agency filed a second motion for permanent custody. On September 13, 2023,

the CASA again filed a report supporting permanent custody. The CASA reported that

Bridget was doing well in foster placement, and that she had come a long way medically,

academically, and socially. When the CASA asked Bridget what her favorite thing about

her foster mother was, Bridget said "I get to eat dinner every night, like every night."

        {¶ 7} On September 15, 2023 a permanent custody hearing was held. Mother's

2. The amended case plan removed the person previously believed to be Bridget's father after DNA testing
revealed he was not her father.

                                                 -3-
                                                                  Preble CA2024-01-001

counsel requested that the testimony presented at the prior permanent custody hearing

be considered in addition to the new evidence presented, and the juvenile court granted

the request. At the hearing, the juvenile court heard testimony from Bridget's foster

mother; the Agency caseworker; and Mother.

         {¶ 8} The foster mother testified that since the previous custody hearing, there

had been one concerning phone call between Mother and Bridget in which Mother

sounded erratic and repeatedly asked Bridget whether she had begun school, despite

Bridget already answering yes and becoming very frustrated. The foster mother also

testified that she and her husband were interested in adopting Bridget, but were not sure

if they would be able to because her husband's career may require them to move out of

state.

         {¶ 9} The caseworker testified that Mother still had not completed any domestic

violence assessment, despite the Agency providing a referral for an individual

assessment with a provider, Family Services, in Dayton, Ohio. Further, the Agency was

concerned that Mother continued to live with Ron, despite their previous history of

domestic violence and Mother's failure to complete the domestic violence assessment.

The caseworker also testified that the Agency developed concerns that Mother was

abusing drugs and alcohol, that Mother continually tested positive for THC without any

prescription, and that Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on one occasion.

Although it was not specifically part of the case plan, Mother pursued drug and alcohol

treatment and mental health treatment. However, the caseworker testified that Mother

did not sign any releases of information for these treatments, so the Agency was unable

to track progress. Ultimately, Mother failed to complete either program. The caseworker

testified that Mother's positive drug screens and lack of progress on the case plan

precluded her from increasing the frequency of scheduled visits with Bridget. Bridget

                                           -4-
                                                                    Preble CA2024-01-001

reported that she really likes living in the foster home, wants to stay there, and only wants

to visit her Mother on holidays.

       {¶ 10} Mother testified that she stopped attending drug and alcohol treatment due

to problems with insurance. Mother explained that she was continuing her mental health

treatment, but her attendance had fallen off due to her work schedule. Mother stated that

she believed this therapy was the same as a psychological evaluation for purposes of the

case plan, and that she thought she had signed releases of information. In her testimony,

Mother claimed that she received a prescription for THC in Maine for a rare form of cancer

but admitted that she never produced any documentation to that effect. Mother also

testified that she had a strong bond with Bridget. Finally, Mother testified that the Agency

did not provide her with a new referral for a domestic violence assessment prior to filing

the second motion for permanent custody.

       {¶ 11} On January 16, 2024, the juvenile court granted permanent custody of

Bridget to the Agency. On January 19, 2024, Mother appealed the juvenile court's

permanent custody decision.

                                    II. Legal Analysis

       {¶ 12} Mother raises the following two assignments of error for our review:

       {¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 1:

              THE DECISION AWARDING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
              B.G. TO THE PREBLE COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
              SERVICES, CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION WAS
              AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 14} Assignment of Error No. 2:

              THE CASA REPORT IN THE CASE BELOW WAS
              DEFICIENT.

       {¶ 15} For ease of discussion, we address these assignments of error together.

       {¶ 16} Mother argues that the juvenile court's decision was against the manifest

                                            -5-
                                                                     Preble CA2024-01-001

weight of the evidence for the following reasons: (1) the court placed too much weight on

Mother's failure to complete a psychological evaluation and impermissibly relied on its

own speculation that Mother's positive drug tests prevented her from completing a

psychological evaluation; (2) it is implied that Mother must have completed a

psychological evaluation, as she was able to participate in mental health treatment, and

completion of a psychological evaluation should have been a prerequisite; (3) the court

did not delineate what Mother had failed to do since the Agency's first motion for

permanent custody, which was denied; and (4) The CASA report was deficient because

it did not address potential problems with the foster family's ability to adopt Bridget, and

it did not establish Bridget's level of maturity. We disagree.

                      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.

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. Preble 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,

                                            -6-
                                                                     Preble CA2024-01-001

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. Preble 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

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,

                                            -7-
                                                                     Preble CA2024-01-001

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
              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. "Noncompliance with a case plan is a consideration for the termination of parental

rights." In re S.S., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2023-04-020, 2023-Ohio-2916, ¶ 20.

       {¶ 21} Contrary to Mother's arguments, the court did not place too much weight on

Mother's failure to complete the psychological evaluation, nor did it improperly speculate

                                                -8-
                                                                    Preble CA2024-01-001

on the impact of her drug tests on her ability to complete a psychological evaluation.

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 Bridget'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 Bridget have a bond,

however there are problems in their relationship. Mother has demonstrated a lack of

commitment to Bridget as evidenced by her decision to continue living with Ron—despite

their history of domestic violence triggering Bridget's removal from the home, and

Mother's lack of progress on her case plan—having failed to complete the domestic

violence assessment, the psychological evaluation, mental health treatment, and drug

and alcohol treatment.     Further, Mother frequently rescheduled calls and visits with

Bridget and has been unable to increase the frequency of scheduled visits due to positive

drug tests and her lack of progress on the case plan. Bridget enjoyed visits and calls with

her Mother so long as Mother was attentive but became frustrated when Mother behaved

erratically or asked questions repetitively.

       {¶ 23} By contrast, in her foster placement Bridget has received attentive medical

care (receiving up to date vaccinations), improved in school, and improved her social

skills. Of note was Bridget's comment to the CASA that her favorite part about living in

her foster home is that "I get to eat every night, like every night." The first best interest

factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

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

2151.414(D)(1)(b)—Bridget told the Agency's caseworker that she would like to continue

living with her foster family and just see her Mother on holidays. The CASA's report also

                                               -9-
                                                                  Preble CA2024-01-001

supported that Bridget wished to remain with her foster family. On appeal, Mother argues

that the report from the CASA was inadequate, as it failed to establish Bridget's level of

maturity and did not address how removal from the foster home might affect Bridget.

Instead, Mother suggests that additional testimony from a mental health professional was

necessary. Nevertheless, there was no requirement for the CASA to address these

issues in her report and no requirement for additional testimony. The juvenile court was

able to weigh the CASA's report along with the other evidence. The second best interest

factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

      {¶ 25} 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 second motion for permanent custody

in May 2023, Bridget 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.

      {¶ 26} 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 ongoing drug problem, having continually tested positive for THC and

positive for methamphetamine on one occasion. The juvenile court further recognized

that Mother has failed to properly address her previous history of domestic violence by

not completing the domestic violence assessment as mandated by the case plan, and by

continuing to live with Ron. Further, Mother has failed to properly address her mental

health, having failed to complete the psychological evaluation mandated by the case plan

and consistently attend mental health therapy.

      {¶ 27} On appeal, Mother argues that because there is no transcript from the first

permanent custody hearing, it is unclear that she actually failed to complete the

psychological evaluation. She further argues that the fact she completed some mental

                                          - 10 -
                                                                   Preble CA2024-01-001

health treatment implies that she did in fact complete her psychological evaluation.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the record to support this inference.        "Since the

appealing party bears the burden of showing error in the underlying proceeding by

reference to matters in the record, the appellant has a duty to provide a transcript for

appellate review." State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-Ohio-08-060, 2013-

Ohio-1387, ¶ 18; see App.R. 9(B); see also App. R. 16(A)(7). "Where portions of the

transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the

reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus has no choice but to presume the

regularity or validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm." Knapp v. Edwards

Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). Thus we presume regularity in the first

permanent custody hearing. In the second permanent custody hearing, the caseworker

testified that she discussed the need to have a psychological evaluation with Mother, and

Mother indicated to her that she had not pursued one. Further, Mother never provided

any documentation that she had completed such an evaluation. The juvenile court

properly found that Mother had failed to complete her psychological evaluation. Again,

this factor weighed in favor of the Agency receiving permanent custody.

       {¶ 28} Finally, Mother generally argues that it is not clear what the trial court

expected Mother to address between the denial of the Agency's first motion for permanent

custody and its second motion, and the fact that the first motion was denied should weigh

in her favor. The juvenile court's entry on April 12, 2023 made it clear that Mother was

deficient in completing all of the case plan objectives except for the parenting class, but

granted her more time because of problems in scheduling the domestic violence

assessment.    The court stressed that Mother needed to accomplish the case plan

objectives and emphasized completing the domestic violence assessment; however, by

the time of the second permanent custody hearing, Mother had not complied.

                                          - 11 -
                                                                   Preble CA2024-01-001

                   C. Second Part of the Permanent Custody Test

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

2151.414(B)(1)(d) that Bridget had been in the temporary custody of CCDJFS 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. In re J.N.L.H., 12th Dist. Preble

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

Bridget was adjudicated dependent in March 2022, and remained in the Agency's custody

through the filing of the Agency's second motion for permanent custody in May 2023.

                                     III. Conclusion

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

determining that it was in Bridget's best interest to grant permanent custody to the

Agency. As such, we find the juvenile court's decision was supported by clear and

convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother's

two assignments of error are overruled.

      {¶ 31} Judgment affirmed.

      S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

                                          - 12 -