In re Ar.C.
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 20CA3722,CASE NO. 20CA3720,CASE NO. 20CA3721 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 596 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: Ar.C., Ad.C., and Au.C., Adjudicated Dependent Children. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
Michael A. Davis, Waverly, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer L. Ater, Assistant Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.
CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, judgment that granted South Central Ohio Job and Family Services Division, Children's Division, appellee herein, permanent custody of six-year-old Ar.C., four-year-old Ad.C., and three-year-old Au.C. K.C., the children's biological mother and appellant herein, raises the following assignment of error for review:
1
{¶ 2} On June 22, 2017, appellee filed complaints that alleged the three children are dependent children and requested temporary custody. The statement of facts attached to the complaints alleged that on June 8, 2017, appellant gave birth to Au.C. and that appellant had a positive drug screen for marijuana. Additionally, the newborn tested positive for oxycodone and marijuana.
{¶ 3} On June 29, 2017, appellee asked the court to place the children in the paternal grandmother's temporary custody. The next day, the trial court granted the paternal grandmother temporary custody.
{¶ 4} The trial court later adjudicated the children dependent and continued appellee's temporary custody, but the children continued to reside with the paternal grandmother.2 On March 5, 2018, the court entered a dispositional order that placed the children in appellee's temporary custody.
{¶ 5} Appellee soon developed case plans that appellant would need to undertake to eliminate the various dangers to the children: (1) complete a mental health evaluation; (2) review information available on The National Domestic Violence Hotline website and implement the techniques; (3) complete parenting classes and follow recommendations; (4) provide a stable home environment free of violence, drug use, or drug activity; (5) submit to random drugscreens; (6) refrain from criminal or violent activities; (7) comply with any pending case or probation; (8) refrain from illegal substance abuse; (9) submit to an alcohol and drug assessment; (10) regularly attend visitation with the children; and (11) complete an assessment with Integrated Services.
{¶ 6} Subsequently, appellee requested permanent custody of the children and asserted that the children have been in its temporary custody for more than twelve months out of a consecutive twenty-two month period. Appellee also claimed that appellant had not completed any case plan goals and the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with her. Appellee additionally argued that placing the children in its temporary custody would be in their best interests.
{¶ 7} On January 30 and June 22, 2020, the trial court held a hearing to consider appellee's permanent custody motions. Dr. Bryan Bethel, Ar.C.'s counselor, testified that he diagnosed Ar.C. with "adjustment disorder with anxiety * * * and a rule-out of post-traumatic stress disorder." Dr. Bethel stated that a "rule-out" diagnosis means that "an individual * * * is exhibiting diagnostic criterion consistent with a particular disorder" but that insufficient information exists to either rule it in or rule it out. Dr. Bethel explained that Ar.C.'s current treatment involves out-patient counseling to increase adaptive coping strategies, to promote emotional regulation, and to assist with transition to foster care.
{¶ 8} Dr. Bethel indicated that the child also receives "trauma-based intervention due to aversive experiences." The doctor stated that Ar.C. "reported exposure to intimate partner violence or domestic violence at a young age." Dr. Bethel testified that continuing counseling with Ar.C. is "paramount." The foster mother has been bringing Ar.C. to counseling sessions and that "it appears that [the child] has a very strong attachment to his foster mother." Dr. Bethel explained that the child had displayed "difficulty separating from [the] foster mother" and that the foster mother reported that the child had "significant anxiety responses at the child's school when she separated."
{¶ 9} Julie Piatt, Ad.C.'s counselor, testified that she diagnosed the child with post-traumatic stress disorder. The child has behavioral issues such as hitting, throwing, being harmful to pets, and otherwise being physically aggressive. The child also informed Piatt that appellant used to hit the child and showed the child her "private parts." Piatt explained that "trauma treatment" would be beneficial for the child, but that at present, Piatt simply is working to stabilize the child's behaviors and to help the child learn to regulate her emotions. Piatt stated that the child's visits with the appellant cause distress and that the child stated that she does not want to visit appellant. Piatt related that, until the child's visits with appellant stop, Piatt cannot progress beyond stabilizing the child.
{¶ 10} The trial court continued the hearing to June 22, 2020. At the hearing, the foster mother testified that Ar.C. was placed in her home in August 2019, and that Au.C. was placed in the home in February 2020. The foster mother further stated that the children have not visited appellant since COVID restrictions took effect. The foster mother related that the children are bonded with her and that she is willing to adopt the children.
{¶ 11} Caseworker Crystal Puckett testified that initially the agency removed the children from appellant's custody due to concerns about drugs. She stated that Au.C. tested positive for opiates at birth. Puckett explained that appellee's case plan required appellant to obtain stable housing, to receive alcohol and drug counseling, to take parenting classes, to take drug screens, and to visit the children. Puckett stated that although appellant's housing appeared "fine," appellant did not engage in any alcohol and drug treatment programs. Puckett testified that appellant failed to remedy the concerns that led appellee to remove the children from her care and that the children should not be placed with appellant.
{¶ 12} Caseworker Pam Lowery stated that she started to work with the family in May 2019. At the time, appellant's visits with the children had occurred at Integrated Services, but in September 2019 Integrated Services terminated visits because appellant "had too many no calls[,] no shows and was late too many times."
{¶ 13} Lowery testified that after Integrated Services terminated the visitations, Lowery attempted to contact appellant, but she had difficulty reaching appellant. Lowery eventually made contact with appellant and arranged for weekly visits starting in November 2019 and appellant consistently visited the children between November 2019 and early March 2020, but was late a couple of times. Lowery indicated that appellant's visits ended in March 2020, following appellant's arrest, when appellant spent sixty days in jail and did not visit the children during that time. Lowery stated that on May 18, 2020, appellant notified Lowery that appellant had been released from jail and asked Lowery "what [appellant] needed to do." Lowery explained that she had trouble reaching appellant, but they spoke on May 27, 2020 and discussed a visitation via Zoom. Lowery asked appellant to download Zoom to appellant's phone and then contact Lowery once appellant had set up her Zoom account, but appellant did not respond to Lowery. Thus, Lowery was unable to arrange additional visits.
{¶ 14} Caseworker Lowery also explained that appellant had been engaged at services with Prism, but the services ended when appellant went to jail. Later, appellant was discharged from Prism for noncompliance. Lowery indicated that appellant previously attempted to engage in Prism services during January 2018, but that she also was terminated for noncompliance. Between October 2019 and March 2020, Lowery asked appellant to complete approximately thirteen random drug screens, with five positive for illegal substances: cocaine, heroin, fetanyl, and marijuana. Lowery explained that she has since been to appellant's home at least five times and called appellant numerous times, but has been unsuccessful in contacting appellant. Lowery also related that in June 2020, appellant promised to call Lowery, but appellant did not call.
{¶ 15} Caseworker Lowery testified that, although appellant attempted to complete portions of the case plan goals, she did not complete all of the goals necessary to allow the children to safely return to her custody. Lowery indicated that appellant had three years to fulfill the case plan goals, but had not successfully completed alcohol and drug treatment or successfully engaged in mental health counseling. Appellant did not begin to show any interest with the case plan until October 2019, more than two years after the dependency complaints. Lowery also testified that the children are doing well in their current placements. Ad.C is placed in a therapeutic foster home and the other two children live in the same foster home. Lowery stated that the children need permanency and that appellant has not remedied the conditions that led to the children's removal.
{¶ 16} On June 25, 2020, the trial court (1) awarded appellee permanent custody of the three children; (2) found that the children cannot be placed with either parent or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial