In re C.E.
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 4125 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 19CA10 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: C.E., Adjudicated Dependent Child. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION & JUDGMENT ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
K. Robert Toy, Athens, Ohio, for Appellant.
Keller J. Blackburn, Athens County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy L. Warren, Athens County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Athens, Ohio, for Appellee.
CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION
{¶ 1} This is a an appeal from an Athens County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, judgment that granted Athens County Children Services, appellee herein, permanent custody of four-year-old C.E. The child's biological mother, appellant herein, assigns the following errors for review:
{¶ 2} On May 9, 2017, appellee filed a complaint that alleged the child is neglected and dependent. The complaint averred, in part, that (1) appellant had been in a substance abuse program for approximately five years; (2) appellant no longer is involved in the substance abuse program due to failed drug screens; (3) appellant recently used heroin and cocaine; (4) one of appellant's other children, J.H., missed fifty days of school and is failing every grade; (5) appellant admitted that she stole merchandise from a grocery store; (6) appellant reported that she recently smoked marijuana while the children were at home; (7) appellant indicated that she is depressed and needs mental health services; and (8) appellant missed an endocrinology appointment for J.H., who has diabetes. Appellee therefore requested an order of protective supervision. On September 21, 2017, the court adjudicated the child dependent and dismissed the neglect allegation.
{¶ 3} Approximately one month later, appellee requested the court award it temporary custody of the child. Appellee alleged that since the adjudicatory hearing, appellee has had difficulty contacting appellant and, that when appellee has been able to drug test appellant, appellant consistently tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. The trial court subsequently placed the child in appellee's temporary custody.
{¶ 4} On October 18, 2018, appellee filed a motion to modify the disposition to permanent custody. Appellee asserted that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with either parent, and that placing the child in appellee's permanent custody is in the child's best interest. Appellee alleged that reunification efforts have not been successful due to appellant's failure to resolve her substance abuse and mental health issues. Appellee claimed that appellant (1) consistently tested positive for methamphetamine and did not engage in an appropriate drug treatment program, (2) did not consistently attend mental health counseling in order to manage her condition, and (3) was unable to maintain a stable residence that would be appropriate for the child.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2019, the trial court held a hearing to consider appellee's permanent custody motion. Cathye Williams, a drug and alcohol counselor at Integrated Services, testified that, in September 2017, Williams gave appellant an intake for substance abuse counseling services. Williams subsequently recommended that appellant continue to engage in counseling.
{¶ 6} Williams stated that, although appellant did not attend another counseling appointment until November 17, 2017, appellant did see other providers at the center on four other occasions during November. Williams explained that in addition to substance abuse counseling at Integrated Services, appellant also saw a caseworker and a psychiatric nurse.
{¶ 7} Williams stated that her next counseling session with appellant occurred on December 4, 2017. Williams reported that in January 2018, appellant attended weekly counseling sessions, but that appellant did not attend any appointments in February or March 2018. Williams testified that appellant attended a session on April 19, 2018, but she did not return for a counseling appointment again until July 12, 2018.
{¶ 8} Williams explained that after the July 12, 2018 appointment, appellant next attended a session on August 16, 2018. Appellant also attended an appointment the following week. Williams related that appellant additionally attended three September 2018 sessions, two October 2018 sessions, one November 2018 session, two December 2018 sessions, one January 2019 session, and three February 2019 sessions. Williams agreed that appellant did not consistently see Williams according to the recommended weekly schedule, but she nevertheless believes that appellant has made "good progress" over the last six months managing her sobriety.
{¶ 9} The foster mother testified that the child has lived in her home since October 27, 2017. The foster mother reported that the child "is generally doing pretty well." The foster mother stated that the child sometimes calls her by her first name and other times she calls her mom. The foster mother explained that the child has a few struggles and indicated that, when the child first entered her home, the child "had a lot of difficulty regulating emotion." She stated that the child "would get upset and scream and cry" and sometimes "would lash out by hitting or kicking, or sometimes even throwing things." The foster mother related that she and the child engaged in parent-child interaction therapy for approximately three months. The foster mother testified that she believes that the therapy has helped the child's behaviors improve. The foster mother further explained that the child continues to have struggles and that inconsistencies with visitations appear to aggravate the child's behaviors. The foster mother stated that when appellant consistently visits, the child appears "much better." The foster mother indicated that the child enjoys her visits with appellant.
{¶ 10} Caseworker Tamrin Vanderwalt testified that the case plan required appellant to obtain and maintain independent and stable housing and to address her substance abuse and mental health issues. Vanderwalt stated that she also spoke with appellant about the need to maintain consistent visitation with the child. Vanderwalt reported that in March 2018, she spoke with appellant about appellant's failure to visit the child for more than six weeks. Appellant explained that her life had become hectic and that she "had been going through a lot of personal issues."
{¶ 11} Caseworker Stephanie Boaine testified that she investigated several relative placements for the child, but none seemed appropriate.
{¶ 12} Appellant testified that when the child was removed, appellant had been living in New Marshfield. Appellant explained that shortly after the child's removal, she left the residence because her landlord suddenly passed away and the landlord's family wanted to sell the property. Appellant stated that she then moved to Albany and remained in the same residence until July 2018. Appellant reported that in July 2018, she was asked to leave the residence for non-payment of rent. Appellant indicated that she next went to West Virginia, where she stayed in a hotel efficiency for about three months. After she left West Virginia, appellant moved to Ashland, Kentucky. There, she again lived in an efficiency for a few months. Appellant explained that she now lives in Hazard, Kentucky with her boyfriend.
{¶ 13} Appellant admitted that she struggles with both substance abuse and mental health issues. Appellant reported that she has been diagnosed with borderline bipolar disorder, manic depression, and attention deficit disorder. Appellant also admitted that she used methamphetamine throughout the history of the case. She further explained that she continues to receive treatment and that "as long as [she is] with the right people, and the right doctors, and on the right meds," she can take care of the child "very well."
{¶ 14} Appellant also agreed that in the beginning of the case, she may have missed visits. She stated, however, that in the past six months, she has visited on a consistent basis unless either she or the child were sick.
{¶ 15} ACCS caseworker Mandi Knowlton testified that she has worked with the family since July 2018. Knowlton stated that she advised appellant of the need to attend visits consistently and to have clean drug screens. Knowlton indicated that the inconsistencies in visitations appeared to negatively affect the child's behavior. Knowlton reported that when visits were inconsistent, the child "had more tantrum behavior." Knowlton also explained that appellant discussed her past substance abuse issues with heroin and cocaine and that appellant believed that she had made significant progress to conquer her addiction. Knowlton stated that appellant reported that she used methamphetamine occasionally as a form of self-medication.
{¶ 16} Based upon all of the foregoing, Knowlton concluded that returning the child to appellant would not serve the child's best interest. Knowlton stated that appellant has not maintained consistent visitation and has not adequately resolved her substance abuse issues. Knowlton related that Knowlton would not feel secure that appellant could "safely parent" the child due to appellant's continued drug use.
{¶ 17} The child's guardian ad litem also testified and likewise recommended that the court grant appellee permanent custody of the child. The guardian ad litem explained that appellant's case-plan...
To continue reading
Request your trial