In re Ca.S.
| Decision Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21CA10,21CA9 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 3874 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: Ca.S., Adjudicated Dependent Child, AND C.S., Adjudicated Abused Child. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Autumn D. Adams, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.
Krystin N. Martin, Assistant Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney, Circleville, Ohio, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, the children's biological mother, C.M. ("Appellant"), appeals the trial court's judgments that (1) granted Pickaway County Job and Family Services ("the agency") permanent custody of C.S. and (2) granted legal custody of Ca.S. to the paternal grandparents. In each appeal, Appellant raises two assignments of error. In both appeals, Appellant first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to continue the hearing to consider the motions for permanent custody and for legal custody. We disagree with Appellant. Instead, the trial court could have reasonably determined that further delays would not be in the children's best interests and that a continuance was not necessary to secure fair treatment for Appellant.
{¶2} Next, Appellant contends that the trial court's decision to grant the agency permanent custody of C.S. is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant argues that clear and convincing evidence does not support the trial court's finding that granting the agency permanent custody of C.S. is in his best interest. Appellant additionally asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the paternal grandparents legal custody of Ca.S. Appellant contends that she complied with the case plan requirements and that returning the children to her custody is in their best interests.
{¶3} We do not agree with Appellant. Instead, our review of the record indicates that the trial court carefully considered all of the evidence presented at the final hearing and determined that the children's best interest would be served by placing C.S. in the agency's permanent custody and by placing Ca.S. in the grandparents' legal custody. We do not believe that the trial court's judgment granting the agency permanent custody of C.S. is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We further do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the paternal grandparents legal custody of Ca.S. Consequently, we overrule Appellants' assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶4} In November 2018, Appellant gave birth to C.S. C.S. tested positive for several illegal substances and spent a few weeks in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms.
{¶5} Before C.S.'s release from the hospital, the agency received a referral regarding the child. The agency learned that not only had the child tested positive for illegal substances at birth but also that Appellant admitted that she used drugs during her pregnancy. The agency later filed motions requesting the court to enter ex parte emergency custody orders placing C.S. and his two-and-one-half-year-old sibling, Ca.S., in their father's temporary custody with an order for Appellant to vacate the premises. The court granted the agency's motions.
{¶6} The agency also filed complaints alleging that C.S. is an abused child and that Ca.S. is a dependent child. The agency asked the court to place the children in their father's temporary custody and to grant the agency a protective supervision order.
{¶7} On December 18, 2018, the court held a pre-trial hearing. During the hearing, the agency asked both Appellant and the children's father to take a drug screen. Appellant tested positive for buprenorphine and the father tested positive for a heroin metabolite. The father left the hearing and did not return. The agency thus asked the court to place C.S. in its temporary custody and to place Ca.S. in the paternal grandparents' temporary custody. The court granted the agency's request.
{¶8} In February 2019, the court held an adjudication hearing. Appellant admitted the allegations contained in the abuse and dependency complaints and agreed to proceed to disposition. The court adjudicated C.S. an abused child and Ca.S. a dependent child. The court placed C.S. in Appellee's temporary custody and placed Ca.S. in the paternal grandparents' temporary custody.
{¶9} The agency developed a case plan for the family to follow with the goal of reunification. The case plan required Appellant to (1) undergo an alcohol and drug assessment and comply with any recommendations, (2) remain compliant with her medication-assisted treatment program, (3) provide the agency with a list of any current prescriptions and allow random pill counts, (4) complete a mental health assessment and comply with any recommendation, (5) submit to random drug screens and test negative for illegal substances, (6) obtain and provide proof of employment, (7) obtain and maintain safe and stable housing (8) exercise consistent visitation with the children, and (9) avoid any additional criminal charges.
{¶10} Appellant completed her alcohol, drug, and mental health assessments. Appellant also attended recommended treatment and enrolled in Family Treatment Court. Additionally, Appellant found safe and stable housing, remained employed, and completed random drug screens. Given Appellant's compliance, the court gradually expanded Appellant's visitation rights to the point where the court permitted Appellant to have unsupervised and overnight visits with the children.
{¶11} Appellant continued, however, to have relapses and to test positive for illegal substances. Integrated Services recommended inpatient treatment for Appellant, and Appellant was scheduled for detox in August 2019. Appellant refused the treatment.
{¶12} In December 2019, Appellant decided to enter an inpatient treatment program. Appellant successfully completed the treatment program and continued to comply with the Family Treatment Court program upon finishing the inpatient treatment program.
{¶13} During the next several months, Appellant continued to attend treatment and engage in Family Treatment Court. Appellant remained sober and engaged in all required groups and meetings.
{¶14} In June 2020, however, Appellant opted out of Family Treatment Court. At an August 2020 case review, the court noted that Appellant was incarcerated. Additionally, the agency reported that Appellant had been struggling with sobriety. Integrated Services recommended a long-term inpatient treatment program for Appellant. Appellant did not want to engage with medication-assisted treatment and was not taking suboxone. Appellant indicated that she did not believe that she needed to receive suboxone.
{¶15} On August 31, 2020, the agency filed motions that requested the court to place Ca.S. in the paternal grandparents' legal custody and to place C.S. in the agency's permanent custody.[1] The court scheduled the motions for a final hearing to be held on November 16, 2020.
{¶16} On November 10, 2020, Appellant's counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The court granted the motion and appointed new counsel. The court then rescheduled the final hearing to January 8, 2021.
{¶17} The court later rescheduled the January 8, 2021 hearing date to March 16, 2021, due to rise in COVID-19 cases. In the interim, Appellant's second counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to a change in employment. The court granted the motion, and on January 11, 2021, the court appointed new counsel to represent Appellant.
{¶18} Appellant's new counsel filed a motion to continue the March 16, 2021 hearing date to give him additional time to review the case file and to give Appellant additional time to fulfill the case plan goals given the COVID-19 disruptions.
{¶19} The trial court denied the request to continue the hearing. The court explained:
The file reflects that counsel was appointed on January 11, 2021. This matter was scheduled for hearing on March 16, 2021. Based upon the age of the case and the need for finality, counsel's request was denied. As set forth below, this matter was scheduled twice for hearing. The first hearing date was continued due to mother's counsel having a conflict of interest based upon mother's request to call a certain witness. The second hearing date was continued by the court based upon the spike in COVID-19 cases. As set forth below, mother's request to continue the hearing because she was unable to successfully complete her case plan and reunify with [the children] is not well-taken.
{¶20} On March 16, 2021, and continuing on April 2, 2021, the trial court held a hearing to consider the agency's motions. At the hearing, an agency supervisor testified that when Appellant gave birth to Ca.S. in 2016, the child had tested positive for illegal substances. At the time, the family lived in Ross County, and the Ross County children's services agency investigated the matter. The child was temporarily placed with the paternal grandparents. Appellant successfully completed the case plan, and the agency returned the child to Appellant's custody.
{¶21} Amy Hoar testified she has been the family's caseworker since August 2019. Hoar explained that Appellant complied with elements of the case plan. Appellant completed an alcohol and drug assessment and obtained treatment from several providers throughout the history of the case. Hoar indicated that all of the treatment providers have recommended either inpatient treatment or intensive outpatient treatment. Hoar stated that Appellant usually refused to participate in inpatient treatment. Appellant did, however, complete a 30-day treatment program through Pickaway Area Recovery Services.
{¶22} Hoar related that...
To continue reading
Request your trial