In re F.T.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22CA17 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 191 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: F.T., Adjudicated Dependent Child. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Brian A. Smith, Fairlawn, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer L. Ater, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Appellant, W.L., appeals the trial court's decision that granted permanent custody of his one-year-old biological child, F.T., to South Central Ohio Job and Family Services Children's Division ("the agency"). Appellant raises five assignments of error and argues that (1) the trial court's judgment placing the child in the agency's temporary custody is void because the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over him due to lack of proper service, (2) the trial court's judgment placing the child in the agency's permanent custody is void because the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over him due to lack of proper service, (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the lack of proper service, (4) the trial court's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (5) the agency failed to use reasonable efforts to attempt to place the child with Appellant. For the reasons that follow, we do not find any merit to Appellant's assignments of error. Therefore, we overrule his assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶2} On March 19, 2021, the agency filed a complaint that alleged the child is an abused child and that requested the court to place the child in its temporary custody. The attached statement of facts (dated March 16, 2021) alleged that in early January 2021, the agency received a report regarding the child's mother. The report indicated that the mother had presented to the hospital to give birth to the child and was visibly under the influence. The mother had informed medical personnel that she had used heroin two hours before her arrival at the hospital. Her drug screen, however returned positive for cocaine and marijuana.
{¶3} The mother spoke with an agency caseworker and admitted that she used drugs during her pregnancy. She stated that she might know the identity of the baby's father, but she would not give the caseworker any further information. Four days after the child's birth, the caseworker learned that the baby's urine screen returned positive for cocaine.
{¶4} On January 12, 2021, while the baby was still in the hospital, the caseworker heard that Appellant called the hospital and claimed to be the baby's father. The caseworker phoned Appellant on January 12 and 13, but she did not reach him directly. Instead, she left Appellant a message to contact her.
{¶5} Eight days after the child's birth, the mother died in a car accident. The agency subsequently requested ex parte temporary emergency custody of the child, which the court granted.[1]
{¶6} On March 19, 2021, the agency asked the court to serve "the unknown father" of the child by posting on the Ross County Ohio Juvenile Court's website and by ordinary mail. The attached affidavit of publication by posting and mail stated that the agency had "made reasonable efforts to determine the residence of the unknown father, including: telephone contact with possible fathers & requests for DNA testing."
{¶7} On March 31, 2021, the magistrate entered a decision indicating that the case "came on for Arraignment on March 30, 2021." The magistrate found that "the unknown father has been served and failed to appear" and continued the child in the agency's temporary custody.
{¶8} On April 15, 2021, the court found that Appellant is the child's biological father. Shortly thereafter, the court added Appellant as a party to the case and issued a summons to Appellant with an address in Londonderry, Ohio. It was returned with a notation that Appellant no longer lived at that address.
{¶9} On May 21, 2021, the agency filed a motion to serve Appellant by posting and by ordinary mail. Additionally, another summons was sent to Appellant at an address in Chillicothe. Appellant later entered an appearance and requested the court to appoint counsel to represent him.
{¶10} On June 14, 2021, the court held a hearing. The father's counsel attended and indicated that Appellant was in a rehabilitation center. She stated that Appellant agreed "to the stipulation, to the alleged drug use during [the mother's] pregnancy, and the child being born positive, that this case needs to go forward." At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate stated that "the Court [found] the child to be an abused child."
{¶11} On June 21, 2021, the magistrate adjudicated the child a dependent child.[2] The magistrate found that the agency has used and continues to use reasonable efforts to place the child with Appellant. On that same date, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶12} On June 25, 2021, the magistrate entered a dispositional order that continued the child in the agency's temporary custody. The magistrate again determined that the agency used reasonable efforts to prevent the child's continued removal from the home and to make it possible for the child to safely return home. On that same date, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶13} On February 28, 2022, the agency filed a motion that requested permanent custody of the child. The agency alleged that the child has been in its temporary custody since January 18, 2021, that the child cannot and should not be placed with Appellant within a reasonable time, and that placing the child in its permanent custody is in the child's best interest. The agency asked the court to serve Appellant by posting and by ordinary mail.
{¶14} On April 25, 2022, the court held a hearing to consider the agency's permanent custody motion. Prism Behavioral Health Care counselor Scott Patrick testified that in June 2021, he started alcohol-and-drug treatment services with Appellant. Patrick explained that Appellant's treatment goals included (1) abstaining from using mind-altering substances and alcohol, (2) complying with any medical requirements and any suggested treatment, (3) finding adequate housing and employment, (4) staying in touch with the agency, and (5) continuing to work on the agency's case plan.
{¶15} Patrick stated that Appellant's attendance "dropped off in December of 2021," and that he "didn't see him that month or most of January 2022." Appellant re-engaged with Patrick on January 20, 2022, and he remained compliant until "the last couple of weeks" before the permanent custody hearing. Patrick reported that Appellant had three positive drug screens between January 20, 2022, and the end of March 2022, and that Appellant was discharged from the program on April 18, 2022, due to noncompliance.
{¶16} The child's foster father testified that the child has been in his and his wife's care since January 19, 2021. He stated that he and his wife are bonded to the child and that they plan to adopt her if the possibility arises.
{¶17} Caseworker Crystal Puckett stated that the agency became involved with the family upon learning that the child had tested positive for drugs at birth. At the time, the baby's father was not known. About one week later, the child's mother died in a car accident, and the agency obtained temporary custody of the child.
{¶18} Puckett explained that once genetic testing confirmed Appellant as the child's biological father, the agency added him to the case plan. The case plan required Appellant to complete parenting classes, obtain alcohol-and-drug counseling, maintain stable housing, consistently communicate with the agency, and consistently attend visits with the child. Puckett stated that Appellant consistently visited the child, except for a period of time between December 2021 and January 2022, and that Appellant completed parenting classes. Puckett testified that Appellant has not, however, complied with any of the remaining case plan requirements.
{¶19} Puckett reported that Appellant did not obtain stable housing. She explained that during the pendency of the case, Appellant lived with his sister, then his mother, and then moved back in with his sister. In December 2021, Puckett did not know where Appellant had been living. Puckett indicated that she tried contacting Appellant in December 2021, but she was unable to locate him until January 2022. She met Appellant on January 20, 2022, and he refused to give her the location of his current residence. Thus, she does not know where he presently lives. Puckett additionally explained that she helped Appellant obtain a housing voucher that he received around three weeks before the permanent custody hearing.
{¶20} Puckett further reported that Appellant has not maintained regular contact with the agency. Puckett stated that she tried reaching him via telephone, through his treatment provider, and by going to his last known address (his sister's house).
{¶21} Puckett indicated that she has concerns about placing the child with Appellant. She explained that Appellant "gets very angry easily" and is "very * * * volatile." Puckett further stated that Appellant has a history of domestic violence.
{¶22} Appellant testified that for the past week, he has been residing at the same address. Before that, he was staying at a hotel. Appellant explained that he still is waiting to find a place to rent, and he thinks that with a little more time, he would be able to take custody of the child.
{¶23} On cross-examination, Appellant clarified that he currently is living with a friend and the friend's wife until Appellant finds a place of his own. Appellant disputed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial