In re J.M., Case No. 18CA3633

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
• Citation: 2018 Ohio 5374
• Docket Number: Case No. 18CA3664,Case No. 18CA3633,Case No. 18CA3665,Case No. 18CA3634,Case No. 18CA3635
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF: J.M., A.M., AND C.M.
• Decision Date: 28 December 2018

2018 Ohio 5374

IN THE MATTER OF: J.M., A.M., AND C.M.

Case No. 18CA3633
Case No. 18CA3634
Case No. 18CA3635
Case No. 18CA3664
Case No. 18CA3665

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY

December 28, 2018

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

APPEARANCES:

Darren L. Meade, Columbus, Ohio, for the mother-appellant.

Matthew P. Brady, Grove City, Ohio, for the father-appellant.

Matthew S. Schmidt, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer L. Ater, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Ross County Children Services.

Hoover, P.J.

{¶1} The children's biological mother appeals the trial court's judgments that awarded South Central Ohio Job and Family Services, Children Services Division, ("the agency") permanent custody of her three children: six-year-old A.M.; four-year-old J.M.; and two-year-old C.M. A.M.'s and J.M.'s biological father separately appeals the trial court's judgments that awarded the agency permanent custody of his two children.¹ We consolidated the appeals for purposes of review and determination. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

I. FACTS

Page 2

{¶2} In June 2014, the agency filed complaints that alleged that A.M. (then two years of age) and J.M. (then six months of age) were dependent children. The agency requested the court to grant it temporary custody of the children. The attached statement of facts stated that the agency had received a report that emergency responders discovered J.M. home alone. Responders noted that the home did not contain any food, diapers, or clothing for the child. The agency was unable to obtain any information regarding J.M.; therefore, he was placed in emergency foster care. The sheriff's office later made contact with an individual at the home. This individual gave J.M.'s mother's name to the sheriff. Officials were unable to immediately locate the mother.

{¶3} The magistrate later adjudicated both A.M. and J.M. dependent and placed them in the agency's temporary custody. The trial court subsequently entered a separate judgment that placed the children in appellee's temporary custody but that did not specifically adjudicate the children dependent.

{¶4} In June 2016, the agency filed a complaint that alleged that C.M. was a dependent child and that requested temporary custody of the child. The agency claimed that at the time of the child's birth, the mother appeared intoxicated and tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. The magistrate subsequently adjudicated C.M. a dependent child and continued the child in the agency's temporary custody. The trial court entered the same judgment.

{¶5} The agency later filed motions for permanent custody of all three children. The agency alleged that A.M. and J.M. had been in its temporary custody for more than twelve out of the past twenty-two months and that placing the children in its permanent custody would be in the children's best interests. The agency alleged that although the mother had been participating in recommended services, she continued to test positive for illegal substances and had been

Page 3

unable to maintain sobriety. The agency asserted that A.M.'s and J.M.'s father also continued to test positive for illegal substances. The agency's permanent custody motion regarding C.M. contained similar allegations.

{¶6} At the permanent custody hearing, the children's first caseworker, Katlynn Pryor, testified that when the agency removed A.M. and J.M. from the home, the father was in prison for drug-related offenses; the mother had substance abuse issues; and the parents lacked stable housing. Pryor explained that when the mother gave birth to C.M., the child tested positive for cocaine and THC.

{¶7} Pryor stated that the agency developed a case plan for the parents. The case plan required the parents to maintain stable housing, complete "AOD" services,² complete parenting classes, submit to drug screens, refrain from using illegal substances, maintain consistent visitation with the children, and refrain from criminal activity. Pryor indicated that the agency referred the parents to three different substance abuse counseling centers; but the parents did not successfully complete any recommended treatment program.

{¶8} Pryor additionally related that throughout the pendency of the case, the parents had eleven encounters with law enforcement officers and about one-half of those resulted in an arrest. Pryor testified that neither parent demonstrated an ability to maintain sobriety and to refrain from criminal activity. She stated that the parents did, however, complete parenting classes.

{¶9} Pryor testified that the three children live in the same foster home and seem "very happy" in the home. Pryor indicated that the agency investigated relative placements but did not deem any of them suitable. She stated that the agency did not approve the paternal grandmother for placement due to "near hoarding" conditions.

Page 4

{¶10} The children's current caseworker, Breanna Schreck, testified that the children appear "well bonded" with the foster parents.

{¶11} Patricia Friel testified that the parents were referred to her for substance abuse counseling and that neither successfully completed a treatment program. Friel explained that when she first encountered the mother in April 2017, the mother's drug screen returned positive for buprenorphine, THC, and alcohol. Friel developed a treatment plan for the mother that required her to attend three group sessions per week. Friel indicated that the mother only completed three total sessions. Friel said that the mother was terminated from the program due to noncompliance. Friel related that the father never had an assessment; therefore, she was unable to develop a treatment protocol for him.

{¶12} Greg Parks, a counselor with Prism Behavioral Health Care, stated that the parents were referred to him in February 2016 and that both parents completed an assessment. Parks explained that although the parents completed the first three steps of the program, they later relapsed and neither successfully completed a treatment program. Parks additionally indicated that after C.M.'s birth, both parents were referred for inpatient treatment, but neither complied with the recommendation. Parks testified that the parents were terminated from the program.

{¶13} Jason Rhoades, a counselor with the Recovery Council, stated that the father did not complete a treatment program and was terminated from the program in January 2017. Rhoades further explained that a week before the permanent custody hearing (in early September 2017), the father contacted Rhoades.

{¶14} The court then stood in recess until January 2018. When the permanent custody hearing resumed, Rhoades testified that the father had re-engaged in treatment and completed an

Page 5

assessment. Rhoads indicated, however, that the father did not comply with the recommended treatment program. Rhoades additionally stated that the mother completed an assessment in September 2017; but she did not comply with treatment and was terminated from the program.

{¶15} Several law enforcement officers testified that they had multiple contacts with the parents throughout the pendency of the case and frequently found the mother intoxicated. The reports often involved alcohol and fighting between the mother and the father.

{¶16} The parents both testified. The father stated that he left Prism due to what he perceived as inappropriate behavior from the male providers who visited the parents' house. The father claimed that the two males watched the mother urinate in a cup. The father stated that he and the mother quit Prism and denied that they were terminated.

{¶17} The mother testified that she has done everything possible to regain custody of the children.

{¶18} The magistrate subsequently granted the agency permanent custody of the three children. The magistrate determined that the children had been in the agency's temporary custody for more than twelve out of the past twenty-two consecutive months and that placing them in the agency's permanent custody would be in their best interests.

{¶19} The trial court immediately adopted the magistrate's decisions and entered judgments that placed the children in the agency's permanent custody. The court found as follows: (1) the mother and the father have failed to complete any of the alcohol and drug counseling programs to which they were referred; (2) the parents have had numerous contacts with law enforcement; (3) the parents' current residence is not suitable; (4) the parents have not completed the case plan, although they did attend parenting class and Help Me Grow; (5) C.M.'s father has had no involvement; (6) no suitable relative placement exists; (7) "[t]he children are

Page 6

doing great in their foster home and have bonded with their foster parents"; and (8) the children need a legally secure permanent placement and they cannot obtain one without granting the agency permanent custody. The court thus found that it is in the children's best interest to place them in the agency's permanent custody and granted the agency's motions for permanent custody of the three children.

{¶20} Shortly thereafter, the father objected to the magistrate's decisions regarding A.M. and J.M. and requested the court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court overruled the father's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and explained: "Inasmuch [as] the Magistrate's Decision includes findings of fact and conclusions of law, Father['s] requests for findings of facts and conclusion[s] of law [are] hereby overruled."

{¶21} On April 27, 2018, the father filed amended objections to the magistrate's decisions. He objected to the magistrate's finding that no suitable relative placement exists and to the magistrate's finding that he did not remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal. The father claimed that the evidence presented at the hearing shows...