In re S.D-S.
| Docket Number | 113010 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 Ohio 255 |
| Parties | IN RE S.D-S., Minor Child [Appeal by Mother] |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-20-903409
Dunham Law, LLC, and Michael P. Dunham, for appellant.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant-Mother ("Mother") appeals from the juvenile court's decision awarding permanent custody of her minor child, S.D-S., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or the "agency") after a hearing on the agency's motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
{¶ 2} In her first assignment of error, Mother contends that the juvenile court's judgment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating there were adequate grounds to grant permanent custody and that the decision was therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence. She also contends that the juvenile court's judgment violated her due process rights.
{¶ 3} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414, a juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if, after a hearing, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies, and that an award of permanent custody is in the child's best interest. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. In re T.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99931, 2014-Ohio-2051, ¶ 28.
{¶ 4} The proper standards of review to apply in cases involving a juvenile court's decision under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody of a child and to terminate parental rights are the sufficiency-of- the-evidence and manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards, depending on the nature of the arguments raised by the parties. In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 18. Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy, while weight of the evidence depends on its effect in inducing belief. Id. at ¶ 13, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a reviewing court should affirm a trial court when the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict or trial court judgment as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 13. When reviewing for manifest weight, "the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Id. at ¶ 14, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 20.
{¶ 5} As reflected in its judgment entry granting permanent custody, upon considering the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) factors, the juvenile court found that S.D-S. had been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period (R.C. 251.414(B)(1)(d)). This finding is supported by the record, which reflects that S.D-S. was removed from Mother's care in December 2019, shortly after she was born, and remained in agency custody continuously since that time. Indeed, Mother does not contest the trial court's "12-of-22" finding or its applicability to this matter. (Mother's brief, p. 15.)
{¶ 6} The juvenile court also found that S.D-S. cannot be placed with either of her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)). In order to make this finding, the juvenile court was required to find that one or more of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) was applicable. The juvenile court found pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that following the placement of S.D-S. outside the home, and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency, the parents had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused S.D-S. to be placed outside the home.
{¶ 7} The court also found pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) that Mother has a chronic mental illness that is so severe that it renders her unable to provide an adequate, permanent home for S.D-S. at the present time and within one year after the hearing on the matter. The court also found that Father (who has not appealed the juvenile court's judgment) has a chronic chemical dependency that makes him unable to provide an adequate, permanent home for S.D-S. at the present time or within one year after the hearing.
{¶ 8} The juvenile court further found pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) that both parents had demonstrated a lack of commitment to S.D-S. and an unwillingness to provide a permanent home for her; Mother by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child, find stable housing, and complete her case plan; and Father by his unwillingness to provide space in his home for the child to live.
{¶ 9} Mother does not contest any of these findings. Rather, she challenges the trial court's "best interest" determination.
{¶ 10} Having determined pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) that S.D-S. had been in agency custody for 12 of 22 months of a consecutive period, and pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that S.D-S. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, the trial court was then required to make a "best interest" determination pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D).
{¶ 11} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) requires that in determining the best interest of the child, the court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to those listed in RC. 2151.414(D)(1). Although a trial court is required to consider each of the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors in making its permanent custody determination, "there is not one element that is given greater weight than the others." In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 56. Further, this court has stated that only one of the enumerated factors needs to be resolved in favor of the award of permanent custody. In re T.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110130, 2021-Ohio-2448, at ¶ 25, citing In re Moore, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76943, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3958, 12 (Aug. 31, 2000).
{¶ 12} In its judgment entry granting permanent custody to the agency, the juvenile court noted that upon considering the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors -including S.D-S.'s relationship with her parents and foster caregivers, her wishes as set forth by her guardian ad litem ("GAL"), her custodial history, and her need for a legally secure placement - the court found by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of permanent custody was in S.D-S.'s best interest. Our review demonstrates that the record supports the juvenile court's determination.
{¶ 13} The record reflects that following the child's removal, the agency developed case plans for both Mother and Father, with the goal of reunification. Mother was referred for mental health services, but during the course of the proceedings was not compliant with those services. The agency's caseworker testified at the permanent custody hearing that Mother did not engage in mental health services or consistently take her medication from October 2022 through January 2023, and only sporadically engaged in mental health services from January through April 2023. At the time of trial in June 2023, Mother still had not been consistently attending mental health appointments or taking her medication. She was also inconsistent in communicating with her caseworker, despite the caseworker's efforts to contact Mother to discuss case plan services and arrange for home visits. Mother also failed to maintain stable and adequate housing during the proceedings. She had periods of incarceration, as well as commitments to mental health hospitals, during the proceedings, and resided intermittently with her mother and the child's father. At the time of trial, she was living in a shelter.
{¶ 14} The caseworker testified that Mother had made only limited progress on her case plan objectives, still needed to establish stable housing, and was inconsistent in addressing her mental health issues, noting that Mother "would go months at a time without addressing her mental health." The caseworker testified that given this demonstrated lack of progress, the agency did not believe that Mother would resolve these issues in the foreseeable future, explaining that "the child's been in agency custody for a little over three and a half years and throughout that time [Mother] has not consistently addressed her mental health." The caseworker testified that even in the month prior to trial, Mother had cancelled or "no-showed" several appointments for mental health services.
{¶ 15} The caseworker testified further that Mother did not consistently take advantage of opportunities to visit S.D-S., and even when she did have visits with the child, her interaction with the child was limited. When she was living with Father, Mother would often sleep during the child's regular visits at Father's home.
{¶ 16} The caseworker testified that Father was referred to services to address concerns regarding his substance abuse and the appropriateness of housing for the child, but did not follow through with a referral for a drug assessment. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial