In re A.F. ( 2018 )

[Cite as In re A.F., 2018-Ohio-4813.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: A.F. C.A. Nos. 29117
29118
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. DN-17-07-0536
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 5, 2018
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Appellants, C.F. (“Mother”) and S.F. (“Father”), appeal from a judgment of
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated their parental rights
and placed their minor children in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services
Board (“CSB”). This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of A.F., born July 12, 2017. Their
two older children were removed from their custody and later involuntarily placed in the
permanent custody of two different children services agencies before A.F. was born. Because
the parents continued to exhibit similar parenting problems after the birth of A.F, the child was
removed from their custody when he was five days old.
2
{¶3} CSB moved for permanent custody of A.F. shortly after he was adjudicated a
dependent child. The agency alleged grounds under R.C. 2151.414(E), including that their
parental rights to two older siblings had been involuntarily terminated. R.C. 2151.414(E)(11).
{¶4} Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court terminated parental rights and
placed A.F. in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother and Father separately appealed and their
appeals were later consolidated. Their assignments of error will be addressed together because
they are closely related.
II.
MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE COURT FINDING THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE GRANT OF PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE REUNIFICATION
COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.
{¶5} Mother and Father argue that the trial court’s permanent custody decision was not
supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Before a juvenile court may terminate
parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find
clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is
abandoned; orphaned; has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of
a consecutive 22-month period; the child or another child in a parent’s custody has been
adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent on three separate occasions; or the child cannot be
placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent,
based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the
3
agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996).
{¶6} The trial court found that CSB satisfied the first prong of the permanent custody
test for reasons including that the parents’ rights had been involuntarily terminated with respect
to two siblings of the child. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). The parents do not challenge any of the
trial court’s first prong findings.
{¶7} Instead, both parents challenge the trial court’s finding that permanent custody
was in the best interest of A.F. When determining the child’s best interest under R.C.
2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and
interrelationships of the child, the child’s wishes, the custodial history of the child, the need for
permanence in the child’s life, and whether any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to
(11) apply to the facts of the case. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos.
24834 and 24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11.
{¶8} The parents’ interaction with A.F. throughout this case was limited to closely
supervised visits. Mother attended approximately 60 percent of the scheduled visits, but Father
attended only about 20 percent of the visits that were available to him. Father told the
caseworker that he missed visits because he had to work, but the caseworker testified that Father
continued to miss visits even after she changed the visitation times to accommodate his work
schedule.
{¶9} Witnesses also expressed concern that, when the parents did visit, they did not
engage in much cuddling or face-to-face interaction with A.F. but tended to keep him in his
stroller. The guardian ad litem testified that he had observed only a “marginal” bond between
4
Mother and A.F. Because Father had missed so many visits with the child, the guardian ad litem
had seen him with A.F. only once during the eight months before the hearing.
{¶10} The parents’ visits were always closely supervised because of the agency’s
concern about their ability to safely meet the basic needs of A.F. Visitation supervisors testified
that they needed to redirect the parents’ behavior during every visit with A.F. Mother was
resistant to redirection and often emphasized that this is her third child, even though none of her
children had ever resided with her for more than a few days.
{¶11} Several witnesses testified that the parents did not demonstrate the ability to
appropriately hold, feed, or diaper A.F. For example, the parents repeatedly required redirection
while holding A.F. to support his head and/or avoid blocking his nose and mouth so he could
breathe. Mother walked away from A.F. while changing his diaper on an elevated surface and,
another time, failed to strap him into his stroller. The parents could not prepare A.F.’s bottle
without help from those supervising the visits and Mother tended to over feed him. Diapering
and changing A.F.’s clothes continued to be a struggle for Mother throughout this case. Both
parents, particularly Mother, lacked the ability to soothe A.F. when he became fussy. Mother
often responded by trying to feed him more.
{¶12} Because A.F. was too young to express his wishes, the guardian ad litem spoke on
his behalf. The guardian opined that permanent custody was in the best interest of the child
because the parents do not have the ability to appropriately care for him, even in a supervised
setting.
{¶13} The custodial history of A.F. had been spent primarily in foster care. A.F. lived
with his parents for only a couple of days after birth. The remainder of his short life had been
spent in the temporary custody of CSB. The child was in need of a legally secure permanent
5
placement, his parents were not able to appropriately care for him, and CSB had been unable to
find any suitable relatives who were willing to do so. A.F. had been placed in the same foster
home throughout this case and had become bonded to the entire family. All of his needs were
being met in that home and the foster parents expressed interest in adopting him if the agency
received permanent custody.
{¶14} The trial court was also required to consider the fact that the parents’ rights to
A.F.’s older siblings had been involuntarily terminated and they failed to present evidence to
demonstrate that, despite the prior terminations, they could provide an appropriate home for A.F.
See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e); R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). The parents’ two older children were also
removed from their custody shortly after each of them was born because the parents were unable
to appropriately care for them due to their untreated mental health problems and significant
intellectual disabilities. One CSB employee, who had also worked with the parents during this
case and the 2013 case involving one of the older siblings, testified that she had observed no
improvement in their parenting ability over the past several years. The parents presented no
evidence on their own behalf to demonstrate that their parenting ability had improved. See In re
G.L.S., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28874, 28893, 2018-Ohio-1606, ¶ 19.
{¶15} Given the undisputed evidence before the trial court, the parents have failed to
demonstrate that the trial court erred in concluding that permanent custody to CSB was in the
best interest of A.F. The parents’ assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶16} The parents’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
6
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellants.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, P. J.
CARR, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
AVIVA L. WILCHER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
CHRISTINA BOLLMAN, Guardian ad Litem.