In re D.T. ( 2020 )

[Cite as In re D.T., 2020-Ohio-4964.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
IN RE D.T. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
: Case No. 2020 CA 00013
:
:
:
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
Nos. F2017-0448 & F2017-0449
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 19, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant-Mother: For Appellee-LCDJFS:
ANDREW E. RUSS WILLIAM C. HAYES
100 Taylor Station Rd., Suite G LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR
Gahanna, OH 43230
PAULA M. SAWYERS
20 S. Second St., 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant-Mother appeals the January 22, 2020 judgment entry of the
Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division granting permanent custody of
minor children D.T. and C.T. to Appellee-Licking County Department of Job and Family
Services.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of C.T. (born on November 29,
2013), and D.T. (born on June 18, 2017). Mother and Father began their relationship in
2011. The relationship ended in 2017, but they renewed their relationship in January
2019.
Removal Due to Dependency
{¶3} LCDJFS became involved with the family when it received allegations that
upon admission to the hospital for D.T.’s birth, Mother was drug screened and tested
positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, and oxycodone. D.T. exhibited signs of
withdrawal at birth and tested 11 out of 12 on the Finnegan Scoring System. Mother
wanted to leave the hospital with D.T. against medical advice. The infant was transferred
to Nationwide Children’s Hospital for treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome and was
discharged on June 23, 2017 in stable condition.
{¶4} LCDJFS started an investigation into the family. At the time of D.T.’s birth,
Father was working in New York. Upon his return to Ohio, Father tested positive for THC
and oxycodone. Maternal Grandmother was watching C.T. at the time of D.T.’s birth.
{¶5} On June 20, 2017, Appellee Licking County Department of Job and Family
Services, Children Services Division, (“LCDJFS”) filed an emergency ex parte order for
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 3
custody of C.T. and D.T. An emergency shelter care hearing was held on June 21, 2017.
An uncontested adjudicatory hearing was held on August 18, 2017 where the children
were determined to be dependent. The trial court found Mother and Father lacked stable
housing and Mother used methamphetamine and opiates during her pregnancy with D.T.
{¶6} Veronica Harter was assigned to the family as the Ongoing Social Worker.
A case plan for Mother and Father was filed with the trial court on July 14, 2017, which
was adopted on September 15, 2017. The case plan for Mother included the following
objectives: complete substance abuse assessment and follow all recommendations;
complete random drug screens; establish stable housing and employment to meet basic
needs of children; and complete parenting education course. The case plan for Father
included the following objectives: complete substance abuse assessment and follow all
recommendations; complete random drug screens; establish stable housing and
employment to meet basic needs of children; and complete parenting education course.
The case plans for Mother and Father were amended for Mother to complete a mental
health assessment and follow all recommendations and Mother and Father were to
engage in relationship counseling.
{¶7} An uncontested dispositional hearing was held on September 15, 2017 and
the children were placed in the custody of LCDJFS. Maternal Grandmother reluctantly
gave C.T. to the care of LCDJFS, almost necessitating the need for an Amber Alert based
on kidnapping. The children were placed together in a foster to adopt home.
Motions for Permanent Custody
{¶8} On April 26, 2018, LCDJFS filed a motion for permanent custody, which
was set for an evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2018. Mother filed a motion for legal
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 4
custody to Maternal Grandmother on August 6, 2018. The trial court denied the motion
for legal custody. On October 22, 2018, the motion for permanent custody was amended
to a motion for an extension of temporary custody. Temporary custody was extended until
December 20, 2018.
{¶9} LCDJFS filed a second motion for permanent custody on November 30,
2018. On March 1, 2019, the second motion for permanent custody was amended to a
motion for extension of temporary custody. The motion was granted and temporary
custody was extended to June 20, 2019.
{¶10} LCDJFS filed its third motion for permanent custody on May 9, 2019. The
matter was set for an evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2019. On August 14, 2019,
Mother filed a motion for temporary or legal custody of the children to Maternal Uncle.
The following is evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing before the magistrate.
Housing
{¶11} At the time of the children’s removal, Mother was residing with Maternal
Grandmother and Father was residing with Paternal Grandmother. Mother and Father
then moved to Warsaw, Ohio and resided there for three to four months. Mother next
moved to a friend’s home in Columbus, Ohio and Father moved back with Paternal
Grandmother. In October 2018, Mother moved to a trailer in Zanesville. Father moved in
with Mother in January 2019. Harter conducted home visits at the trailer and observed
there was no running water or heat and the ceiling in the living room was falling in. Mother
and Father moved to a two-bedroom apartment in Millersburg, Ohio on August 20, 2019.
Harter conducted a home visit at the apartment shortly after they moved in and observed
there was no furniture, clothing, or food in the apartment. When initially asked, Mother
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 5
and Father did not know the address of their new apartment but were able to answer the
question after a recess.
Substance Abuse
{¶12} The parties’ substance abuse issues precipitated the removal of the
children by LCDJFS. Harter referred both parents to Licking County Alcohol Prevention
Program (LAPP). Mother completed her assessment in July 2017 and Father completed
his assessment in January 2019. Father was not referred to any additional services after
his assessment because he did not disclose his drug use. Mother started services with
LAPP but she was discharged for failure to attend recommended services. Mother
reengaged in services in February 2018 and completed substance abuse services in April
2019.
{¶13} Mother and Father submitted to random drug screens as part of their case
plan. Mother had the opportunity to take 13 drug screens and she submitted to eight drug
screens. She stated that she was unable to attend the five drug screens due to schedule
conflicts. In July 2018, Mother admitted to marijuana use. Mother testified that she had
not done drugs since 2018. On July 29, 2019, LCDJFS conducted a random saliva drug
swab on Mother. A saliva swab detects substances used one to two days prior. Mother
tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and fentanyl. Dr. Donna Coy, a
toxicologist and certifying scientist with the Forensic Fluids Laboratories, testified that a
therapeutic level of fentanyl is generally less than 10 ng/ml. Mother’s test result showed
a level of 133.2 ng/ml, which could be potentially lethal. Harter contacted Mother to ensure
her safety and recommend further substance abuse services, but Mother did not engage
in further services. Father submitted to eight out of 11 random drug screens. Father
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 6
admitted to using marijuana. Father also submitted to a saliva swab on July 29, 2019,
where he tested positive for marijuana and fentanyl at 28 ng/ml. Harter stated based on
the results of the drug screens and the parents’ admission to only using marijuana, the
parents’ substance abuse remained a concern for LCDJFS.
Mental Health
{¶14} LCDJFS initially had concerns about Mother’s mental health because she
reported being depressed. She completed a mental health assessment in August 2017
and was prescribed Prozac, Vistaril, and Zoloft for anxiety and sleep issues. In October
2017, Mother stopped taking her medication and attending counseling. She worked with
her primary care physician for her mental health care.
{¶15} Due to the on and off relationship between Mother and Father, Harter added
relationship counseling to their case plans. Mother allegedly attempted to schedule an
appointment for counseling but was put on a waiting list.
Financial Stability
{¶16} When the children were placed in the temporary custody of LCDJFS,
Mother was unemployed. From November 2017 to March 2018, Mother claimed to be
employed through a temporary agency but she did not provide proof of her employment.
In February 2018, Mother was employed as a home health aide. In January 2019, her
hours were cut but she began working again as a home health aide in August 2019. Her
employer testified at the hearing and was complimentary of Mother’s work.
{¶17} Father was employed for a flooring company. To verify his employment, he
provided paystubs to Harter that did not list his employer. He started a new job with a
different flooring company in July 2019 and provided a paystub from the employer.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 7
{¶18} Neither Father nor Mother had valid driver’s licenses. Father’s driver’s
license was suspended in 2016 and he was detained for an outstanding warrant from a
traffic case. Father owned a cargo van that he drove for work and their appointments, but
the van did not have back seats installed.
Children
{¶19} Parents engaged in biweekly supervised visitation with the children. In
2019, the visitation sessions moved from supervised at LCDJFS to supervised at Close
to Home Visitation Center. The visitation sessions went well and C.T. appeared to be
closer to parents than D.T. because D.T. was an infant when she was removed from the
parents’ care. Both children responded positively to parents. Visitation did not move
beyond supervised visitation due to the parents’ failures to participate in requested drug
screens, obtain valid driver’s licenses, provide proof of insurance, and proof of care seats.
{¶20} The parents participated in parent education session through Heartbeats.
Mother completed 21 classes and Father completed six classes.
{¶21} At the time of the hearing, C.T. was five years old. C.T. started kindergarten
in the 2019-2020 school year. He was developmentally on track and meeting milestones;
however, he suffered from behavioral issues and attended counseling. Mother was
unaware that C.T. was in counseling. C.T. was potty trained but urinated frequently on
the floor and stuffed animals. The trial court appointed an attorney to represent C.T.’s
interests, who reported that C.T. advocated for permanent custody to LCDJFS. After
visitation with parents, C.T. expressed frustration because his parents told him he was
coming home. He felt they were lying to him and he did not want to go home.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 8
{¶22} D.T. was two years old at the time of the hearing. As a result of her in utero
exposure to drugs, D.T. suffered from high muscle tone and engaged in physical therapy
for one year. D.T. was doing well after physical therapy and was developmentally on
track. Mother was unaware that D.T. required physical therapy after birth.
{¶23} The children had been with the same foster family since 2017. The children
were bonded with their foster family. D.T. considered her foster parents as her mother
and father. The family was interested in adopting the children if that became an option.
Maternal Uncle’s Motion for Legal Custody
{¶24} Maternal Uncle, younger brother to Mother, filed a motion for temporary or
legal custody of the children on August 21, 2019, which was heard at the permanent
custody hearing. At the time of the hearing, Maternal Uncle was 19 years old. When the
children were placed in the temporary custody of LCDJFS, Maternal Uncle was 17 years
old and attending high school. He graduated from high school in 2019.
{¶25} Harter had asked Mother and Father for possible relative placements and
Mother only mentioned Maternal Grandmother. Mother never informed Harter that
Maternal Uncle was a possible relative placement. Harter began an investigation into
placement after receiving Maternal Uncle’s motion. When she determined Maternal
Uncle’s age, LCDJFS closed its investigation and did not conduct a home study because
LCDJFS could not consider placement with people under the age of 21.
{¶26} After graduating high school, Maternal Uncle worked full time as a crane
operator with AK Steel. He lived in a rental home with his girlfriend of four years. His
girlfriend was 21 years old and worked as an EMT. At the time of the hearing, he and his
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 9
girlfriend were in the process of purchasing a two-bedroom home. They did not yet have
bedroom furniture for the children.
{¶27} Maternal Uncle had a relationship with C.T. because Mother and C.T. lived
with Maternal Grandmother while he was in high school. Maternal Uncle was at the
hospital when D.T. was born, but he had no relationship with the child. He attended two
visitations with Mother and C.T. and one visitation with Mother and D.T. His girlfriend had
never visited with the children after they were placed with LCDJFS. Maternal Uncle was
unaware of C.T.’s counseling or behavioral issues. He was also unaware that D.T.
required physical therapy.
{¶28} Maternal Uncle and his girlfriend had limitedly explored their childcare
options and suggested Maternal Grandmother was an option. Maternal Uncle did not
know why the trial court had denied Maternal Grandmother’s motion for legal custody.
Maternal Uncle and his girlfriend were not aware of Mother and Father’s current
substance abuse issues.
Guardian ad Litem
{¶29} The GAL recommended it was in the best interests of the children if custody
was granted to LCDJFS.
Judgment Entry
{¶30} The Magistrate’s Decision was filed on October 1, 2019. The magistrate
issued a 21-page decision that ultimately awarded custody of the children to LCDJFS.
The magistrate first found it was not in the best interests of the children to be placed in
the legal custody of Maternal Uncle. The magistrate next found the clear and convincing
evidence demonstrated that the children had been in the temporary custody of LCDJFS
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 10
for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. The children were
removed on June 20, 2017 and were adjudicated 60 days later on August 18, 2017. They
had been in the temporary custody of LCDJFS for the last 20 consecutive months.
{¶31} Further, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the children
could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with either parent. Even with reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, parents had
not remedied the conditions that initially caused the children’s removal. The children were
removed due to Mother’s drug abuse while pregnant with D.T. Mother and Father
engaged in substance abuse services and followed treatment recommendations but
continued to use drugs during the pendency of the case ranging from marijuana to
fentanyl. The magistrate further found that Mother and Father failed to establish stable
housing and employment.
{¶32} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), the magistrate next found it was in the
best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to LCDJFS. In making the
decision, the magistrate stated she considered all relevant factors, including but not
limited to, the children’s interactions and relationships with their family members and
persons who may significantly affect the children, the basic and special needs of the
children and their ability to express their wishes, the custodial history of the children, the
children’s need for a legally secure placement whether that type of placement can be
achieved without a grant of permanent custody to LCDJFS and whether any of the factors
in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) are applicable.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 11
Objections
{¶33} Mother filed objections and two supplemental objections to the Magistrate’s
Decision. She argued the Magistrate erred when she failed to consider Mother’s
completion of her case plan objectives. Mother also argued the Magistrate erred by not
granting legal custody of the children to Maternal Uncle. Father also filed objections to
the Magistrate’s Decision, but did not supplement his objections after the transcript of the
evidentiary hearing was filed with the trial court.
{¶34} On January 22, 2020, the trial court overruled Mother and Father’s
objections to the Magistrate’s Decision. It adopted the Magistrate’s Decision granting
permanent custody of the children to LCDJFS.
{¶35} It is from this judgment entry Mother now appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶36} Mother raises two Assignments of Error:
{¶37} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FAILING
TO CONSIDER ALL FIVE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AS REQUIRED BY R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(A) THROUGH (E).
{¶38} “II. THE JUVENILE COURT’S JUDGMENT GRANTING PERMANENT
COURT COMMITMENT OF THE MINOR CHILD TO LICKING COUNTY CHILDREN’S
SERVICES WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
ANALYSIS
I. and II.
{¶39} Mother argues in her first Assignment of Error that the trial court erred when
it failed to consider all five best interest factors as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 12
through (e). In her second Assignment of Error, Mother contends the decision to grant
permanent custody to LCDJFS was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
consider both Assignments of Error together because they are interrelated.
Standard of Review
{¶40} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent,
and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v.
Jeffries, 5th Dist. Stark No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judgments supported
by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will
not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v.
Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶41} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when
deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court
schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody
of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has
temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long-term foster care.
{¶42} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to
grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant
permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not
abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents
within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (b) the child is
abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 13
to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or
more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or
more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,
1999.
{¶43} In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing,
R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including,
but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with
the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any
other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child as
expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard
for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the child's need for a
legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved
without a grant of permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in division (E)(7)
to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶44} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
{¶45} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turns to whether the
child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not
be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all
relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 14
such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the
child's parents.
Best Interest Factors
{¶46} Mother first contends the Magistrate and trial court failed to consider the
best interest factors when it granted custody of the children to LCDJFS. In the
Magistrate’s Decision, the magistrate specifically stated she considered all relevant
factors, including but not limited to, the children’s interactions and relationships with their
family members and persons who may significantly affect the children, the basic and
special needs of the children and their ability to express their wishes, the custodial history
of the children, the children’s need for a legally secure placement whether that type of
placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to LCDJFS and whether
any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) are applicable.
{¶47} We next find the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision
that it was in the best interest of the children to be placed with LCDJFS. We consider the
R.C. 2151.414(D) factors.
{¶48} There is no argument that Mother and Father had positive interactions with
the children during their supervised biweekly visitations. The visitations, however, had not
progressed beyond supervised visitation for at least 20 consecutive months due to
parents’ failure to complete drug screens, obtain driver’s licenses, proof of car insurance,
and proof of car seats. After visitations, C.T. was frustrated because he felt Mother and
Father were lying to him about coming home. The GAL and Harter stated the children
appeared bonded to their foster family and D.T. called them mother and father. C.T. had
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 15
a relationship with Maternal Uncle before he was removed from Mother’s care, but
Maternal Uncle had visited C.T. twice during visitation and visited D.T. once during
visitation.
{¶49} The trial court appointed counsel to represent C.T.’s interests. C.T.
expressed to his counsel that he wanted the trial court to grant custody to LCDJFS. D.T.
was too young to express her wishes.
{¶50} Both children have special needs of which Mother, Father, and Maternal
Uncle were not aware. C.T., while developmentally on track, was in counseling to address
his behavioral issues. Specifically, the child frequently urinated on the floor or stuffed
animals. D.T. suffered from in utero drug exposure and required specialized hospital care
at birth. She required one year of physical therapy to address her high muscle tone as a
result of her drug exposure.
{¶51} The magistrate noted the children had been in the custody of LCDJFS for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. The children were
removed on June 20, 2017 and were adjudicated 60 days later on August 18, 2017. They
had been in the temporary custody of LCDJFS for the last 20 consecutive months. The
children had been placed with the same foster to adopt family for the entirety of the case,
who were bonded with the children and addressed the children’s basic and special needs.
The length of time the children had been in the temporary custody of LCDJFS impacted
the children’s need for a legally secure placement. Mother contends the goal of a legally
secure placement for the children could be achieved by placing the children with Maternal
Uncle instead of terminating her parental rights. The record supports the trial court’s
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 16
determination that placement with Maternal Uncle was not in the best interest of the
children.
{¶52} “A child's best interest is served by placing a child in a permanent situation
that fosters growth, stability, and security.” Matter of K.M., 4th Dist. Highland No. 20CA4,
2020-Ohio-4476, 2020 WL 5568007, ¶ 55 citing In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d
319, 324, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). Thus, courts are not required to favor relative or non-
relative placement if, after considering all the factors, it is in the child's best interest for
the agency to be granted permanent custody. Id. citing In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d
498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 64; accord In re T.G., 4th Dist. Athens No.
15CA24, 2015-Ohio-5330, ¶ 24; In re C.B.C., 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 15CA18, 15CA19,
2016-Ohio-916, ¶ 66.
{¶53} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a trial court need not find “by clear
and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement.” Matter of
K.M., supra at ¶ 56 citing Schaefer, supra, at ¶ 64. It has been held that “a trial court need
not first determine that no suitable relative placement exists before it may grant
permanent custody to a children services agency.” Id. quoting In re J.M., 4th Dist. Ross
Nos. 18CA3633, 18CA 3634, 18CA3635, 18CA3664, 18CA3665, 2018-Ohio-5374, ¶ 60.
{¶54} When this case began, Maternal Uncle was only 17 years old. By 19 years
old, Maternal Uncle had successfully graduated high school, was in a long-term
relationship, obtained full time employment, and was in the process of purchasing his first
home. He expressed to the trial court that he wanted a “chance” to care for the children,
which the trial court found considerate and understanding. We agree with the trial court
that Maternal Uncle’s achievements and care for the children are commendable
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 17
attributes, but they do not serve the best interests of the children in this case. Maternal
Uncle had a relationship with C.T. while he lived in the home with Maternal Grandmother
but he had seen C.T. twice during the pendency of the case. He had met D.T. once during
visitation. Maternal Uncle’s girlfriend did not have the opportunity to meet with the children
during visitation. Maternal Uncle, due to his lack of contact with the children, was unaware
of the children’s special needs. He was further unaware of Mother and Father’s current
substance abuse concerns. He had not explored childcare options, other than his mother,
who was already denied custody of the children. LCDJFS could not consider Maternal
Uncle for placement because he was under 21 years old. The GAL concurred that it was
not in the best interest to place the children with Maternal Uncle.
{¶55} Mother finally contends that she had completed her case plan, which should
have given weight to the trial court’s determination that reunification with Mother was an
option. Where a parent has participated in his case plan and completed most or all of the
plan requirements, a trial court may still properly determine that such parent has not
substantially remedied the problems leading to agency involvement. In re A.H., 5th Dist.
Richland No. 18CA96, 2019-Ohio-1509, 2019 WL 1777306, ¶ 39 citing In the Matter of
A.L. and J.L., 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 11 CA 23, 2012-Ohio-481. The successful
completion of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification. In re A.P., 5th
Dist. Licking No. 2020 CA 00033, 2020-Ohio-4120, 2020 WL 4814213, ¶ 36 citing In re
W.A.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99813, 2014-Ohio-604. While it may be in Mother's best
interest to complete the case plan, this is only one factor for a trial court to consider what
is in the best interest of the child. In re B.P., 5th Dist. Licking No. 2000 CA 00031, 2020-
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 18
Ohio-3734, 2020 WL 4013125, ¶ 32 citing In re A.H., 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA96,
2019-Ohio-1509, 2019 WL 1777306, ¶ 38.
{¶56} Mother states she completed her case plan that included substance abuse
treatment, which she allegedly completed in April 2019. On July 29, 2019, Mother tested
positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and fentanyl. Her level of fentanyl was at
least 13 times higher than the therapeutic level. After getting the result, Harter contacted
Mother with fear for her safety. The children were removed from Mother’s care due to
concerns with her substance abuse. After approximately 24 months from the date the
case plan was approved, Mother tested positive for drugs showing that Mother had not
addressed the substance abuse concerns that necessitated the removal of her children.
{¶57} The best interest determination focuses on the child, not the parent. In re
N.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101390, 2015-Ohio-314, at ¶ 59. After almost two years in
the temporary care of LCDJFS, C.T. and D.T. deserve legally secure placement. Further,
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies as the children have been in the temporary custody of the
Agency for twelve or more months of the consecutive twenty-two month period.
{¶58} We find the evidence in this case supports the trial court’s determination
that the children should be placed in the permanent custody of LCDJFS. The
Assignments of Error are overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00013 19
CONCLUSION
{¶59} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Hoffman, P.J. and
Gwin, J., concur.