In re L.S. , 2018 Ohio 1981 ( 2018 )

[Cite as In re L.S., 2018-Ohio-1981.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: :
CASE NOS. CA2017-11-157
L.S., et al. : CA2017-11-160
: OPINION
5/21/2018
:
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case Nos. 17-D000046 and 17-D000047
Kim Bui, 8080 Beckett Center Drive, Suite 112, West Chester, Ohio 45069, guardian ad litem
Joshua G. Burns, P.O. Box 959, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, attorney for children
David C. Wagner, 423 Reading Road, Mason, Ohio 45040, for appellant, R.S.
Gray & Duning, John C. Kaspar, 130 East Mulberry Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for
appellee, R.S.
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn M. Horvath, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee, Warren County Children Services
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological mother ("Mother") of L.S. and D.S. (referred to
collectively as the "children"), appeals the decisions of the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating the children abused and dependent, temporarily
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
suspending Mother's visitation, and granting legal custody of the children to their biological
father ("Father").
{¶ 2} On April 24, 2017, Warren County Children Services ("WCCS") filed complaints
alleging the children were abused and dependent. Specifically, WCCS alleged it received an
anonymous referral concerning Mother's mental health and illegal drug use, including an
attempted suicide in the presence of the children and the presence of a methamphetamine
lab at Mother's residence. Based on the referral, WCCS and police responded to Mother's
residence on April 8, 2017. Mother denied the allegations, refused to submit to a drug
screen, and refused to agree to a safety plan.
{¶ 3} WCCS returned to Mother's residence on April 10, 2018, but Mother and her
paramour would not let the caseworker exit her vehicle. On April 17, 2018, Father contacted
WCCS and reported that he received a photograph of a text message depicting Mother
informing her paramour she almost overdosed in front of D.S. On April 19, 2018, WCCS
returned to Mother's residence and Mother submitted a drug screen positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamines. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine the
day before the test. The complaint further provided that Mother and her paramour had been
evicted from their residence.
{¶ 4} The juvenile court held a shelter care hearing on the date of the filing of the
complaints. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court placed the children in the
temporary custody of Father and granted protective supervision to WCCS. The juvenile court
ordered that Mother complete a drug and alcohol evaluation, submit to random drug screens,
and complete a psychological evaluation. The juvenile court ordered Father to submit to
random drug screens and complete a mental health evaluation.
{¶ 5} On July 11 and 17, 2017, the juvenile court held adjudicatory hearings.
Vanessa Henson, an investigative caseworker for WCCS, testified regarding the April 8, 2017
-2-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
referral and the facts asserted in the complaints. Henson explained that on April 8, 2017 she
did not observe a methamphetamine lab in the residence. Mother informed Henson that
Tommy Steele resided with her and helped care for the children. Mother stated she was
aware of Steele's history of illegal drug use and his recent arrest for drug-related charges.
Mother reported she was diagnosed with severe anxiety, severe depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder ("PTSD"), and schizoaffective disorder. Mother was not currently taking any
medications for her mental health diagnoses. Mother also informed Henson of an ongoing
private custody case with Father.
{¶ 6} Henson met with Father on April 10, 2017. Father reported that his relationship
with Mother ended in November 2016. Father expressed concern regarding Mother's illegal
drug use and failure to stay current with bill payments. Father reported an incident that
occurred before their relationship ended where Mother threatened to commit suicide in front
of the children if Father did not leave work and come home. Father submitted a drug screen
that was negative for illegal substances.
{¶ 7} Deputy Christopher Brombaugh of the Warren County Sheriff's Office testified
that on April 11, 2017, he responded to a gas station in Franklin, Ohio for a reported drug
overdose. Upon arrival, Brombaugh discovered Mother unconscious and emergency medical
personnel treating Mother with Narcan. Following the incident, Mother's paramour received a
text message from Mother's phone number claiming she almost overdosed in front of D.S.
Mother's paramour photographed the text message and sent it to Father. Father sent the
photograph to Henson approximately one week after the incident.
{¶ 8} Henson testified she returned to Mother's residence on April 19, 2017 during
Mother's eviction. Henson testified Mother submitted a positive drug screen. Mother
admitted to using methamphetamine the day before and agreed to let the children stay with
Father. However, on April 24, 2017, Mother and her paramour visited the WCCS office and
-3-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
demanded another drug screen. Mother informed Henson she was no longer in agreement
with the voluntary safety plan. Henson described Mother's demeanor as high energy and
distracted. Henson perceived her demeanor as a sign of potential mental health concerns or
illegal drug use.
{¶ 9} Mother testified and denied using methamphetamines, amphetamines, and
opiates. Mother disputed the validity of the results of her positive drug screens. She
explained that she would voluntarily submit to another drug screen conducted by any entity
besides WCCS. Mother also disputed the testimony regarding her threats of suicide and the
drug overdose and stated, "[s]eems that everybody's fabricating a lot * * *." With respect to
mental health, Mother explained she has prior diagnoses for anxiety and PTSD. At the time
of adjudication, Mother admitted she was homeless and had been staying "with a few friends
here and there, kind of, bounc[ing] around."
{¶ 10} Mother's paramour testified he had never seen Mother use methamphetamine.
While he admitted sending the text message to Father regarding Mother's overdose, he
questioned the accuracy of the text message and that Mother was in fact the person who
sent it. Mother's paramour submitted a drug screen to WCCS that was positive for
methamphetamines and amphetamines. He likewise denied using illegal drugs and asserted
WCCS fabricated the drug screen results.
{¶ 11} At the conclusion of the hearings, the juvenile court adjudicated the children
abused and dependent, pursuant to R.C. 2151.031(B) and R.C. 2151.04(C), respectively.
On July 21, 2017, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Pursuant to its complaints,
WCCS sought temporary custody of the children to Father and protective supervision to
WCCS.
{¶ 12} WCCS supervisor, Ashley Stutzman, testified that following removal of the
children, the agency developed a case plan with services for Mother and Father. Mother
-4-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
refused to sign the case plan. Stutzman testified that Mother continued to deny illegal drug
use and mental health issues. WCCS made referrals for Mother in April 2017, but Mother
failed to complete the assessments for such referrals. Mother returned drug screens in April,
May, twice in June, and July, that were all positive for amphetamines and
methamphetamines. Mother attended supervised visits with the children, but Stutzman
expressed concerns with her inability to focus, arriving late, and leaving early. Based on
Mother's behavior, WCCS had concerns she may have been under the influence of illegal
drugs during visitation. Stutzman testified WCCS was seeking to suspend Mother's visitation
until Mother could alleviate the concerns based on her engagement in case plan services.
{¶ 13} At the time of disposition, Father had completed all his case plan services.
Father had no recommendations from his drug and alcohol assessment and was
recommended for individual counseling from his mental health assessment. Father was
currently engaged with this recommendation and had provided no positive drug screens
throughout the pendency of this case. Stutzman testified that she would be comfortable with
the juvenile court granting legal custody to Father. Father testified he was seeking legal
custody of the children and his attorney made an oral motion for legal custody during the
dispositional hearing.
{¶ 14} Mother testified the children should be returned to her custody. Mother denied
having any mental health or substance abuse issues. Mother again disputed the results of
her prior drug screens and expressed her distrust for WCCS. Mother explained that she
would provide the juvenile court a negative drug screen that day, but refused to submit a drug
screen to WCCS based on her distrust for the agency. However, when the juvenile court
provided Mother an opportunity to submit a drug screen to the court after the dispositional
hearing, she still refused.
{¶ 15} The guardian ad litem ("GAL") for the children expressed her concern with the
-5-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
impact that suspending visitation may have on the children. The GAL asserted that Mother
had appropriate interaction with the children during visitation. Therefore, the GAL
recommended continuing supervised visitation.
{¶ 16} At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court granted legal
custody of the children to Father and suspended Mother's visitation until she could produce a
negative drug screen. Following disposition, Mother filed objections to the magistrate's
decisions. The juvenile court overruled Mother's objections.
{¶ 17} Mother timely appealed the decisions of the juvenile court, setting forth six
assignments of error. For ease of discussion, we address Mother's assignments of error out
of order.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 19} THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ADJUDICATED THE CHILDREN ABUSED
AND DEPENDENT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 6:
{¶ 21} THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ADJUDICATED THE CHILDREN ABUSED
AND DEPENDENT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 22} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding the children abused and
dependent.
{¶ 23} A trial court's determination that a child is abused, neglected, or dependent
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.35(A). "Clear and
convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established." Cross
v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).
{¶ 24} R.C. 2151.031(B) and 2929.22 provide that a child is abused if he or she is
"endangered" by a parent creating a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by
-6-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
violating a duty of care, protection, or support. R.C. 2151.04(C) provides that a "dependent
child" is any child "[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the
interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship." The determination that a child is
dependent requires no showing of fault on the parent's part. In re S.W., 12th Dist. Brown No.
CA2011-12-028, 2012-Ohio-3199, ¶ 12. Rather, the focus is on the child's condition or
environment and whether the child was without adequate care or support. In re W.C.H., 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2014-02-057, 2015-Ohio-54, ¶ 14. However, a court may consider a
parent's conduct insofar as it forms part of the child's environment. In re S.J.J., 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2006-02-021, 2006-Ohio-6354, ¶ 12. "A parent's conduct is significant if it has
an adverse impact on the child sufficient to warrant intervention." In re S.W. at ¶ 12.
{¶ 25} This court's review of a juvenile court's decision adjudicating a child abused or
dependent is limited to whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile
court's determination. In re Day, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2002-09-073, 2003-Ohio-3544,
¶ 20. Even if a trial court's judgment is sustained by sufficient evidence, an appellate court
may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 9. A manifest weight
of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the greater amount of credible
evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other." State v.
Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. When considering a
manifest weight of the evidence challenge, the reviewing court weighs the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and determines whether in
resolving conflicts, the trial court clearly "lost its way" and created such a "manifest
miscarriage of justice" that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. In re
S.M. at ¶ 10.
{¶ 26} In weighing the evidence, a reviewing court must be mindful of the
-7-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
presumption in favor of the finder of fact. Id. In determining whether the trial court's decision
is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, "every reasonable intendment and every
reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts."
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21. "If the evidence is
susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that
interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining
the verdict and judgment." Id. A reversal on manifest weight grounds should only be in
exceptional circumstances, when the evidence weighs heavily against the judgment. In re
P.G., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2015-01-009 and CA2015-01-010, 2016-Ohio-1433, ¶ 44.
{¶ 27} The juvenile court found the children abused and dependent because they
were in danger and in a condition and environment that warranted the state in assuming
guardianship. In making its findings, the juvenile court stated it judged the credibility of the
witnesses and found significant differences between the presented testimony. The juvenile
court found the witnesses presented by WCCS were corroborative of one another and that
Mother's reactions during her testimony coincided with WCCS' concerns. Thus, the juvenile
court accorded more weight to the testimony of WCCS' witnesses. The juvenile court found
Mother has a history of illegal drug use and let the children reside with a known drug user.
Mother has a history mental health issues coupled with no history of treatment. Additionally,
Mother made threats of suicide, does not have stable housing, and overdosed on opiates
requiring emergency medical personnel to administer Narcan.
{¶ 28} After a thorough review of the record, we find the juvenile court's decision
adjudicating the children abused and dependent was supported by clear and convincing
evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The greater amount of
credible, competent evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that WCCS presented
clear and convincing evidence the children were abused and dependent.
-8-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
{¶ 29} As the juvenile court found, the record contains a great degree of evidence
regarding Mother's issues with mental health and the use of illegal drugs. While Mother
denied these issues, she submitted multiple drug screens positive for amphetamines and
methamphetamines and overdosed on opiates in the presence of D.S. Police testified
regarding the circumstances of Mother's overdose, which was corroborated by Father's
testimony regarding the text message photograph from Mother's paramour. Mother and her
paramour claim that WCCS is compromising the validity of the drug screen results, and thus,
the positive drug screens cannot be trusted. However, the juvenile court found this claim not
credible and we defer to the factfinder with respect to credibility determinations. State v.
Rowley, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2016-10-019, 2017-Ohio-5850, ¶ 55.
{¶ 30} Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence to support their assertion.
Rather, the record contains substantial evidence to the contrary, as WCCS presented
testimony Mother admitted to using illegal drugs, she overdosed on opiates, and permitted a
known drug user to reside with her and the children. Thus, considering the overwhelming
evidence of Mother's illegal drug use, this court will not speculate regarding Mother's
unsupported claim that WCCS repeatedly fabricated her positive drug screen results. See In
re E.F., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2016-03-003 thru CA2016-03-007, 2016-Ohio-7265, ¶ 36
(stating a juvenile court is not required to rule on custody motions based upon groundless
speculation regarding drug use). Additionally, Mother was later evicted from her then-
residence and was homeless at the time of the adjudicatory hearings. Therefore, the juvenile
court's decision adjudicating the children abused and dependent was supported by clear and
convincing evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 31} Accordingly, Mother's fifth and sixth assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 32} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 33} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT VIOLATED MOTHER'S RIGHT TO
-9-
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO
FATHER WITHOUT PROVIDING HER ADEQUATE NOTICE.
{¶ 34} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 35} THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED LEGAL CUSTODY TO FATHER
WITHOUT A FINDING THAT MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH FATHER'S
MOTION FOR CUSTODY PURSUANT TO JUVENILE RULE 16.
{¶ 36} Mother contends the juvenile court denied her due process when it awarded
legal custody of the children to Father at the dispositional hearing. In so doing, Mother states
she had notice that WCCS was seeking a disposition of temporary custody to Father with
protective supervision to WCCS, but not that the juvenile court could grant legal custody to
Father. Mother contends the oral request for legal custody at the dispositional hearing was
insufficient to provide proper notice. Therefore, the juvenile court erred in granting legal
custody to Father.
{¶ 37} Contrary to Mother's assertion, a natural parent is not required to file a written
motion for legal custody. In re C.P., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-12-025, 2011-Ohio-4563,
¶ 19. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A),
If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent
child, the court may make any of the following orders of
disposition: * * * (3) [a]ward legal custody of the child to either
parent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional
hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the child or is
identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion
filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the
proceedings.
"[A] parent has an inherent right to the custody of his or her child, and because R.C.
2151.353 specifically empowers a trial court to grant legal custody of a child to a parent, * * *
a formal motion for legal custody need not be filed by a parent before a trial court may
properly consider granting legal custody to that parent." In re C.P. at ¶ 19. The statutory
- 10 -
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
requirement that a motion be filed is specific only to "any other person," rather than a parent.
In re B.L.D., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2010-09-026 and CA2010-10-030, 2011-Ohio-3139, ¶
10; see also In re Estate of Holycross, 112 Ohio St.3d 203, 2007-Ohio-1, ¶ 27 (stating all
persons are "conclusively presumed to know the law").
{¶ 38} Moreover, the summons on the complaint filed on May 5, 2017 informed
Mother that "[i]f the Court makes an adjudication of dependency, neglect or abuse * * *, this
may result in: * * * C. [a]n award of legal custody of the child(ren) to either parent or to any
other person the Court deems appropriate." Thus, based on the plain language of the statute
and the content contained in the complaint and summons, Mother was not denied due
process when the juvenile court granted Father legal custody at the dispositional hearing.
{¶ 39} Mother's first and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 40} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 41} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND IT WAS
IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTEREST TO AWARD LEGAL CUSTODY TO FATHER.
{¶ 42} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 43} THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SUSPENDED
VISITATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND THE CHILDREN.
{¶ 44} Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in suspending her
visitation and awarding Father legal custody of the children. Specifically, Mother contends
the best interest factors weighed against granting legal custody. In so doing, Mother relies
on the GAL's recommendations to the juvenile court. Additionally, Mother questions Father's
ability to provide a stable, permanent residence because after his upcoming move, the
children will have lived in their third residence in a six-month period. Mother also asserts she
intends to progress within her case plan, and therefore, the juvenile erred in suspending her
visitation and granting Father legal custody.
- 11 -
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
{¶ 45} As stated above, once a child is adjudicated abused or dependent, the juvenile
court may award custody of the child to a parent pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). The
decision whether to award legal custody must be based on the best interest of the child. In
re X.B., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-07-168, 2015-Ohio-1174, ¶ 18.
{¶ 46} To determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires the
juvenile court to consider all relevant factors. In re L.E.N., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2010-11-
019, 2011-Ohio-1722, ¶ 11. There is no statutory mandate that the juvenile court expressly
consider and balance each of the factors listed in R.C. 3109.04(F), but it may consider those
factors and any other relevant factors in making its custody determination. In re Fulton, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2002-09-236, 2003-Ohio-5984, ¶ 11. These factors include, but are not
limited to: (1) the wishes of the parents, (2) the child's interaction and interrelationship with
his parents, siblings, and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest,
(3) the child's adjustment to home, school and community, (4) the mental and physical health
of all persons involved, (5) the likelihood that the caregiver would honor and facilitate
visitation and parenting time, and (6) whether support orders have been followed. In re
A.L.H., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2010-02-004, 2010-Ohio-5425, ¶ 9.
{¶ 47} An appellate court reviews a juvenile court's custody determination for an
abuse of discretion. In re S.K., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-06-108, 2014-Ohio-563, ¶ 12.
An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment. In re B.K., 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2010-12-324, 2011-Ohio-4470, ¶ 12. Rather, it implies the juvenile court's decision
was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. The juvenile court's discretion in
custody matters "should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding
and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned." In
re J.M., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-12-148, 2009-Ohio-4824, ¶ 17. Thus, "an appellate
court affords deference to a judge or magistrate's findings regarding witnesses' credibility." In
- 12 -
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
re T.M., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-01-019, 2007-Ohio-6034, ¶ 43.
{¶ 48} In making its decisions to suspend Mother's visitation and grant Father legal
custody of the children, the juvenile court considered the relevant best interest factors in light
of the evidence presented at the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.
{¶ 49} With respect to Mother, the juvenile court expressed a heavy concern with the
degree of her lack of progress in completing the goals set forth in her case plan. The juvenile
court found Mother had the ability to make progress in her case plan, but failed to put forth
any effort to meet the goals therein. The juvenile court acknowledged Mother attended
visitation. However, the juvenile court stated she failed to address most of the concerns
underlying this case. The juvenile court found Mother "hasn't really done anything to assure
anyone, or to support any basis for" a finding that it is "safe to" return the children to her
custody. Rather, Mother has failed to address her continuing illegal drug use and has failed
to complete any of the mental health or drug assessments proscribed by her case plan. The
juvenile court found these failures indicative of Mother's future participation, or lack thereof, in
completing the goals in her case plan.
{¶ 50} With respect to Father, the juvenile court found that he recognizes the
importance of Mother in the children's lives and has made efforts to maintain contact
between Mother and the children. The juvenile court stated it was clear that Father was
willing to protect the children from any risk and protective supervision was not necessary
moving forward.
{¶ 51} Due to Mother's distrust of WCCS' testing process, the juvenile court provided
that Mother could submit a drug screen to the court following the dispositional hearing, but
she refused. Thereafter, the juvenile court found visitation inappropriate and temporarily
suspended it. However, the juvenile court's suspension of visitation was not absolute, as it
provided that it will entertain a motion for parenting time should Mother seek drug treatment
- 13 -
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
and begin to take accountability for her actions.
{¶ 52} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion in suspending Mother's visitation and granting Father legal custody of the
children.
{¶ 53} Although Mother has attended visitation with the children, this is where her
progress in completing the goals set forth in her case plan ends. Most of the concerns that
provided for WCCS' involvement in this case remained at the time of the dispositional
hearing. Mother testified she is willing to work towards completing the goals of her case plan,
but as the juvenile court noted, her actions throughout the pendency of this case suggest
otherwise. Mother's assertions ring hollow considering her absolute disregard for completing
case plan objectives and her complete denial of accountability for her illegal drug use and
mental health issues.
{¶ 54} Mother provided multiple positive drug screens for amphetamines and
methamphetamines and overdosed on opiates in front of one of the children. Additionally,
the record shows Mother has demonstrated suicidal behaviors in front of the children and has
several untreated mental health diagnoses. Yet, Mother has not taken any steps in
completing her assessments for drug abuse and mental health. Rather, as the juvenile court
stated, Mother was in denial regarding these concerns and placed blame on WCCS for her
positive drug screens. Furthermore, the record indicates WCCS had legitimate concerns that
Mother attended visitation under the influence of illegal drugs. When given an opportunity to
submit a drug screen to the juvenile court instead of WCCS, Mother still refused. Therefore,
the juvenile court had a reasonable basis to find Mother was actively using drugs and
suspend visitation. Unlike Mother, Father repeatedly submitted negative drug screens and
has consistently engaged in case plan services. Father indicated he intends to remain in
individual counseling and agreed to seek individual counseling for L.S. Father has stable
- 14 -
Warren CA2017-11-157
CA2017-11-160
employment and housing, can provide for the children, and is bonded with them.
{¶ 55} Therefore, based on the evidence presented at the adjudicatory and
dispositional hearings, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in suspending Mother's
visitation and granting Father legal custody of the children.
{¶ 56} Accordingly, Mother's second and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 57} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
- 15 -