In re P.W.T.

[Cite as In re P.W.T., 2011-Ohio-5858.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
IN RE: P.W.T. C.A. No. 11CA0020
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
CASE No. 08-0710-AND
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 14, 2011
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Teresa T. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Wayne County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights to her minor child
and placed him in the permanent custody of Wayne County Children Services Board (“CSB”).
This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the natural mother of PWT, born June 6, 2007. PWT’s father was not
actively involved in this case and is not a party to the appeal. Although Mother has four other
children, a daughter and three older sons, none of those children was in her custody when this
case began. Her daughter was an adult and her three older sons lived in the custody of their
fathers. It is not clear from the record why none of Mother’s other sons was living with her, but
at least one of them was removed from her custody by Allen County Children Services due to
her untreated mental health problems.
2
{¶3} During July 2008, because Mother was then living in Wayne County, CSB
received a referral from Allen County Children Services that Mother might pose a threat to PWT
because she was not attending counseling or taking her prescribed psychiatric medication.
According to the referral, Mother had been diagnosed with serious mental health issues and
required regular mental health treatment.
{¶4} When a CSB intake caseworker went to Mother’s home to investigate, Mother
insisted on speaking to the caseworker through the door because she did not have a court order.
Mother did not allow the caseworker in the house to see PWT. During their conversation, the
caseworker became concerned that Mother was not speaking rationally. For example, Mother
told the caseworker that she had filed several lawsuits against Allen County Children Services
because it had ignored her reports that her landlord, “an undercover drug dealing F.B.I. agent,”
was breaking into her home at night and abusing her and her child. Due to CSB’s concerns
about Mother’s mental health, PWT was removed from her custody. He was later adjudicated a
dependent child.
{¶5} Mother’s mental instability was the primary obstacle to her reunification with
PWT, as she appeared to be otherwise able to care for him. After a psychological evaluation,
Mother was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and personality disorder, not otherwise
specified. Her symptoms included paranoid and delusional thoughts that she could not control.
The psychologist who performed the evaluation opined that, without treatment, Mother’s
distorted perceptions of the world would have a negative impact on PWT, particularly as he grew
older and tried to make sense of her “purported fears and her paranoia of others.” She further
explained that, due to Mother’s paranoia, she intended to isolate PWT from others, which would
only magnify the negative impact of her behavior on his emotional development.
3
{¶6} Because Mother’s untreated mental illness would affect her ability to interact with
PWT, the psychologist advised CSB that Mother’s visits with him should be supervised until she
engaged in ongoing treatment and demonstrated significant progress. Mother refused to get
regular mental health treatment, however, because she insisted that she did not need it.
Consequently, her visits with PWT remained supervised at the visitation center throughout this
case.
{¶7} Due to the paranoia and delusions that stemmed from her untreated mental illness,
Mother had repeatedly made unfounded allegations of sexual abuse and other mistreatment
against others, including another psychologist, children services workers in both Allen and
Wayne Counties, and the fathers of most of her children. None of her allegations had resulted in
criminal prosecutions or civil judgments in her favor, nor had she prevented the fathers of her
other children from maintaining custody of them. Nonetheless, Mother continued to express her
beliefs that numerous other people had raped or otherwise harmed her and her children and that
they continued to pose a threat to them. The psychologist who supervised Mother’s assessment
insisted on the presence of a neutral witness due to her concerns that Mother might again make
unfounded allegations of sexual assault. This was the only time in her twenty-five years’
experience that she had felt such a compelling need to protect another mental health professional
against unfounded allegations of abuse.
{¶8} After Mother made specific allegations about one of its case aides, CSB decided
to video record all future visits between Mother and PWT. Although the recordings were
apparently made to protect the agency and its workers against further allegations of abuse, they
also documented that Mother consistently attended visits; brought food, gifts, and engaged in
activities with PWT; and also that she rarely interacted with him at an age-appropriate level.
4
Mother almost always talked above his developmental level by using complex words and
discussing topics that a toddler or preschooler would not understand.
{¶9} More significantly, Mother would frequently talk to him about danger to herself
or him, with a disturbing, paranoid, and even delusional focus on injury, death, and “bad
people.” When PWT was less than two or three years old, he seemed to ignore those comments
and continued to play or engage in other activities. As he grew older and became more verbal,
however, Mother discussed disturbing topics more frequently, and PWT began responding to
what she was saying, showing that he was trying to understand the bizarre substance of her
words.
{¶10} Because Mother refused to recognize and/or address her mental health problems,
CSB eventually moved for permanent custody of PWT. Following a hearing on the motion, at
which the evidence included the testimony of several witnesses and the recordings of several
visits between Mother and PWT, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and placed
PWT in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother appeals and raises two assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED PERMANENT
CUSTODY OF [PWT] TO [C.S.B.] BECAUSE THE CASE PLAN
IMPLEMENTED BY THE AGENCY WAS NOT REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO SUCCEED IN REUNIFYING [P.W.T] WITH HIS
MOTHER.”
{¶11} Mother’s first assignment of error is that CSB did not exert reasonable efforts to
reunify her with PWT. Specifically, she maintains that CSB treated her differently from other
parents due to her mental illness and did not seriously work with her toward reunification with
PWT. To begin with, Mother did not raise this issue during the two and one-half years that this
5
case was pending in the trial court. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, after PWT had
been in agency custody for two years, the trial court was not required to again find that CSB had
made reasonable efforts toward reunification. See In re C.F., 113 Ohio St. 3d 73, 2007-Ohio-
1104, at ¶41-43; In re K.H., 9th Dist. No. 22765, 2005-Ohio-6323, at ¶9-10.
{¶12} Moreover, the record reveals that, although Mother had been able to meet PWT’s
basic needs during the first year of his life, CSB’s concern about how he would be affected by
her untreated mental illness was well founded. Mother had been diagnosed with schizoaffective
disorder and personality disorder, not otherwise specified. The psychologist who supervised her
assessment testified that Mother would need ongoing treatment of her schizoaffective disorder,
which would require “very intensive medical management of [her] symptoms[.]” She explained
that people with this disorder have an unusual way of viewing the world, unreasonably feel put
upon by others, and often seek revenge. The illness has aspects of schizophrenia, including
delusions, hallucinations, and persecutory notions. It also has bipolar-like symptoms that include
dramatic mood changes, a lack of impulse control, and a tendency toward paranoia. Both
disorders also cause Mother to have a tendency toward grandiose and narcissistic feelings about
herself and her child. For example, Mother believed that PWT was able to speak when he was a
few days old, that he could read and had an adult level of understanding at the age of two or
three, and that he had reached other developmental milestones long before he actually had.
Because of Mother’s unrealistic views about PWT’s development, the experts cautioned that she
might expect him to be able to protect himself and otherwise meet his own needs when he could
not.
{¶13} It was Mother, not CSB, who refused to work to address the mental health
problems that prevented her from being reunited with PWT. Mother admitted that she
6
participated in a psychological evaluation only because CSB required it. She later told the court
that she did not trust the credentials of the psychologist who evaluated her and did not accept her
assessment of her. Although the caseworker repeatedly referred Mother to service providers and
explained to her that reunification with PWT depended on her obtaining ongoing mental health
treatment and achieving and maintaining a stable emotional state, Mother insisted that she did
not need counseling or medication. Mother never participated in ongoing counseling and did not
obtain a psychiatric evaluation.
{¶14} Mother further faults CSB for failing to offer her parenting advice, redirect her
inappropriate behavior, or otherwise provide her parenting assistance during her visits with
PWT. Mother made it clear to CSB early in this case, however, that she would not cooperate or
work with anyone about being reunified with PWT. Mother admitted to the trial court that she
did not listen to children services workers because she perceived them “as being uneducated and
incompetent in their area of alleged expertise.” She claimed that CSB personnel had verbally
and emotionally abused her and that their abuse of PWT had been “verbal, emotional, medical,
and physical.” Mother also had extensive criticism of Allen County Children Services and
testified that she had also refused to allow them to give her parenting direction.
{¶15} The caseworker explained that, although CSB workers did step in to correct
Mother’s inappropriate behavior during the early visits in this case, Mother would not follow
their suggestions but would become explosive in front of PWT, which merely exacerbated the
situation. After it became clear that Mother refused to take direction from CSB, an
administrative decision was made that those supervising the visits would observe, take notes, and
intervene only when they believed PWT was in danger.
7
{¶16} Even if Mother refused the agency’s attempts to assist her, however, the primary
purpose of CSB supervising the visits was to protect the child. It is very troubling to this Court
that, despite the concerns expressed by the psychological experts that PWT would eventually be
affected by Mother’s bizarre behavior, CSB allowed him to be exposed to hour after hour of her
disturbing comments. By the end of the video evidence, it was clear that PWT was suffering
emotional harm from Mother’s behavior, yet CSB did not intervene to redirect or end these
highly disturbing conversations, but simply sat back and recorded the evidence. Any risk that
Mother would have become explosive in front of PWT was outweighed by the benefit of
changing the topic of conversation.
{¶17} Because Mother has failed to demonstrate that CSB failed to exert reasonable
efforts to reunify her with PWT, her first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF
[PWT] TO [CSB] BECAUSE ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY [THE]
GRANTING OF PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶18} Mother next argues that the trial court’s permanent custody decision was not
supported by the evidence. Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award to a
proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence
of both prongs of the permanent custody test that: (1) the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been
in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that 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) the grant of permanent
custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C.
8
2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see, also, In re William S. (1996),
75 Ohio St. 3d 95, 99.
{¶19} The trial court found that the first prong of the test had been satisfied because
PWT had been in the temporary custody of CSB for well over 12 of the prior 22 months at the
time CSB filed its motion for permanent custody and Mother does not challenge that finding.
Instead, she maintains that the evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusion that
permanent custody was in the best interest of PWT.
{¶20} When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the children’s best
interests, the juvenile court must consider the following factors:
“(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents,
siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other
person who may significantly affect the child;
“(b) 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;
“(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the
temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private
child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-
month period ***;
“(d) 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 to the
agency[.]” R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(d).1
{¶21} Mother’s interaction with PWT during this case was limited to supervised visits at
the visitation center. Because Mother had a history of making unfounded allegations of abuse
against service providers, including one of the case aides in this case, CSB decided to record the
visits between Mother and PWT. CSB did not normally record visits in dependency cases and
1
The factor set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) is not relevant in this case.
9
apparently made the video recordings to protect itself against any further allegations by Mother.
Because it had made recordings of the visits, however, the parties and the trial court agreed that
the trial judge would review the recordings of several visits that were selected by both parties
and the guardian ad litem.
{¶22} This was an unusual situation for the trial court and this Court, as well over seven
full work days was required to view the videos in their entirety. Given the time constraints
imposed on each court in permanent custody cases, each court’s resources would have been
better utilized if, rather than simply submitting numerous multiple-hour visits to be viewed in
their entirety, each party had pointed the court to specific portions of those videos, with an
explanation of what those portions would demonstrate. Due to the unique nature of this case and
the fact that the trial court did review all of the recordings, however, this Court did also.
{¶23} Because the evidence of Mother’s interaction with PWT was too extensive to set
forth in full detail, this Court will summarize the evidence before the trial court, with an
elaboration of a few specific examples of Mother’s behavior. CSB’s witnesses did not dispute
that Mother loved PWT, came to visits regularly, was loving and affectionate with him, and that
there was a bond between the two. The recordings further reveal that Mother always came to the
visits with food, activities, and gifts for PWT, and both Mother and PWT appeared to enjoy
seeing each other.
{¶24} Although CSB’s witnesses faulted Mother for bringing too much food for PWT, it
was apparent that she simply wanted him to have a variety of food and drink choices and did not
force him to consume more food than he wanted. This Court must emphasize, as it has before,
that children services agencies too often focus on relatively insignificant matters in these cases.
CSB focused too much of its evidence on the quantity and type of food Mother brought to each
10
visit, how she dressed, and that her behavior was merely different from other parents, which had
little bearing on her ability to provide a suitable home for PWT. Whether Mother was a suitable
parent did not hinge on whether her behavior and appearance conformed to societal norms,
absent a demonstration that her unusual behavior would have a negative impact on her child.
See In re M.O., 9th Dist. No. 25312, 2010-Ohio-5107, at ¶7 (emphasizing that “[t]he focus in [a
dependency and neglect case] is on whether parental care is adequate, not whether it is ideal.”).
{¶25} CSB did present substantial other evidence, however, to demonstrate that
Mother’s distorted perceptions of the world had a negative impact on PWT that was becoming
more apparent as he grew older. Although Mother’s interaction with PWT was sometimes
appropriate, often it was not, particularly when she spoke to him. She rarely spoke to PWT at an
age-appropriate level, but instead used complex language and spoke about subjects that he could
not understand at his young age. More disturbing, however, was Mother’s continual and
increasing focus on injury, death, and her belief that the government and “bad people” were out
to get them.
{¶26} By the time PWT was two and three years old, the interaction at the visits
typically consisted of periods of sitting quietly watching a movie or playing a children’s game on
the computer; physically playing, such as by pretending to be animals or tossing a Frisbee; and
quietly playing with toys, coloring, or reading children’s stories.
{¶27} The movie-watching portion of the visit would encompass anywhere from 30
minutes to three hours of each weekly, four-hour visit. Because PWT apparently did not watch
television at the foster home, he appeared to enjoy watching the movies and often asked Mother
to put on another movie. PWT did not interact much with Mother while he watched the movies,
but would eat lunch or sit quietly in her lap or next to her.
11
{¶28} Occasionally, Mother would make comments about what they were watching.
Sometimes, her comments were age-appropriate, but many times they were not. For example,
while they were watching an animated movie about penguins surfing, unprompted by anything
that was happening in the movie, Mother told PWT that she did not surf because there are sharks
in the water. She spoke extensively at that time about the fact that sharks have big teeth, that
they will eat you, and that you will not see them coming from under the water. Mother then
imitated a shark eating a person. PWT never asked Mother about sharks, but she continued to
raise the issue of the danger of sharks at subsequent visits. She even brought a book about
sharks to show PWT how big their teeth were and again talked about sharks eating people in the
water.
{¶29} Mother raised similar inappropriate concerns during other children’s movies and
stories. She would talk in detail about the risk of injury and death in everything PWT did.
While playing or doing crafts, Mother repeatedly warned him not to cut off his fingers with the
scissors and spent minutes telling him how she was afraid of big scissors. While PWT was
coloring with markers, Mother warned him that his skin could fall off if he got marker on his
fingers. During another visit, she cautioned him that paper was dangerous because it has sharp
edges.
{¶30} While PWT was eating, Mother often warned him of the dangers of choking on
food or the straws and plastic utensils he was using. Rather than simply telling him to be careful,
chew slowly, or stop running around, she would describe in detail how he could choke to death,
sometimes in graphic terms and/or while physically pretending to die.
{¶31} During periods of more active play, Mother would allow and even encourage
PWT to become rowdy and aggressive by rolling around on the floor, jumping on the furniture,
12
running around the room, and by kicking the Frisbee. Sometimes, after he was all riled up,
Mother would caution him, in graphic details, about what could happen to him if he was not
careful, demonstrating how he could break his back and what it would look like. She once spent
minutes explaining and demonstrating to him that people die with their eyes opened and their
bodies become stiff.
{¶32} Mother frequently raised the topic of death, telling PWT that when he dies he will
be gone forever and will not be able to watch television or drink chocolate milk. She once told
him that if he did not eat, he would die, and proceeded to describe how his body would eat itself
from the inside out, listing his individual organs.
{¶33} Mother also communicated her paranoid and delusional thoughts to PWT through
what she called “stories,” which were usually about bad people who were out to get her or her
children. Her stories were typically unrelated to anything they were doing or saying at the time.
She sometimes told her stories when PWT asked her to read to him a book. From the videos
submitted by the parties, it appears that Mother began regularly telling her stories to PWT in
August 2010 and, over the next several months, the length and bizarre nature of the stories
intensified. Most of the stories were incredible and even delusional, and included Mother ranting
about the government lying to her, stealing her children, protecting people who had tried to kill
her, and blocking her computer’s internet signal. Even if the content of any of the stories had
been true, such as her telling him about her own Mother abusing her as a child, the substance of
many of her stories was frightening and completely inappropriate for a three-year-old child.
{¶34} Often in conjunction with her stories about bad people being out to get them,
Mother told PWT to stay strong and that he must defend himself if he is attacked. At more than
13
one visit, she demonstrated specific self-defense techniques to him and once suggested that he
might be attacked when he goes to school.
{¶35} By November 2010, most of what Mother said to PWT focused on death or
otherwise reflected her paranoia that the government and other people were out to get her. More
significantly, Mother was no longer simply ranting at PWT; he was beginning to engage in
conversation with her about death and bad people. The video recordings of these conversations
demonstrated that PWT was starting to understand and be negatively affected by the disturbing
nature of what Mother was saying to him.
{¶36} For example, on November 4, PWT was admiring Mother’s necklace and she
repeatedly told him that he could have it when she dies. PWT responded in a concerned tone,
“No, you’re not gonna die.” Mother told him matter-of-factly that everyone dies. PWT
continued to question Mother and she told him that everyone dies because you cannot live
forever.
{¶37} During the same visit, PWT began a discussion with Mother about the fictitious
bad people about whom she had told him. He said to her, in a concerned manner, that when the
“naughty guys at your house are dead,” he could come back to her house. Mother then ranted on
for several minutes about naughty guys being everywhere and that they sit in corporations and
often wear uniforms and police officer badges.
{¶38} During the January 7, 2011 visit, while Mother was once again talking about the
“bad guys,” PWT said, “I know. The bad guys make you dead.” Mother responded, “They do
sometimes, don’t they?” She immediately transitioned into another one of her stories about
people being mean to her and getting her kicked out of school. Immediately after that story,
14
PWT said, “Then you can just stay at home and not go to school.” Mother responded that she
was still going to school, but at another school.
{¶39} Later during the same visit, Mother began talking to PWT about how to defend
himself if he was attacked from behind. He proudly told Mother that he would hit the people
with the toy bowling pin he was holding. Mother responded by repeatedly telling him that he
must do “whatever it takes” to defend himself. After Mother stopped talking and started
cleaning up the room, PWT continued to repeat that if the bad guys hit him, he would hit them
and do “whatever it takes.”
{¶40} During the January 14, 2011 visit, when Mother told PWT a story about her best
friend attacking her, he was engaged in the conversation from the beginning. As soon as she
started the story about the friend, PWT asked, “What is his name?” Mother responded that she
could not tell anyone because the friend went crazy and his name is a secret. With PWT
apparently listening to her every word, Mother went on and on about the friend who lost his
mind and tried to choke her from behind and picked her up by her head. She explained in detail
and demonstrated how she defended herself from his attack, including that she pretended to be
dead and then hit him in the head and knocked him down. PWT interjected, “He fell down?”
Mother responded affirmatively, explaining that the man almost went through the window. She
continued her story by emphasizing that the friend will never hit her again, he was no longer her
friend, and that people are crazy.
{¶41} A review of the video recordings revealed that, as predicted by the psychological
experts, as PWT grew older, his interaction with Mother was being negatively impacted by her
untreated mental illness. There was also evidence that he was having nightmares due to the
frightening topics that Mother discussed with him. As the experts had explained, without
15
treatment, Mother was not able to control the content of her conversation and seemed unable to
be directed away from her paranoid and delusional thoughts. This was apparent through her
testimony at both the adjudication and permanent custody hearings, as her testimony focused on
paranoid and delusional thoughts that CSB, the fathers of her other children, and others had
either already raped or otherwise abused her or her children or were trying to do so. Mother also
testified that she did not need counseling. Thus, despite Mother’s love for PWT, given her
refusal to seek mental health treatment, the first best interest factor weighed heavily against her.
{¶42} Because PWT was three and a half years old at the time of the hearing, the
guardian ad litem spoke on his behalf and recommended permanent custody to CSB. He
explained that, although he did not initially see a connection between Mother’s untreated mental
illness and her ability to parent PWT, by the time of the permanent custody hearing two years
later, he did. He testified that, although Mother had the ability to love, feed, and provide other
basic care for PWT, her paranoid and delusional “tirades” had started to cause emotional harm.
The guardian was concerned that PWT was starting to understand the meaning of Mother’s
words and was having nightmares after some of the visits, noting that he had awoken after one
nightmare, terrified that the “bad people” might know where he lived.
{¶43} By the time of the hearing, PWT had been living outside of Mother’s custody in a
temporary placement for well over two years and was in need of a legally secure permanent
placement. Mother was not able to provide him with a suitable home and, given her refusal to
seek treatment, would be unable to do so in the foreseeable future. The only relative suggested
by Mother as a potential placement for PWT was her half-brother, who told CSB that he was not
interested in having custody of the child. CSB also contacted PWT’s father, who also did not
want custody of PWT and could not recommend any relatives who would be willing to do so.
16
Therefore, the trial court reasonably concluded that a legally secure permanent placement could
only be achieved by granting permanent custody to CSB.
{¶44} There was substantial evidence before the trial court to support its conclusion that
permanent custody was in the best interest of PWT. The second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
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 Wayne, 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(E). 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 Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
17
APPEARANCES:
CONRAD G. OLSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and LATECIA E. WILES, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.
EDWARD EBERHART, Guardian ad Litem.