In re V.N.

[Cite as In re V.N., 2017-Ohio-2586.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: :
CASE NOS. CA2016-12-229
V.N., et al. : CA2016-12-230
CA2016-12-235
: CA2016-12-236
: OPINION
5/1/2017
:
:
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case Nos. JN2015-0015, JN2015-0016
Debra Rothstein, 10 Journal Square, 3rd Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, Guardian ad Litem for
children
Carol Garner, 9435 Waterstone Blvd., Suite 140, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, Guardian ad Litem
for appellant, A.N.
Jeannine Barbeau, 3268 Jefferson Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220, Guardian ad Litem for
appellant, F.M.
Dawn Garrett, 9435 Waterstone Blvd., Suite 140, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, for appellant, A.N.
Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant,
F.M.
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee, Butler
County Department of Job and Family Services
Sarah Owens, Parachute, 284 North Fair Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for CASA Darlene
Davidson
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, the biological parents ("Mother" and "Father") of V.N. and V.N.
(twins, referred to collectively as the "children"), appeal a decision of the Butler County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the children to appellee,
the Butler County Department of Job and Family Services ("BCDJFS").
{¶ 2} On January 26, 2015, BCDJFS filed a dependency and neglect complaint,
which was later amended on January 29, 2015, and requested temporary custody of the
children who were born on June 24, 2014. The complaint alleged BCDJFS received a report
stating the children were admitted to Cincinnati Children's Hospital and were failing to thrive.
The complaint included issues such as the children being below the growth curve and
abnormal lab work with low sodium levels, risk of lack of brain growth and other
developmental issues, concern the parents were not feeding the children as instructed, and
inability to contact the parents. These concerns were heightened because the children were
born prematurely. Based on the allegations, the magistrate found probable cause to believe
that the issuance of an emergency order was necessary to prevent immediate or threatened
harm to the children and placed them in the temporary custody of BCDJFS.
{¶ 3} On May 27, 2015, the parents stipulated to dependency and the magistrate
made such finding, dismissed the neglect allegation, and adopted the facts as set forth in the
amended complaint. The parents' case plans included couples counseling, individual
therapy, psychological assessments, parenting classes, and required them to obtain and
maintain financial stability and a stable home. Additionally, Father's case plan required him
to complete a STABLE sexual risk evaluation. On April 15, 2016, BCDJFS moved for
permanent custody on the basis the children could not be placed with either parent within a
reasonable time because no further treatment plan could be formulated to place the parents
in a position to provide adequate child care, and thus, BCDJFS asserted granting their
-2-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
permanent custody motion was in the children's best interest. A trial on the matter resulted in
the following facts:
{¶ 4} Prior to the initiation of the present case, both parents recently worked with
BCDJFS in regards to Mother's other child, which included parenting training for newborns.
Both Mother and Father made steps toward completion of their individual case plans.
Particularly, the parents completed their psychological assessments, individual and couples
therapy, and were engaged in ongoing in-home parenting classes with Judy Curley, a
Children Services Program Specialist for BCDJFS. Mother did not obtain employment
throughout the pendency of the case and Father received Social Security income in addition
to working part-time. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Mother was in the process of
seeking Social Security income because her mental illness prevented her from being around
people and working. Despite this assertion, Mother testified at trial she had a job lined up
following the resolution of this case. Mother conceded her income situation is unstable.
Mother and Father resided at the same residence for five months. Aside from water damage
to the laundry room ceiling, there were no other safety concerns identified within the
residence.
{¶ 5} Mother testified she actively participated in the services within her case plan as
well as regularly attended most of the children's medical appointments. Mother stated she
had reached out to the various people involved with this case to seek additional parenting
instruction, but did not receive any further options. Mother identified the health concerns
afflicting the children and detailed the children's current nutritional requirements. Mother
acknowledged the learning process required to meet the children's specific nutritional needs
and felt she has mastered such requirements. Mother denied force-feeding the children, but
stated she has been frustrated when they refuse to eat. Instances of nutritional error on the
parent's behalf were identified, such as providing cookies to the children when they require a
-3-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
low or no sugar diet. Mother testified the parents made such errors before receiving a full
explanation of the children's dietary needs. Father testified and was able to identify the
health concerns and nutritional requirements for the children. Father further explained he
"totally disagreed" with the doctor's prognosis for why the children were not gaining weight,
and thought, there may be a more serious intestinal concern beyond dietary issues.
{¶ 6} The foster mother ("Foster Mother") testified the children needed "extra-special
care" regarding their feeding. The children had many issues with vomiting, weight gain, and
stiffness, and thus, were very fragile. She testified that once she began caring for the
children, their health immediately improved. Despite this improvement, Foster Mother stated
the children will continue to have ongoing medical issues and will need extensive medical
procedures requiring extra time and care. Additionally, the children participated in
occupational therapy, which improved their stiffness. Foster Mother acknowledged Mother
and Father attend most medical appointments and appeared engaged during them.
However, Foster Mother expressed concern regarding the parents' inability to bring
appropriate food during appointments and other visits. Foster Mother testified the doctor
informed the parents about eight or ten times the children should have little to no sugar.
Foster Mother explained this instruction appeared unsuccessful because the parents still
brought inappropriate food. Foster Mother stated that caring for the children was exhausting,
but she still wishes to adopt the children.
{¶ 7} Curley testified she began in-home parental training with Mother and Father in
October 2015, which continued for nine months. She explained the focus of the program
was teaching the parents to follow the nutritional requirements needed to improve the
children's health as well as proper disciplinary procedures. Curley explained the program
can be much more extensive, but due to the parents' lack of progression, the scope of the
program was limited to nutrition and discipline. The nutritional plan relies on a food pyramid
-4-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
to structure the children's feeding, which the parents often misplaced.
{¶ 8} Curley testified the parents were unreceptive to lessons in the beginning, and
even after nine months of training, significant barriers remain. Curley acknowledged some
improvement – mainly on the part of Father – however, the parents' defensiveness prevents
them from realizing their inabilities. Specifically, Mother attributes blame to someone else for
any issues that arise, she is prone to dishonesty, and possesses an inability to listen. Father
tends to be dishonest as well, but will "walk his lies back." Both parents have at times shown
improvement, but then, fall back into old ways inhibiting their progress. They tend to
minimalize issues and lack a foundation to recognize problems and areas for personal
growth. Curley found their approach to parenting lessons to be "mendacious" and
"truculent", and that they often "dig their feet in." Curley testified that she "[does not] know
what the next visit will bring[.]" Curley further stated the "barriers are so insurmountable" that
she never felt comfortable having the parents feed the children without supervision.
{¶ 9} Sara Harrison, a caseworker from BCDJFS, testified she was assigned to both
the present case and Mother's prior case involving her other child. Harrison testified that
prior to removing the children from the parents' home, they were very stiff with sunken eyes
and had vomit saturated in their clothing. Harrison stated there was no safety concerns with
the parents' residence and acknowledged some improvement during visits. However,
Harrison also expressed concerns with leaving the children with the parents without
supervision. Additionally, Harrison testified Mother never contacted anyone involved with the
case regarding additional parenting instruction. Rather, Harrison stated Mother appeared to
be proud of her progress in the services she was already undergoing. Harrison does not
believe the parents possess the ability to cope with their own personal issues while meeting
the many needs of the children. Therefore, Harrison opined reunification was not in the
children's best interest.
-5-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
{¶ 10} Deborah Miller and Rachel Stacy are the visitation specialists who supervised
the parents' visits with the children during the pendency of this case. Stacy supervised most
of the visits and Miller supervised two visits. Stacy stated the visits began at a level one,
which means the specialist must always be within arm's reach of the children. The visits then
progressed to level three where the specialist must check-in on the children every 15
minutes. Stacy testified the parents improved with feeding and interacting with the children,
but were never permitted to feed the children unsupervised (level one) due to ongoing
concerns. However, Stacy explained these concerns have mostly subsided because the
children are now able to feed themselves with the use of utensils. Stacy did identify a few
safety concerns regarding the children falling into furniture and tripping on toys. Stacy
testified the parents were inconsistent in conducting the body exercises the children needed
to alleviate stiffness. Further, the parents did not understand what they needed to be worried
about when playing and interacting with the children. Miller testified she is uncomfortable
with moving the parents to level four supervision where the specialist only checks in and out
at the beginning and end of the visit, as the parents need more instruction. Miller did not
identify any safety or feeding concerns from the two visits she supervised.
{¶ 11} Dr. Joseph Lipari, a psychologist for C.D.C. Mental Health Services, conducted
the parents' psychological evaluations, which he documented in individual reports for Mother
and Father. Dr. Lipari diagnosed Mother with "Adjustment Disorder With Mixed Anxiety and
Depressed Mood Rule Out Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder" and "Personality Disorder
Not Otherwise Specified With Histrionic, Narcissistic Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, and
Antisocial Features." Dr. Lipari diagnosed Father with "Adjustment Disorder With Mixed
Anxiety and Depressed Mood" and "Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with
Obsessive-Compulsive and Dependent Features." Dr. Lipari noted the difficulty in diagnosing
the parents due to their defensiveness.
-6-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
{¶ 12} Finally, a guardian ad litem ("GAL") and a court-appointed special advocate
("CASA") represented the children throughout the pendency of the case. The CASA testified
she was present during 16 visits and attended two semi-annual reviews. Based on this
observation, the CASA expressed concerns with the parents' ability to adhere to the
children's nutritional guidelines and the parents' use of abnormally dirty bibs and toys. The
CASA did not believe the parents were ready for level four supervision and testified the
parents seemed to ignore Curley's instructions during in-home parental training, stating
"[t]hey just kept doing what they were doing." The CASA found it troublesome the parents
were still dealing with nutritional and sanitary issues, and identified the parents' lack of
transportation and telephone as factors that may inhibit their ability to adequately care for the
children.
{¶ 13} The GAL provided an oral report and recommendation during trial and stated
"the children cannot be placed back with the parents within any reasonable time and that it is
in the children's best interest to grant permanent custody to [BCDJFS], and that is so that the
children can find and be placed in a secure adoptive home which will meet all their needs."
In her report, the GAL cited the parents' tenuous circumstances, failed efforts to be
consistent in their care for the children, inability to follow through with their professional
instruction, and inability to make necessary changes to adequately support the well-being of
the extra-special needs of their children. Based on these concerns, the GAL opined
reunification would place the children at risk. Additionally, the GAL opined the only option for
meeting the best interest of the children is granting permanent custody to BCDJFS for
adoptive placement due to the parents' own struggles with transportation, communication,
organization, accountability, lack of oversight, and questionable judgment.
{¶ 14} Following the conclusion of the trial, the magistrate granted BCDJFS's
permanent custody motion. Both parents objected to the magistrate's finding. The juvenile
-7-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
court held a hearing on the matter, and then, overruled the parents' objections. The present
appeal followed.
{¶ 15} Mother's Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO
THE AGENCY WHERE THAT DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 17} Father's Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 18} THE COURT'S DECISION AND ORDER OF PERMANENT CUSTODY
VIOLATED THE PARENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS BECAUSE THE AGENCY FAILED TO PROVE,
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
CHILDREN REQUIRES AN AWARD OF PERMANENT CUSTODY AND BECAUSE THE
AGENCY FAILED TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE
AGENCY HAD MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS THAT
GAVE RISE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM THE HOME AND TO REUNITE
THE FAMILY.
{¶ 19} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision
granting permanent custody to BCDJFS was not in the children's best interest and was not
supported by the weight of the evidence. Father assigns error to the juvenile court's decision
on the same basis and further argues the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Mother and Father do not contest the juvenile court's best interest finding that the children
had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-
month period as of the time of the filing of the motion for permanent custody. However,
Father argues that the statutory framework permits BCDJFS to circumvent proving the
-8-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
children could not be reunified with their parents. Father cites to no case law or statutory
authority in support of this proposition.
{¶ 20} "The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed
'essential' * * *." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972), quoting Meyer
v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923). "Despite the fact that we have found
that parents who are suitable have a paramount right to raise and care for their children, it is
equally well settled that '[t]he fundamental interest of parents is not absolute.'" (Citations
omitted.) In re K.H., 119 Ohio St. 3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, ¶ 40. "The constitutional right to
raise one's children does not include a right to abuse, exploit, or neglect them, nor is there a
right to permit others to do so." Id. "The state's power to terminate parental rights is
circumscribed * * *." Id. at ¶ 41, citing In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St. 2d 100, 105 (1979).
However, "when that authority is properly invoked, it is fully proper and constitutional to
remove children from their parents' care. [S]uch an extreme disposition is nevertheless
expressly sanctioned * * * when it is necessary for the 'welfare' of the child." In re AsF(F),
12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2016-05-020 and CA2016-05-021, 2016-Ohio-7836, ¶ 12,
quoting R.C. 2151.01(A).
{¶ 21} Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care
and custody of his or her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982); In re E.G., 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2013-12-224, 2014-Ohio-2007, ¶ 6. "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). This court's review of a juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody is
limited to whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court's
-9-
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
determination. In re M.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-06-130 and CA2014-06-131, 2014-
Ohio-5009, ¶ 6. An appellate court will not reverse a finding by the juvenile court that the
evidence was clear and convincing absent sufficient conflict in the evidence. Id.
{¶ 22} Even if a trial court's judgment is sustained by sufficient evidence, an appellate
court may nevertheless conclude 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.
{¶ 23} "Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and
award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a
two-part test." In re T.P., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA-2016-03-012, 2016-Ohio-5780, ¶ 13.
First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best
interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). In so doing, the court shall consider all relevant
factors, including, but not limited to, the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D). Second,
the court must find that any of the following apply: (1) the child is abandoned, (2) the child is
orphaned, (3) the child has been in temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of
a consecutive 22-month period, (4) where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child
cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with
either parent, or (5) the child or another child in the custody of the parent from whose custody
- 10 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
the child has been removed, has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child
on three separate occasions. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) thru (e); In re C.B., 12th Dist. Clermont
No. CA2015-04-033, 2015-Ohio-3709, ¶ 10. To satisfy part two of the permanent custody
test, only one of the above five findings need be met. In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No.
CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio-3188, ¶ 12.
{¶ 24} Neither parent contests the juvenile court's finding the children had been in the
temporary custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period as of
the time of the filing of the motion for permanent custody. However, Father asserts the 12 of
22 consecutive months' requirement renders the remainder of the statute superfluous
because it permitted BCDJFS to delay returning the children to the parents after the children
were no longer failing to thrive, possessed the ability to feed themselves, and could be
placed in the custody of the parents. However, Father's argument is unsupported by the law.
As explained above, "the 12 of 22 consecutive months' requirement is only a part of the
statutory requisite necessary for the granting of a motion for permanent custody." In re
AsF(F), 2016-Ohio-7836, ¶ 15. To grant permanent custody, the "juvenile court must also
find that permanent custody serves the child's best interest based upon the non-exclusive
enumerated factors of R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)." Id.
{¶ 25} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides:
[T]he court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not
limited to, the following:
(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
- 11 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
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;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this
section apply in relation to the parents and child.
{¶ 26} In granting BCDJFS's motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court
considered each of the best interest factors in light of the evidence presented at trial. With
respect to the first statutory factor, the juvenile court found both parents have attended
medical appointments regularly throughout the case and participated in supervised visits.
The juvenile court found the children are familiar with both parents and identified a bond
between the children and the parents. The juvenile court noted the CASA's testimony that
Father's interactions with the children are more like an older brother than a father. The
juvenile court further identified a deep bond between Foster Mother, the other foster siblings,
and the children. Furthermore, the juvenile court acknowledged the Foster Mother has
expressed a desire to adopt the children.
{¶ 27} In consideration of the second statutory factor, the juvenile court did not
conduct an in camera interview with the children due to their age. Rather, the juvenile court
considered the report and recommendations of the GAL, who recommended the children be
placed in the permanent custody of BCDJFS. The GAL opined Mother and Father could not
meet the children's needs because of the parents' own struggles with transportation,
communication, organization, accountability, lack of oversight, and questionable judgment.
Therefore, reunification would place the children at risk. The juvenile court also considered
the recommendation of the CASA, who concurred with the GAL's concerns as well as the
GAL's recommendation in favor of granting permanent custody of the children to BCDJFS.
- 12 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
{¶ 28} With respect to the third statutory factor, the juvenile court reviewed the
children's custodial history and found the children were adjudicated dependent and had been
in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month
period.
{¶ 29} In considering the fourth statutory factor, the juvenile court found the children
were clearly in need of a legally secure placement, as they had resided in foster care for
approximately 18 months during the pendency of the case. The juvenile court further found
BCDJFS presented clear and convincing evidence neither Mother nor Father could provide
the care the children required. In making these findings, the juvenile court acknowledged the
children were born prematurely, and although the children were not immediately removed
from the parents' care, they were later removed for failing to thrive after admittance into the
hospital due to ongoing safety and health concerns. For this reason, the juvenile court
examined the children's medical records, which reflected various concerns of medical
personnel regarding the parents' ability to provide the special care the children required.
Specifically, these concerns included the parents' ability to appropriately recognize and
respond to cues from the children, the parents' ability to grasp the children's medical needs
and to feed the children so that they meet their strict nutritional requirements, the parents'
communication issues with regards to medical providers and BCDJFS personnel, and the
parent's lack of transportation.
{¶ 30} The juvenile court then analyzed the parents' progress throughout the case, or
lack thereof, with respect to the above concerns at the time of removal. The juvenile court
acknowledged the parents' completion of many of the programs mandated by their case
plans and that the parents have made some progress in their respective programs and during
visitation. However, the juvenile court found despite their participation in these programs,
there remains serious legitimate concerns regarding the parents' ability to safely care for the
- 13 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
children. In support of this finding, the juvenile court noted the parents' minimalization of
issues and tendency to blame others and avoid accepting responsibility for personal
mistakes, their extreme defensiveness and inability to retain the information taught during in-
home lessons, their tendency to fall back on inappropriate parenting patterns, and constant
distractions coupled with mendacious behavior.
{¶ 31} Despite weekly in-home parenting lessons for nine months, the juvenile court
found Mother and Father were unable to progress beyond lessons focused on addressing the
initial areas of concern. The parents could recite the children's medical concerns, but given
this lack of progress, the juvenile court found it is not clear they understand the concerns.
The juvenile court cited the nutritional errors concerning sugar and allergies by the parents
despite overwhelming instruction and found their lack of following through demonstrated an
ongoing concern. The juvenile court further supported this concern with the fact that
although the parents progressed to level three supervision, they remained at level one during
feeding. The juvenile court acknowledged the testimony of the visitation specialists
conveying some progress by the parents, but even they were not comfortable moving the
parents to level four supervision. Finally, the juvenile court found the fifth statutory factor
inapplicable to this case. After considering the extent of these efforts by BCDJFS and the
parents' failure to rectify the concerns that led to the children's removal, the juvenile court
found reunification was not possible.
{¶ 32} Based on these findings, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing
evidence that it was in the children's best interest to grant permanent custody to BCDJFS.
On appeal, Mother and Father dispute the juvenile court's findings and argue that the
evidence did not support the grant of permanent custody. In so doing, the parents assert
they have made efforts to meet the requirements in their case plans, have regularly attended
visits and medical appointments, and that they have shown sufficient progress to
- 14 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
demonstrate placement with them would be appropriate and legally secure. The parents
further assert that any deficiency in their progress is due to BCDJFS' inability to provide
either adequate or enough parental training.
{¶ 33} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find the juvenile court's determination
regarding the best interest of the children is supported by clear and convincing evidence and
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Though it does appear that Mother and
Father have made efforts to meet the requirements of their respective case plans as well as
bonded with the children, there are compelling reasons to weigh the best interest factors in
favor of permanent custody to BCDJFS. Mother and Father have had over 18 months to
demonstrate they have remedied the issues that caused the children's removal, during which
they have had the assistance of numerous medical and parenting professionals to help them
improve their parenting abilities and provide a safe and secure home for the children.
Despite this extensive assistance, the parents consistently demonstrated mendacious and
defensive behavior, as well as failed to show any appreciable progress in meeting the special
parenting needs required by the children. The parents possess an inability to grasp the
children's medical needs and are otherwise incapable of learning and applying the parenting
skills they should have obtained by participating in parenting lessons. As previously stated
by this court, "a parent is afforded a reasonable, not an indefinite, period of time to remedy
the conditions causing the children's removal." In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2014-
03-005, 2014-Ohio-3188, ¶ 23; In re A.M.L., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-01-010, 2013-
Ohio-2277, ¶ 32.
{¶ 34} While Mother and Father have shown some attempt to progress within the
confines of their case plan, it was too little, too late. In re C.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2016-07-051, 2017-Ohio-57, ¶ 26. Moreover, successful completion of one's case plan is
not dispositive of the issue of reunification. In re E.B., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2009-10-
- 15 -
Butler CA2016-12-229,
-230, -235, and -236
139 and CA2009-11-146, 2010-Ohio-1122, ¶ 30 ("it is well-settled that the completion of case
plan services alone does not equate to, or necessitate a finding that the parents have
substantially remedied the conditions that caused the removal of the child from the home").
Thus, the case plan is a means to the goal of reunification, but not the goal itself.
Accordingly, the question is whether the parents have remedied the condition that caused the
children to be removed in the first place. As analyzed above, the juvenile court's findings on
this issue are clearly supported by the record.
{¶ 35} Therefore, having found no error in the juvenile court's decision granting
BCDJFS permanent custody of the children. Mother's and Father's single assignments of
error are overruled.
{¶ 36} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
- 16 -