[Cite as In re E.W., 2018-Ohio-2863.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
In re E.W., D.B., J.B., B.B. Court of Appeals No. L-18-1024
Trial Court No. JC 15250642
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: July 20, 2018
*****
Adam H. Houser, for appellant.
Bradley W. King, for appellee.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a December 28, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated the parental rights of
appellant, mother, and granted custody of the subject minor children, E.W., D.B., J.B., and B.B. to appellee, Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”). For the reasons set
forth below, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error:
1. The finding that the child[ren] could not be placed with appellant
was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. The trial court improperly used mother’s use of a legally
prescribed medication as reason to terminate her parental rights.
{¶ 3} On October 2, 2015, LCCS filed the complaint in dependency and neglect
and a motion for shelter care housing regarding the subject minor children. On
November 24, 2015, following an adjudicatory hearing, the children were found to be
neglected and temporary custody was awarded to LCCS.
{¶ 4} On June 27, 2017, LCCS filed for permanent custody of the minor children.
On September 26, 2017, the permanent custody trial was conducted. Appellant was
present at the trial.
{¶ 5} On December 28, 2017, permanent custody of the minor children was
awarded to LCCS. In reaching the subject decision, the trial court noted that the children
had been in the temporary custody of LCCS for 23 consecutive months, the father of
E.W. abandoned the child, did not participate in case plan services, and did not visit the
child. The court noted that the father of the remaining three children possessed an
extensive history of severe drug abuse, and repeatedly failed to participate in or complete
recommended drug addiction services. The court further found that appellant did not
2. successfully address her issues of chronic substance abuse and homelessness so as to
warrant reunification and doing so would run counter to the best interests of the children.
This appeal ensued.
{¶ 6} In early 2015, LCCS began working with appellant regarding the subject
children. The primary parental issues underlying this matter entail extensive substance
abuse and chronic homelessness.
{¶ 7} Testimony presented at trial reflected that the father of D.B., J.B., and B.B.
possesses a serious and ongoing drug and addiction issue involving heroin, opioids, and
marijuana. Although being offered a customized treatment plan at Unison so as to not
conflict with his work schedule, he nevertheless did not attend the sessions and was
unsuccessfully discharged. Subsequently, he was offered services through Zepf, and
similarly failed to follow through with treatment services.
{¶ 8} Testimony presented at trial reflected that although appellant attended a
recommended methadone treatment program for her serious and ongoing drug addiction
issues, she failed to follow through on needed mental health services, was terminated
from the methadone treatment program due to a positive drug test result, and was also
unsuccessfully terminated from the Family Drug Court Program for noncompliance.
{¶ 9} In addition to the parents possessing ongoing severe drug problems that they
did not successfully address so as to potentially facilitate reunification in the best interest
of the children, the record further reflects an issue of chronic homelessness that is
likewise contrary to the best interest of the children.
3. {¶ 10} Testimony presented at trial reflected that appellant resided with the
children at numerous homeless shelters in recent years. Notably, appellant and the
children were ejected from the shelters due to appellant’s noncompliance. The testimony
demonstrated that appellant did not cooperate with shelters including La Posada, St.
Paul’s, Beach House, and a housing program run by Neighborhood Properties, Inc.
(“NPI”).
{¶ 11} Testimony presented at trial reflected that although appellant claimed to
have suitable private housing so as to potentially facilitate reunification in the fall of
2017, the housing lacked functional central heat, lacked adequate space for appellant and
her children, appellant could not produce a lease reflecting lawful residency, and
appellant was evicted shortly thereafter.
{¶ 12} Testimony presented at trial reflects that although appellant was
specifically instructed that, due to the severity of his drug addiction, maintaining a
relationship with and resuming cohabitation with the father of the children would be a
barrier to reunification, appellant nevertheless persisted in conveying that if the children
were returned she would resume cohabitation with the drug addicted father of the
children.
{¶ 13} Testimony presented at trial reflects that in addition to appellant not
making adequate progress in addressing her own drug addiction, appellant also had
become addicted to methadone, the drug prescribed to her to combat her heroin and
4. opium addiction. Consistently, appellant refused to reduce or taper down her levels of
methadone usage as recommended by the treating professionals.
{¶ 14} Based upon the above-described facts and circumstances, the guardian ad
litem assigned to this case recommended that permanent custody be granted to LCCS
given appellant’s failure to effectively address either the chronic drug abuse or chronic
homelessness issues despite LCCS and multiple agencies offering a wide array of
services over the course of many years. The trial court found it to be in the best interest
of the children for permanent custody to be granted to LCCS.
{¶ 15} In the first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court
ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We do not concur.
{¶ 16} It is well-established that a trial court ruling on a disputed motion for
permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.B., 6th
Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1161, 2007-Ohio-2537, ¶ 27.
{¶ 17} In addition, deference is given to the lower court’s findings as they are best
suited to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and weigh evidentiary and witness
credibility. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 6th Dist. Lucas L-09-1022, 2010-Ohio-3064, ¶ 62.
{¶ 18} R.C. 2151.414 establishes that permanent custody determinations require
assessing whether the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a
reasonable timeframe and whether an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best
interest.
5. {¶ 19} Specifically, the trial court in this matter determined pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(E)(1) that appellant, “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially
remedy the conditions.” We concur.
{¶ 20} The record of evidence reflects that despite years of the provision of a wide
array of needed services to appellant by LCCS, appellant did not successfully secure and
maintain safe, stable housing suitable for reunification.
{¶ 21} On the contrary, the record reflects that appellant was removed and/or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re E.W., 2018-Ohio-2863.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
In re E.W., D.B., J.B., B.B. Court of Appeals No. L-18-1024
Trial Court No. JC 15250642
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: July 20, 2018
*****
Adam H. Houser, for appellant.
Bradley W. King, for appellee.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a December 28, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated the parental rights of
appellant, mother, and granted custody of the subject minor children, E.W., D.B., J.B., and B.B. to appellee, Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”). For the reasons set
forth below, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error:
1. The finding that the child[ren] could not be placed with appellant
was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. The trial court improperly used mother’s use of a legally
prescribed medication as reason to terminate her parental rights.
{¶ 3} On October 2, 2015, LCCS filed the complaint in dependency and neglect
and a motion for shelter care housing regarding the subject minor children. On
November 24, 2015, following an adjudicatory hearing, the children were found to be
neglected and temporary custody was awarded to LCCS.
{¶ 4} On June 27, 2017, LCCS filed for permanent custody of the minor children.
On September 26, 2017, the permanent custody trial was conducted. Appellant was
present at the trial.
{¶ 5} On December 28, 2017, permanent custody of the minor children was
awarded to LCCS. In reaching the subject decision, the trial court noted that the children
had been in the temporary custody of LCCS for 23 consecutive months, the father of
E.W. abandoned the child, did not participate in case plan services, and did not visit the
child. The court noted that the father of the remaining three children possessed an
extensive history of severe drug abuse, and repeatedly failed to participate in or complete
recommended drug addiction services. The court further found that appellant did not
2. successfully address her issues of chronic substance abuse and homelessness so as to
warrant reunification and doing so would run counter to the best interests of the children.
This appeal ensued.
{¶ 6} In early 2015, LCCS began working with appellant regarding the subject
children. The primary parental issues underlying this matter entail extensive substance
abuse and chronic homelessness.
{¶ 7} Testimony presented at trial reflected that the father of D.B., J.B., and B.B.
possesses a serious and ongoing drug and addiction issue involving heroin, opioids, and
marijuana. Although being offered a customized treatment plan at Unison so as to not
conflict with his work schedule, he nevertheless did not attend the sessions and was
unsuccessfully discharged. Subsequently, he was offered services through Zepf, and
similarly failed to follow through with treatment services.
{¶ 8} Testimony presented at trial reflected that although appellant attended a
recommended methadone treatment program for her serious and ongoing drug addiction
issues, she failed to follow through on needed mental health services, was terminated
from the methadone treatment program due to a positive drug test result, and was also
unsuccessfully terminated from the Family Drug Court Program for noncompliance.
{¶ 9} In addition to the parents possessing ongoing severe drug problems that they
did not successfully address so as to potentially facilitate reunification in the best interest
of the children, the record further reflects an issue of chronic homelessness that is
likewise contrary to the best interest of the children.
3. {¶ 10} Testimony presented at trial reflected that appellant resided with the
children at numerous homeless shelters in recent years. Notably, appellant and the
children were ejected from the shelters due to appellant’s noncompliance. The testimony
demonstrated that appellant did not cooperate with shelters including La Posada, St.
Paul’s, Beach House, and a housing program run by Neighborhood Properties, Inc.
(“NPI”).
{¶ 11} Testimony presented at trial reflected that although appellant claimed to
have suitable private housing so as to potentially facilitate reunification in the fall of
2017, the housing lacked functional central heat, lacked adequate space for appellant and
her children, appellant could not produce a lease reflecting lawful residency, and
appellant was evicted shortly thereafter.
{¶ 12} Testimony presented at trial reflects that although appellant was
specifically instructed that, due to the severity of his drug addiction, maintaining a
relationship with and resuming cohabitation with the father of the children would be a
barrier to reunification, appellant nevertheless persisted in conveying that if the children
were returned she would resume cohabitation with the drug addicted father of the
children.
{¶ 13} Testimony presented at trial reflects that in addition to appellant not
making adequate progress in addressing her own drug addiction, appellant also had
become addicted to methadone, the drug prescribed to her to combat her heroin and
4. opium addiction. Consistently, appellant refused to reduce or taper down her levels of
methadone usage as recommended by the treating professionals.
{¶ 14} Based upon the above-described facts and circumstances, the guardian ad
litem assigned to this case recommended that permanent custody be granted to LCCS
given appellant’s failure to effectively address either the chronic drug abuse or chronic
homelessness issues despite LCCS and multiple agencies offering a wide array of
services over the course of many years. The trial court found it to be in the best interest
of the children for permanent custody to be granted to LCCS.
{¶ 15} In the first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court
ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We do not concur.
{¶ 16} It is well-established that a trial court ruling on a disputed motion for
permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.B., 6th
Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1161, 2007-Ohio-2537, ¶ 27.
{¶ 17} In addition, deference is given to the lower court’s findings as they are best
suited to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and weigh evidentiary and witness
credibility. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 6th Dist. Lucas L-09-1022, 2010-Ohio-3064, ¶ 62.
{¶ 18} R.C. 2151.414 establishes that permanent custody determinations require
assessing whether the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a
reasonable timeframe and whether an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best
interest.
5. {¶ 19} Specifically, the trial court in this matter determined pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(E)(1) that appellant, “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially
remedy the conditions.” We concur.
{¶ 20} The record of evidence reflects that despite years of the provision of a wide
array of needed services to appellant by LCCS, appellant did not successfully secure and
maintain safe, stable housing suitable for reunification.
{¶ 21} On the contrary, the record reflects that appellant was removed and/or
failed to cooperate with multiple homeless shelters and temporary housing services. In
addition, at the time that decisions were being made regarding reunification, appellant’s
housing lacked functioning central heat, appellant could not furnish a lease demonstrating
lawful occupancy, and appellant was later evicted.
{¶ 22} With respect to appellant’s substance abuse issues, the record reflects that
appellant was unsuccessfully terminated from the SASI drug treatment program due to a
positive drug reading, did not cooperate with mental health services, was unsuccessfully
terminated from the Family Drug Court Program, became chemically dependent on the
methadone furnished to appellant in an effort to combat her heroin and opioid addiction,
and did not cooperate in the recommended reductions in the dosage of methadone.
{¶ 23} The record encompasses ample clear and convincing evidence reflecting
that appellant failed to substantially remedy the conditions. We find clear and convincing
evidence in support of the disputed trial court determination that the award of permanent
6. custody to LCCS was in the best interest of the children. Wherefore, we find appellant’s
first assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 24} In appellant’s second assignment of error, appellant summarily maintains
that the trial court improperly terminated appellant’s parental rights in connection to
appellant’s methadone usage. We do not concur.
{¶ 25} The record reflects that the trial court found that the children had been in
the custody of LCCS for nearly 2 years. The record reflects that appellant had been
unsuccessfully involved in services off and on for many years, in multiple states.
{¶ 26} The record reflects that due to the chronic drug addiction of the parents and
chronic homelessness of the parents, the children were in great need of a legally secure
and permanent placement. The record reflects that appellant failed to successfully
address these issues despite years of reasonable efforts by LCCS.
{¶ 27} In conjunction with the above, the record further reflects that appellant was
living in a residence without functioning central heat, could not demonstrate lawful
occupancy, continued to insist upon residing with the father upon potential reunification
despite the father’s ongoing drug addiction, and appellant was not forthcoming in the
status of her own ongoing drug addiction.
{¶ 28} It is well-established that it is highly probable for trial courts to award
permanent custody to the children protective services agency when the parties seeking
reunification have not adequately or successfully followed through with necessary drug
7. treatment. In re Ma.J., 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-17-1172, L-17-1173, L-17-1174, 2018-
Ohio-575.
{¶ 29} The record reflects that the disputed trial court judgment was based upon
appellant’s failure to maintain stable, suitable housing, and the accompanying failure to
achieve stable, suitable sobriety. As such, the trial court properly found it to be in the
best interest of the children to award permanent custody to LCCS. We find appellant’s
second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 30} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the
costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.