[Cite as In re O.G., 2024-Ohio-1884.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE O.G. : : No. 113444 A Minor Child : : [Appeal by Mother, C.G.] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 16, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-22900337
Appearances:
Wegman Hessler Valore and Michael J. Gordillo, for appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Zachary J. LaFleur, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
LISA B. FORBES, P.J.:
C.G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s decision terminating her
parental rights and awarding permanent custody of her child, O.G., to the Cuyahoga
County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”). Mother argues that
the court’s decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence in the record. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the juvenile court’s
judgment.
I. Procedural History
On January 12, 2022, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that O.G.,
who was born in November 2021, was dependent and seeking temporary custody of
the child. The complaint alleges the following particulars:
1. O.G. was born with multiple heart defects and has undergone two surgeries since her birth * * *. At this time, she requires complex post-discharge medical care.
2. [Mother’s] developmental delays currently prevent her from being able to care for O.G. and her complex medical needs. [Mother] has an appointed guardian through the Cuyahoga County Board for Developmental Delays (CCBDD). She also resides in housing provided through CCBDD and receives assistance daily from caretakers in her home.
3. [Mother] has ongoing mental health needs that she is not adequately addressing at this time.
***
Also on January 12, 2022, the court held a hearing and committed
O.G. to the temporary custody of CCDCFS. On May 25, 2022, the court held another
hearing, at which Mother stipulated to the allegations of the complaint. As a result,
the court adjudicated O.G. dependent. In January 2023, the court granted an
extension of temporary custody. On June 1, 2023, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify
temporary custody to permanent custody. The court held a hearing on CCDCFS’s
motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody on November 7, 2023.
On November 8, 2023, the court issued a journal entry granting CCDCFS’s motion, committing O.G. to the permanent custody of CCDCFS, and terminating Mother’s
parental rights.
It is from this order that Mother appeals, raising one assignment of
error for our review.
I. The trial court’s finding that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the child’s best interest was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
II. Hearing Testimony
The following testimony and evidence was presented at the
November 7, 2023 hearing on CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody.
A. Caprisha Sinkfield
Caprisha Sinkfield testified that she is an extended services worker at
CCDCFS. She was assigned to Mother’s case in July 2023, and she had access to the
case file to review “activity logs” from before her involvement. Sinkfield testified
that there were concurrent permanency plans for O.G., namely reunification with
Mother or permanent custody to CCDCFS. Sinkfield further testified that O.G.
remained in the hospital from birth until CCDCFS filed the complaint in the case at
hand.
Asked to highlight Mother’s participation with CCDCFS services in
this case, Sinkfield answered, “It was very minimal. I believe from the activity logs
the time of September [Mother] was in jail, so the beginning of [the previous service
worker] being assigned to the case there wasn’t much contact with [Mother]. When
contact was established, visitation established at Murtis Taylor where that was occurring weekly. Mother missed a lot of visits.” Visitation was scheduled for “once
weekly, two hours” at a time. According to Sinkfield, Mother indicated that the
missed visits were “due to a transportation issue and she did not know how to ride
the bus, and also indicated that she often sleeped [sic] in.”
In reading from the case-file notes, Sinkfield testified that Mother
“did have to be prompted to complete tasks, so that included changing [O.G.’s]
diaper” at the visits. “There were also concerns with mom saying that she changed
her diaper, but she didn’t, so when the caregiver would pick her up, she would be
soiled. There was also an instance where mom hit the child because the child flipped
the food.” Sinkfield testified that she “believed” O.G. “was around 1 when it
happened.” Sinkfield further testified that in January 2023, Murtis Taylor cancelled
the visits “due to the inconsistency with mom showing up and the numerous times
she was late.”
Sinkfield testified that “mental health, parenting and anger
management” were included on Mother’s initial case plan. According to Sinkfield,
“[m]ental health was added to the case plan due to mom’s history with her struggling
with mental health and inconsistently being involved with service providers.” In
September 2022, CCDCFS referred Mother to Signature Health to “assist[] with her
counseling and med[ication] management, psychiatric services.” Sinkfield testified
that Mother never engaged with Signature Health.
Sinkfield testified that parenting services were part of Mother’s case
plan “due to concerns with [O.G.] being in the hospital and mom’s ability to follow- up [sic] with the medical care.” CCDCFS referred Mother to Beech Brook for
parenting services, and Mother completed this service in December 2022. Sinkfield
testified that CCDCFS looked to Mother’s “interactions during visitation, how mom
is responding to the child. We look for what is learned in parenting [services], so
what she can show that she’s learned from the parenting classes.” According to
Sinkfield, parenting remained “an open concern,” despite Mother completing the
parenting classes, because of the inconsistency “with mom coming to visits, we
weren’t able to really monitor how that was going.” Sinkfield further testified that
Mother would have “outbursts would be probably the best way to say it” during visits
with O.G.
Anger-management services were part of Mother’s case plan “due to
mom’s behavior during visits.” CCDCFS referred Mother to Beach Brook for anger-
management classes. Asked if Mother completed these services, Sinkfield answered,
“To my knowledge, no.”
Sinkfield testified that all communication between Mother and
CCDCFS stopped from January to mid-March 2023. Mother’s visits with O.G. also
stopped during this period. According to Sinkfield, Mother was homeless during
this time after being “evicted from her former housing due to threatening other
residents.” Murtis Taylor assisted Mother with housing, and CCDCFS determined
that Mother’s homelessness was “resolved” in April 2023. Sinkfield also stated that
Mother had a “caregiver [who] was making sure that the rent was paid monthly.” When CCDCFS reconnected with Mother in April 2023, Mother
indicated that she was not engaging in her case plan services at the time and she had
not been taking her medication since December 2022. At some point, Mother was
engaging with an organization called Transcend regarding anger management, but
Sinkfield did not know the details because it was not a CCDCFS referral. Mother
was fired from her job “due to a fight so she was not able to provide basic needs
* * *.” According to Sinkfield, Mother receives “SSI income.”
Sinkfield testified that “[s]ubstance abuse concerns were added to the
case plan due to the previous worker observing mother to be smoking marijuana in
public.” Sinkfield spoke to Mother about her substance-abuse concerns in August
2023. “Mother indicated that she was smoking marijuana and stated that it was due
to dealing with the stress of the case that she had been smoking.” Sinkfield further
testified that Mother was referred for an alcohol and drug assessment, as well as
once-monthly drug screens. According to Sinkfield, CCDCFS had not received any
completed drug screens from Mother. Sinkfield also testified that, to her knowledge,
Mother did not complete the alcohol and drug assessment, and CCDCFS had no
“sobriety date” from Mother.
Sinkfield testified that from April through July 2023, Mother “started
to engage with Transcend and I believe reengaged with the [CCBDD]”.
CCDCFS introduced into evidence Mother’s records from Signature
Health dating back to 2014. A document dated November 16, 2020, which was prior
to O.G.’s birth and CCDCFS involvement, established that Mother was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, mild intellectual disabilities, and “[o]ther psychosocial
and environmental problems.”
In August 2023, Mother indicated to Sinkfield that Signature Health
prescribed Mother mental-health medications, but Mother had not yet picked them
up. According to Sinkfield, “[t]here was never any follow-up if she was able to obtain
those.” Sinkfield testified that a similar scenario occurred in October 2023. On
October 16, 2023, Mother went to MetroHealth for mental health “medication
management.” Mother was prescribed medication that same day, but as of October
25, 2023, Mother had not picked up the medication. A worker from Transcend took
Mother to pick up the medication on October 25, 2023. On October 30, 2023,
Mother sent Sinkfield a picture of the medication bottle.
Sinkfield testified that Mother had reengaged in parenting services
with Transcend and Transcend “indicated that mom was actively participating in
parenting classes.” According to Sinkfield, Mother’s Transcend case worker “was
doing one-on-one sessions with mom for parenting just due to her noticing that in a
group setting she wasn’t engaging and her comprehension wasn’t well.” As of the
hearing, CCDCFS did not have a certificate showing that Mother completed the
parenting classes.
Mother also started engaging in anger-management services with
Transcend in October 2023. Sinkfield testified that anger management remained
open on Mother’s case plan, because these services had not been completed.
Sinkfield further testified that parenting remained open on Mother’s case plan as well. Mother’s housing was “verified,” and Mother started a job at a clothing store
in August 2023. However, Sinkfield testified that Mother “has indicted that she is
no longer working,” and Sinkfield had not “gotten a verifiable reason as to why.”
Mother’s aunt “make[s] sure that [Mother’s] rent is paid and she assists her, she
takes her shopping every month.” Sinkfield testified that “[a]fter budgeting or going
over [Mother’s] budget, she doesn’t have much left after paying rent and with her
not having a job it’s a concern that she can’t provide basic needs.” For example,
Mother receives “about 900” dollars monthly in Social Security benefits, and
Mother’s rent is $750 per month.
Sinkfield testified that currently, Mother’s visits with O.G. are bi-
weekly, and they are supervised by Sinkfield. Mother has not missed any visits since
Sinkfield was assigned to this case in July 2023. The visits take place at a library,
and someone from the CCBDD also attends “to help assist mom with visitation.”
Asked if there have been any “issues or concerns” during the visits, Sinkfield testified
as follows: “One concern was at a visit on the 29th of August of 2023 mother
appeared to be very irritable and agitated. The child was crying throughout the visit.
Mother made comments that she’s doing it on purpose and mother walked out of
the visit early.” According to Sinkfield, O.G. was one year old at the time.
Sinkfield testified that the “interaction is fine between mom and
child,” and issues concerning Mother “not really changing her diaper” do not exist
anymore. O.G. is currently placed with Mother’s cousin, who has a foster care
license. Sinkfield referred to this as a “kinship placement.” O.G. has been in this
placement since her release from the hospital after she was born. According to
Sinkfield, O.G. has her own bedroom, the home is appropriate and has “proper baby-
proofing,” and the caregiver is able to meet O.G.’s basic needs. Furthermore, the
caregiver and O.G.’s interactions are “positive,” and O.G. “is very attached to the
caregiver.” Sinkfield additionally testified that the caregiver is aware of and has been
meeting O.G.’s medical needs.
On cross-examination, Sinkfield testified that three case plans were
filed in this case. In the first case plan, which was filed with the court on March 23,
2022, the issues relating to Mother were listed as “an extensive history of mental
health concerns” and whether “she was able to properly care for [O.G.] due to * * *
[O.G.’s] heart defect.” This case plan also stated that the CCDCFS “[w]orker would
like to see [Mother] complete a parenting class to assist [her] with learning new
skills to care for a newborn in a safe way.”
In the second case plan, which was filed with the court on April 18,
2023, anger management and housing were added for Mother. According to
Sinkfield’s testimony, “parenting education” was removed for Mother “due to
successful completion of that service.”1 The third case plan was filed with the court
1 Our review of the second and third case plans shows that under the first concern
regarding Mother, which is listed as “intense mental as well as behavioral health concerns,” it still states that the CCDCFS “[w]orker would like to see [Mother] complete a parenting class to assist [her] with learning new skills to care for a newborn in a safe way.” on May 31, 2023, and it states that Mother “has worked some case plan services and
exercises visits sometimes * * *.” Mother’s objectives in this case plan, according to
Sinkfield, “were engage with the [CCBDD], anger management, housing, and * * *
mental health.”
Sinkfield also testified on cross-examination that anger management
was discussed at Mother’s semiannual review on December 22, 2022. Mother’s
attorney asked Sinkfield to “explain the delay in that not being added to a case plan
until April 18, 2023.” Sinkfield could not explain the delay and agreed that “a four-
month delay in adding a service to the case plan would cause a delay in a parent’s
ability to engage in that service.”
Sinkfield testified that Mother completed a mental-health assessment
at Signature Health. Mother’s recommended services were “[c]ounseling and
psychiatric services.” According to Sinkfield, “sometime in May or June” 2023,
Mother reengaged mental-health services at Transcend, and then she reengaged
again in August 2023. Sinkfield testified that, at the time of the hearing, Transcend
was providing “counseling sessions as well as parenting and anger management”
services to Mother. Additionally, “through Transcend she’s been referred out to
MetroHealth for psychiatric services.”
Sinkfield testified that Mother “maintains safe and stable housing,”
and there is “enough space” for O.G. in the home. Sinkfield also testified that O.G.’s
medical condition has improved during the pendency of this case. Sinkfield’s
testimony on cross-examination continued. Q: Since the child’s medical condition and needs have stabilized, mother has resolved the concerns that originally led to the removal of the child, correct?
A: I would say no.
Q: And why is that?
A: Because there is still a parenting aspect, so there are still concerns with parenting.
Sinkfield testified that anger management was added to this case plan
in April 2023, and CCDCFS moved for permanent custody of O.G. on June 1, 2023.
Sinkfield agreed that 34 days was not “enough time for a person with developmental
disabilities to successfully complete an anger management class.” Sinkfield also
agreed that CCDCFS “filed for permanent custody prior to affording [Mother] an
appropriate opportunity to complete that case plan service * * *.”
Sinkfield agreed that “the current placement caregiver is willing to
continue a relationship between mother and the child * * *.” Sinkfield further
testified that the “caregiver has her reservations, but she does intend to continue
some communication with mom. She doesn’t want it to be consistent.”
Sinkfield testified that when she was assigned to this case in July
2023, Mother had completed her case plan service for parenting, “but that was a
concern again, so it was reestablished.” Furthermore, Mother “had established
housing, but she needed to maintain the housing so it was still a concern.”
Additionally, there “was the concern for anger management and [Mother’s] mental
health.” Asked if Mother “has been medication compliant during the pendency of
this case,” Sinkfield answered, “No.” On redirect examination, Sinkfield explained that since she has been
involved in this case, she has reiterated to Mother the case-plan objectives.
Additionally, Sinkfield’s review of the “activity logs” indicated that the previous case
worker communicated to Mother the need to complete the services and objectives
in her case plan. Sinkfield further explained that O.G.’s medical needs were no
longer “a concern that influences” CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody.
B. Michelle White
Michelle White (“White”) testified that she is the owner of Transcend
Mental Behavior Group. White is also a social worker assistant and a chemical-
dependency counselor, both of which “require licensure.” White testified that
Transcend offers “intensive outpatient” services for mental health, chemical
dependency, parenting, domestic violence, and anger management. White began
working with Mother in April or May of 2023.
CCDCFS introduced into evidence Mother’s records from Transcend.
White testified that she did Mother’s intake assessment at Transcend on May 19,
2023, and diagnosed Mother with intermittent explosive disorder, bipolar 1
disorder, caffeine intoxication, and nicotine-use disorder. White testified that from
May to July of 2023, Mother’s contact with Transcend was not “constant [and]
consistent.” However, from August 2023 to the present, Mother has “been very
engaged. * * * I have seen a complete turnaround from her from the beginning up
to now.” White’s understanding of the services Mother was seeking with
Transcend were as follows: “her anger management and to try to get her baby back
and to help her with coping skills, but also I know that she had some learning
delayment [sic], so she didn’t understand a lot of things that was going on as well
too.” According to White, Mother engaged in and completed parenting services, and
“[e]ven though she has graduated from [anger management] services, she’s still
seeking services.”
On cross-examination, White testified that Transcend has had no
contact with CCDCFS regarding Mother’s case. “I didn’t even know who the worker
was at [CCDCFS] because they never reached out.” White explained that Mother
signed “authorization to release consent forms” but Transcend has not done
anything with these documents, because “we don’t know who to send it to.”
Asked if Mother was “presently a threat to” O.G., White answered,
“No.” White’s testimony continued:
Q: What is your opinion of [Mother’s] ability to parent in terms of her anger management?
A: I think she will be a good parent.
Q: And overall has [Mother] benefitted from her engagement in anger management services through your agency?
A: I’m gonna say yes.
Q: What have you worked on with [Mother] in terms of parenting education?
A: The different types of parenting style, how to actually know how to say no, how to react when a toddler is falling out, how to use time out, how to use gentle words so that the child can understand what you’re trying to get across instead of getting angry and yelling.
Q: Okay. Describe [Mother’s] progress with that service.
A: She’s doing very well. She has not missed a day.
White testified that Transcend “has been going to all of [Mother’s]
doctor’s appointments with her,” and to White’s knowledge, Mother is compliant
with her medication. White further testified that Transcend attends Mother’s
medical appointments in part to assist Mother with understanding the “medical
terminology.”
On cross-examination, White was asked if she ever observed Mother
“utilize what she has learned from the anger management when engaging with her
child.” White answered, “I have not been to a visit.”
C. Evelyn Bailey
Evelyn Bailey (“Bailey”), who testified on behalf of Mother, stated that
she is employed at Transcend Mental Behavior Group as a One Task Clinical
Director. Bailey was assigned to Mother’s case in August 2023. Bailey testified that
Mother engages in services “[v]irtually as well as in person.” According to Bailey,
Mother “has a high level of engagement.” Bailey meets with Mother two times per
week. The Tuesday before the hearing, Mother completed her parenting-education
classes. Mother is also engaged in anger-management classes and is “progressing
very well.” Bailey testified that Mother “was first engaged in group settings, but after
monitoring her and further evaluation I felt that it was best to do it individualized so that she can grasp everything and comprehend everything that was occurring in
the group sessions.”
Bailey testified that, prior to her involvement in Mother’s case,
Mother would have “outbursts.” Bailey testified as follows about what she
“witnessed” concerning Mother’s behavior: “What I witnessed was frustration
maybe of not understanding, not feeling heard, really identifying there were some
things that were going on between [Mother and] her aunt, the foster mom, so these
things frustrated her and I don’t think at the time she had the necessary tools to sub-
de-escalate herself.” Bailey testified that Mother has learned “how to pause” and
“how to debrief,” so that she can express herself in a “respectful and not violent” way.
According to Bailey, Mother is not a threat to herself, other people, or O.G.
Bailey observed one visit between Mother and O.G. Bailey testified
that it “was a very nice visit.” Bailey saw Mother interacting with O.G., eating with
O.G., reading O.G. a book, and changing O.G.’s diaper. At the end of the visit, when
the foster mom came to pick up O.G., Mother “handled herself very well. She did
not get emotional. She kept telling [O.G.], okay, it’s almost time for mommy to leave.
She helped her put her coat on.”
Asked her opinion on Mother’s “ability to parent her child,” Bailey
testified as follows:
Well, I’ve only been working with [Mother] for a short amount of time, but what I can say is that she is proactive and engaged.
She wants to know the development of her child. She asks a lot of questions if there’s something that she doesn’t understand. I think that she would do well with the proper support, and so that means outside wrap-around services.
Asked to explain “wrap-around services,” Bailey testified as follows:
So I think that she should still engage in therapy if she does have the opportunity to have [O.G.] back, as well as she’s going to be having a new baby.
We’ve also been working on time management, so if there is someone to assist her in those areas of how to navigate appointments because there are certain things that she does need help with understanding.
It’s not that she can’t comprehend. It’s that certain things can be very difficult for her to understand if you’re using big, grand words or things like that.
So speaking to her in a sense to where she can understand, and also having the positive supports around her, whether that’s family, whether that’s friends, she really needs that at this time.
Bailey also testified that Mother is receiving individual counseling for
“grief and trauma” regarding family members who were murdered. According to
Bailey, these counseling sessions are “ongoing.” Bailey testified that reassessments
occur periodically to “judge someone’s benefit from a service * * *.” Specifically,
Bailiey testified as follows:
With mental health it is evaluated once a year, but because she has had so many different changes in her life and different obstacles, I would say after evaluating and the completion of anger management, that is when I would conduct an updated assessment to see if those mental health diagnoses are still there or have they been sustained.
So I think now her mental health is stable. I will say that.
On cross-examination, Bailey testified that the course goals of
Mother’s anger-management services “can’t all be achieved” in the four sessions that are remaining. Bailey “encourage[d] still having the individual[]” engage in ongoing
counseling sessions. Bailey testified that “if [Mother] wanted to engage or if she
could still engage with Transcend, she would still have [the] wrap-around services”
mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Bailey testified that she was unaware of any
substance-abuse issues associated with Mother.
III. Law and Analysis
A. Standard of Review — Permanent Custody
“Courts apply a two-pronged test when ruling on permanent custody
motions.” In re De.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108760, 2020-Ohio-906, ¶ 16. “To
grant the motion, courts first must find that any of the factors in
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply. Second, courts must determine that terminating
parental rights and granting permanent custody to CCDCFS is in the best interest of
the child or children using the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D).” Id.
“An appellate court will not reverse a juvenile court’s termination of
parental rights and award of permanent custody to an agency if the judgment is
supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re M.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 100071, 2013-Ohio-5440, ¶ 24. The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified this
standard in In re Z.C., 173 Ohio St.3d 359, 2023-Ohio-4703, 230 N.E.3d 1123,
holding that when reviewing a juvenile court’s award of permanent custody and
termination of parental rights, “the proper appellate standards of review to apply
* * * are the sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that are
presented by the parties” rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at ¶ 18.
B. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) Factors
Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1):
[T]he court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines * * *, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to [CCDCFS] and that any of the following [(a) through (e) factors] apply:
(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of [CCDCFS] for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period * * *.
In its November 8, 2023 journal entry granting permanent custody of
O.G. to CCDCFS, the court found that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), O.G. “has
been in the temporary custody of [CCDCFS] for twelve or more months of a
consecutive twenty-two month period.” The court also found that O.G.’s “return to
the home of Mother would be contrary to the child’s best interest.” The court further
found that “reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child from
the home, or to return the child to the home and finalize a permanency plan * * *.”
Our review of the record shows that O.G. has been in the custody of
CCDCFS since January 12, 2022, when the complaint was filed. The hearing on
CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody was held in November 2023. Therefore,
there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that O.G. had been in CCDCFS’s
custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. C. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) Best-Interest Factors
Also in the November 8, 2023 journal entry, the court considered
several factors used in determining the best interests of the child under
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) as follows:
Under subsection (a), which concerns the relationship of the children
with their family and foster caregivers, the court found: “The child has a bond with
mother and has a significant bond with the current caregiver/caregiver’s family.”
Under subsection (b), which concerns the wishes of the child, as
expressed in the instant case through the child’s GAL, the court found: “Child is too
young to express her wishes. GAL recommends permanent custody” to CCDCFS.
The most recent GAL report, which was filed with the court on September 13, 2023,
recommends granting CCDCFS’s permanent custody motion as being in O.G.’s best
interest. Specifically, the report states that, although Mother has been visiting with
O.G. and O.G. “seems well bonded with [M]other,” Mother has been appointed a
“guardian due to [her] developmental delays, Mother has not competed nor made
substantial progress on case plan services (as of the date of the report), in-home
visits have not been approved, and reunification will not be able to occur within two
years.”
Under subsection (c), which concerns the custodial history of the
child, including, as applicable to the case at hand, whether the child has been in the
temporary custody of CCDCFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, the court found: “The child has been in CCDCFS custody since January 2023,
when the child was two months old.”
Under subsection (d), which concerns the child’s need for a legally
secure placement, the court found: “The child deserves a safe and stable home
environment where all her needs can be met and she can thrive. Mother is
inconsistent in addressing her case plan services and her own needs. * * * No other
relatives have been identified as willing or appropriate to take legal custody. Child
is placed with a kinship caregiver where she is doing well, thriving, and all of her
needs are being met.”
Our review of the record shows that clear and convincing evidence
supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (d). Three
witnesses — Sinkfield from CCDCFS, White from Transcend, and Bailey from
Transcend — consistently testified that O.G. has a bond with both Mother and the
foster family. The court’s finding that the GAL recommended permanent custody of
O.G. go to CCDCFS is consistent with the GAL’s report recommending that
permanent custody to CCDCFS is in O.G.’s best interest. As stated previously, the
court’s finding regarding O.G.’s custodial history is supported by clear and
convincing evidence in the record. And finally, the weight of the evidence in the
record lines up with the court’s finding that “Mother is inconsistent in addressing
her case plan services and her own needs.” Sinkfield testified that Mother’s
participation in case programs had been inconsistent. White testified that Mother’s
participation at Transcend was inconsistent from May to July 2023, but that her engagement improved starting in August 2023. Bailey testified that Mother has
been consistently engaged in services since Bailey started working with Mother in
August 2023. We further note that the court found “concerns” with White and
Bailey’s credibility. See State v. Rudd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102754, 2016-Ohio-
106, ¶ 62 (“The trier of fact is in the best position to make credibility determinations
because this court cannot view the demeanor of a witness while testifying.”).
D. R.C. 2151.414(E) Factors
In the case at hand, the court stated in its November 8, 2023, journal
entry as follows regarding R.C. 2151.414(E):
While the [c]ourt does not need to consider any of the factors in [R.C.] 2151.414(E) because the [c]ourt found that [R.C.] 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies and that permanent custody is in the best intertest of the child under [R.C.] 2151.414(D)(1), * * * the [c]ourt finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, pursuant to [R.C.] 2151.414(E) * * *.
(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home.
(2) The chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent (Mother) that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year.
(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child. ***
(14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.
Similar to the trial court, we also conclude that there was no “need”
to consider the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors in the instant case. However, the trial court
analyzed some of these factors in its journal entry, hence, we review them as well.
The court found that O.G. “cannot be placed with one of the child’s
parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent,
pursuant to [R.C.] 2151.414(E)” for four reasons. First, that Mother “has failed
continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the
child to be placed outside the child’s home,” despite “reasonable case planning and
diligent efforts by” CCDCFS. Second, that Mother’s mental illness and
developmental disability renders her “unable to provide an adequate permanent
home” for O.G. within one year. Third, that Mother “demonstrated a lack of
commitment toward” O.G. by failing to consistently “support, visit, or
communicate” with O.G. And fourth, that Mother “is unwilling to provide food,
clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for [O.G.] or to prevent [O.G.] from
suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental
neglect.”
Upon review, we find that the trial court’s analysis of the pertinent
R.C. 2151.414(E) factors is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
Although Mother began to consistently engage in services starting in August 2023, and running through the time of the hearing in November 2023, the majority of the
evidence in the record supports a finding that Mother was inconsistent and
unsuccessful in meeting her case-plan objectives. The evidence showed that Mother
had a history of inconsistency with services in this case. There was evidence in the
record that Mother began to have success during the last three months prior to the
hearing, but all this evidence came from Transcend. Sinkfield testified that CCDCFS
did not refer Mother to Transcend, and she could not testify regarding the “details”
of Mother’s interactions with Transcend. Sinkfield did provide detailed testimony
regarding Mother’s attempts to meet her case-plan objectives through means other
than Transcend’s services. See In re J.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109039, 2020-
Ohio-3675, ¶ 21 (“When considering whether the agency made reasonable efforts to
prevent the continued removal, the issue is not whether the agency could have done
more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness under the statute.”).
E. Miscellaneous Findings
The court further found that, as related “to Mother’s [m]ental
[h]ealth, the [c]ourt has concerns about Mother’s current treatment at Transcend
based on the Assessment * * * and the credibility of the two witnesses that testified
from Transcend.” Additionally, the court found that Mother has
not made substantial additional progress on the case plan, as required by [R.C.] 2151.415(D)(2) and therefore a second extension of temporary custody cannot be ordered and would not be in the best interest of the child. Furthermore, there is not reasonable cause to believe that the child will be reunified with one of the parents or otherwise permanently placed within the period of extension. The [c]ourt does find by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the [p]ermanent [c]ustody of CCDCFS.
F. Conclusion
Upon review, we find that clear and convincing evidence in the record
supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(B), (D), and (E). Accordingly,
we find the court did not err, as shown by clear and convincing evidence in the
record, when it terminated Mother’s parental rights and granted custody of O.G. to
CCDCFS. Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, PRESIDING JUDGE
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR