In re T.P.

2016 Ohio 5780

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 12, 2016·No. CA2016-03-012·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

[Cite as In re T.P., 2016-Ohio-5780.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: :

T.P. : CASE NO. CA2016-03-012

: OPINION 9/12/2016 :

APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 2013 JC 04600

Aaron J. Manter, 285 East Main Street, Suite 6, Batavia, Ohio 45103, guardian ad litem

Dever Law Firm, Scott A. Hoberg, 9146 Cincinnati-Columbus Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellant, S.M.

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee, Clermont County Department of Job & Family Services

RINGLAND, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological mother of T.P. ("Mother"), appeals a decision of the

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of

T.P. to appellee, the Clermont County Department of Job and Family Services ("CCDJFS").

For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On October 15, 2013, CCDJFS filed a dependency complaint and requested Clermont CA2016-03-012

temporary custody of T.P., who was five days old. The complaint alleged that CCDJFS

received a report stating that T.P. had tested positive for amphetamine at birth and his

parents had a history of drug abuse. The report also alleged that CCDJFS held temporary

custody of T.P.'s older sister who had also testified positive for drugs at birth. The juvenile

court granted temporary custody of T.P. to CCDJFS and placed him in foster care. T.P. was

later adjudicated a dependent child. Since the time of T.P.'s release from the hospital, he

has resided in the same certified foster-to-adopt placement with his older sister. T.P.'s older

sister has been adopted by the foster family.

{¶ 3} Mother's case plan for reunification included housing, income, mental health

treatment, drug treatment, and parenting education. Mother did make some progress in the

completion of her case plan, particularly with her completion of a substance abuse treatment

program. However, the record indicates that CCDJFS found it necessary to exercise caution

with respect to Mother since she exhibited a co-dependency on T.P.'s father ("Father"), an

individual with a history of drug involvement and allegations of domestic abuse. Throughout

the pendency of these proceedings, Father has failed to take any steps to control his drug

involvement and has otherwise shown no interest in reunification with T.P.

{¶ 4} Meanwhile, T.P. has thrived in his foster family and is overcoming the very

serious medical concerns that were present during the early stages of his life. For instance,

the record reflects that T.P. had severe drug withdrawal symptoms from the time of his birth

and was prescribed methadone and phenobarbital to overcome those withdrawals. However,

at the time of the permanent custody hearing, T.P. had completed occupational therapy and

physical therapy and was receiving continued care for cognitive delay and fine motor skills.

{¶ 5} On March 19, 2015, CCDJFS moved for permanent custody. In support of

permanent custody, CCDJFS introduced the testimony of the caseworker, the foster mother,

and the guardian ad litem ("GAL"). The caseworker testified about Mother's use of -2- Clermont CA2016-03-012

amphetamines during pregnancy and T.P.'s dependency and withdrawal from the drugs after

he was born. Although Mother had made progress in her case plan, the agency had

continued concern of a co-dependent relationship with Father. Considering Mother's stream

of income, the agency alleged that Mother is financially dependent on T.P.'s father and

caseworkers have observed him staying at Mother's residence, despite her insistence that

she is no longer in a relationship with him. Though Mother did successfully complete a drug

treatment program, the caseworker testified about Mother's lengthy history with drug

dependency and expressed concerns that Mother has not taken steps to reduce her

dependence on suboxone.

{¶ 6} The foster mother testified about T.P.'s condition at birth and progress while

under her care. Due to medical concerns, T.P. was in the hospital for 31 days following his

birth and was placed on a number of medications for withdrawal symptoms. In their care,

T.P. is now meeting development goals and is well-bonded with the family and his older

sister.

{¶ 7} The GAL recommended that permanent custody be granted in favor of

CCDJFS. Although the GAL testified that Mother has shown progress in her case plan, the

GAL noted that there were concerns about the security of placement with Mother and her

relationship with T.P.'s father. The GAL testified that Mother's mental health and stability are

agency concerns.

{¶ 8} As part of her case, Mother acknowledged prior issues with drug addiction and

T.P.'s health issues, but focused on the progress that she has made in recent months.

Mother introduced the testimony of her older and younger sisters. Mother's older sister

testified that Mother had undergone a dramatic change and has been working on her mental

health issues. The older sister also agreed that Mother is much better without a relationship

with Father. Mother's younger sister also testified that she had been residing with Mother for -3- Clermont CA2016-03-012

the past two months, has been contributing financially for their shared apartment, and was

supportive of Mother bringing T.P. home.

{¶ 9} After taking the matter under advisement, the juvenile court magistrate granted

the motion for permanent custody. Mother then filed objections to the magistrate's decision,

which were overruled. The juvenile court, while recognizing Mother's recent efforts,

concluded that Mother cannot provide a legally secure placement for T.P. and it was in T.P.'s

best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency. Mother now appeals the

juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody to CCDJFS, raising one assignment of

error for review.

{¶ 10} IN A CHILD CUSTODY CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION

AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE AGENCY

DESPITE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision

granting permanent custody of T.P. to CCDJFS was not in T.P.'s best interest. In support of

her claim, Mother alleges the juvenile court's decision was not supported by sufficient clear

and convincing evidence and was otherwise against the manifest weight of the evidence.

After a thorough review of the record, we find Mother's assignment of error is without merit.

{¶ 12} Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care

and custody of 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, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate 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 determination.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI