In re Howland Children , 2015 Ohio 3861 ( 2015 )

[Cite as In re Howland Children, 2015-Ohio-3861.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
HOWLAND CHILDREN : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
:
: Case No. 2015CA00109
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No.
2013JCV00968
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 21, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee
JEFFREY JAKMIDES BRANDON J. WALTENBAUGH
325 East Main Street 300 Market Avenue North
Alliance, OH 44601 Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On September 18, 2013, appellee, Stark County Job and Family Services,
filed a complaint alleging two children, M.H. born December 29, 2007, and M.H. born
February 23, 2009, to be neglected and/or dependent children. Mother of the children is
appellant, Tina Ibrahim nka Stremo; father is Marcello Howland.
{¶2} On December 4, 2013, the children were found to be dependent and were
placed in the custody of Ms. Ibrahim's mother, Jennifer Lawson. The children were
removed from this home due to improper disciplinary methods, and temporary custody
was granted to appellee on April 23, 2014.
{¶3} On October 9, 2014, appellee filed a motion for permanent custody. A
hearing was held on April 30, 2015. By judgment entry filed May 14, 2015, the trial
court terminated parental rights and granted appellee permanent custody of the
children. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed contemporaneously with the
judgment entry.
{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REMOVING THE CHILDREN FROM
THEIR MOTHER'S CARE DUE TO UNWARRANTED CONCERNS ABOUT HER
COGNITIVE ABILITIES. THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HAS DESCRIBED THE
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS THE FAMILY-LAW EQUIVALENT OF
THE DEATH PENALTY, AND HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT A TERMINATION OF
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 3
PARENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE BASED SOLELY ON THE LIMITED COGNTIVE
ABILITIES OF THE PARENTS."
I
{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding appellee permanent
custody of the children as her lack of cognitive abilities should not be the reason for the
termination of her parental rights. We disagree.
{¶7} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent
custody. Said section states in pertinent part the following:
(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this
section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the
Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a
reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, the
court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear
and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this
section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the
Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the
child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be
placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with either parent:
(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
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 4
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. In determining whether the parents
have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider
parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social
and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made
available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to
allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.
(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
{¶8} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) specifically states permanent custody may be
granted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the
best interest of the child and:
(d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more
public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the
child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children
services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more
months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described
in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was
previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another
state.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 5
{¶9} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will provide in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
established." Cross v.. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus. See also, In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St. 3d 361 (1985). "Where the
degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing
court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient
evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof." Cross at 477.
{¶10} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the factors a trial court shall consider in
determining the best interest of a child:
(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held
pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4)
or (5) of section 2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the
Revised Code, the 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;
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 6
(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services
agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a
consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has been in the
temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or
private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive
twenty-two-month period and, as described in division (D)(1) of section
2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary
custody of an equivalent agency in another state;
(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.
{¶11} The children were placed in appellee's temporary custody on April 23,
2014, and the hearing was held on April 30, 2015. T. at 11-12. The children had been
in appellee's custody for twelve months. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).
{¶12} Appellant argues she has cooperated and attended all the assessments
and classes suggested by appellee. This is demonstrated in the record. T. at 14, 16-
17, 19, 41, 65-66. There is no doubt that appellant loves her children, but there is some
concern about their bond, as their interactions are "very limited" and there is not a lot of
"eye contact" or affection. T. at 17-18, 87.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 7
{¶13} Appellant's I.Q. is 63 and she functions as a four-year old on problem
solving and a ten year old on a verbal level. T. at 15, 41, 59. This is something that is
static and "not something we can fix." T. at 45. She exhibited possible ADHD and
mania symptoms, and presented very disorganized and distracted. T. at 42, 44.
Testing also revealed appellant met the criteria for dependent personality disorder,
which means she "demonstrates a pattern of involvement in problematic romantic
relationships" and "there's been a concern with regard to her attraction and tolerance for
visually aggressive men." Id.
{¶14} When appellant attended Goodwill Parenting classes, she only received a
certificate of attendance as she was unable to retain and apply what was taught. T. at
67, 69. She was unable to follow-through and focus. T. at 79, 81. Appellant was
receiving intensive services and "was not doing well in those." T. at 22. "None of the
service providers have felt that she's progressed enough to come out of the intensive
programming." Id.
{¶15} Despite appellant's lack of cognitive skills, the main concern was her
ability to parent correctly and give the children a stable, safe, and consistent
environment. T. at 15, 17-18, 22-23, 30, 45. One or both of the children allegedly
suffered sexual abuse at the hands of one of appellant's boyfriends, and the children
were exposed to her "domestically violent relationships." T. at 29-30, 36, 42-43. We
note father never participated in the case plan nor showed up for a meeting, service, or
hearing. T. at 14, 15-16, 19, 34.
{¶16} Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, we concur with the
trial court's following findings of fact filed on May 14, 2015:
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 8
11. The mother of [M.] and [M.H.] is Tina Ibrahim NKA Stremo. Ms.
Ibrahim was served with notice of this permanent custody action. Despite
case plan services and reasonable efforts by the SCDJFS, the mother has
been unable to remedy the problems which led to the children's removal
from her custody. The case plan, and its amendments, included the
following requirements: 1) complete a parenting evaluation at Northeast
Ohio Behavioral Health (NEOBH) and follow all recommendations; 2)
receive an evaluation at Quest and follow all treatment recommendations;
3) successfully complete Goodwill parenting; and 4) receive mental health
services and follow through with any recommendations.
Mother completed her assessment at NEOBH. Dr. Thomas
testified that mother possesses the verbal skills of a ten year old and the
non-verbal skills of a four year old. Mother has an IQ of 63 and her
cognitive abilities are static with no possibility of improvement. Mother
could possibly parent the children if she had a support system around her,
but without this support system there are significant safety risks to the
children. As previously stated, Ms. Ibrahim and her mother do not get
along well, and Ms. Ibrahim's husband is currently serving in the United
States Air Force and is stationed overseas. Amy Humrighouse, parenting
instructor at Goodwill parenting, testified that although mother obtained a
completion certificate and certificate of attendance, mother only completed
four out of fourteen program goals set for her. Upon completion of
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 9
Goodwill parenting, mother was further recommended to attend a
vocational rehab program, continue with counseling, and initiate parent-
child intervention at NEOBH. Becky Crookston, therapist at NEOBH and
licensed clinical counselor and in charge of the parent child intervention
program at Goodwill parenting, testified that the children are experiencing
a lot of anxiety in the program and in her opinion they are being re-
traumatized while in mother's home. Ms. Crookston does not recommend
further participation in the program.
Mother also suffers from some mental health disorders. Mother
has been diagnosed with having ADHD and possibly some mania. She
also exhibits signs of a dependent personality disorder which has
attributed to her pattern of violent personal relationships. Most of mother's
past relationships consisted of significant domestic violence towards her.
The children were often times exposed to this violence and may have
been victims themselves of past physical and sexual abuse by mother's
boyfriends. These abusive relationships were so commonplace that the
agency felt that it should monitor mother's romantic relationships for the
safety of the child.
12. The Court is unable to find that [M.] and [M.] could be safely
returned to their parents or maternal grandmother based upon their failure
to remedy the problems that led to the removal of the children. The Court
is unable to find that they will remedy these problems within a reasonable
period of time.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 10
{¶17} Although appellant did not contest best interest, we find the trial court did
not err in finding the best interest of the children would be best served with the granting
of permanent custody to appellee. The children have therapeutic needs and emotional
issues and are doing better in foster care. T. at 105-106. The children are placed
together in an "Agency foster to adopt home" and are doing very well and their needs
are being met. T. at 106-108, 124. The children are bonded to one another and their
foster family. T. at 108. Relative placement was explored, but it was determined not to
be an option (see this court's opinion in Stark County Case No. 2015CA00113). T. at
108-110, 122-123.
{¶18} Based upon the totality of the evidence that addressed issues beyond
appellant's cognitive skills, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support
the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of the children.
{¶19} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00109 11
{¶20} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio,
Juvenile Division is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
SGF/sg 902