In re V.R.R. , 2023 Ohio 185 ( 2023 )

[Cite as In re V.R.R., 2023-Ohio-185.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
IN RE: :
CASE NO. CA2022-08-079
V.R.R. :
OPINION
: 1/23/2023
:
:
:
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. JN2019-0213
Garrett Law Offices, and Dawn S. Garrett, for appellant.
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Jeannine Barbeau, guardian ad litem.
PIPER, J.
{¶1} Appellant-Father appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of his three-year-old daughter
"Verity"1 to Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services, Children Services
1. For privacy and readability, we refer to the child using this pseudonym.
Butler CA2022-08-079
Division ("Agency"). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} When Verity was born, in late April 2019, she tested positive for cocaine and
marijuana. Both Mother and Father admitted using drugs. Around the same time, it was
discovered that Father had disciplined Verity's 8-year-old half-sister (same mother) with a
belt and left extensive bruising on her back and buttocks. He was charged with child
endangering and ultimately convicted of disorderly conduct.
{¶3} The Agency quickly removed both girls and initially placed them with their
maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. A couple months later, the girls were
adjudicated abused and dependent children. In July, the Agency discovered substantiated
allegations that the step-grandfather had sexually abused Mother when she was a child.
The girls were then placed in the same foster home. Verity's sister had to be removed
because of her serious psychiatric problems, and after cycling through foster homes, she
ended up in an institutional setting. Verity, though, stayed with the foster family and has
been there ever since.
{¶4} A case plan was developed for the family with the goal of reunification, and a
guardian ad litem ("GAL") was appointed for the children. Father and Mother were granted
highly supervised "level 1" visits at a visitation center with Verity and her sister. The juvenile
court gave the Agency the authority to liberalize visitation, if appropriate, without seeking
further court approval. But for quite a while this was simply not possible because of both
parents' ongoing drug use. It was not until early 2021 that Mother stopped using and not
until May 2021 that Father stopped using cocaine, though he continued to use marijuana
until September. That same September, a visitation specialist at the center recommended
liberalizing visitation one step to "level 2." The Agency had concerns and did not
immediately follow the recommendation. But after Father filed a motion for less restrictive
-2-
Butler CA2022-08-079
visits in early November, the Agency agreed to raise the visitation level. Father filed another
motion for liberalized visitation late in December. The visitation specialist had not
recommended further liberalization, and the Agency refused to allow visits that were any
less supervised.
{¶5} The Agency had moved for permanent custody of both children in November
2020. In December 2021, a permanent custody hearing began before a magistrate. The
hearing took several days and was spread over several months, ending in March 2022.
{¶6} Among the witnesses were caseworker Jamie Shope, therapeutic services
coordinator Kamyra Sweeten, and visitation specialist Lynel Anderson. Shope testified that
Verity was very happy with her foster family. She noted that the sister had been hospitalized
at least four times for suicidal or homicidal ideation and was in a locked-down, residential
treatment facility. Shope and Sweeten were both very concerned about Father's and
Mother's willingness to protect the girls from their step-grandfather, even with a court order
prohibiting contact. Both parents, they said, were unconcerned and dismissed the step-
grandfather's abuse as something that happened a long time ago. Before the hearing,
Father had never been opposed to the girls visiting their step-grandfather. And Mother was
still close to step-grandfather, having had him give her away at her wedding a month or so
before the hearing. Shope testified that Mother had told her twice that step-grandfather had
sexually abused her as a child, but later denied it or said that "it was 30 years ago and it
didn't matter."
{¶7} Regarding Father's and Mother's visits with the girls, Shope, Sweeten, and
Anderson all described them as very chaotic. Neither parent could properly care for the
girls during the highly supervised two-hour visits, even with guidance from multiple
professionals. Anderson testified that Father and Mother never really seemed to
understand why their children were removed. Sweeten and Anderson had to explain to
-3-
Butler CA2022-08-079
them "over and over again" why their visitation remained so closely supervised—that, for
example, they would scream at each other while Verity's sister had temper tantrums; that
Father was decidedly unreceptive to Sweeten's suggestions about how he could engage
with the girls; that Father and Mother laughed at Verity's sister's speech impediment; that
during visits the parents were unable to engage with the children; and that Father and
Mother struggled even to change Verity's diaper and dress her. The visits improved a little
about two years after removal, when the parents visited with Verity alone, after her sister
was placed in a facility. But even then, the visits were rough, and Father and Mother still
failed to understand Verity's developmental needs. The "level 2" visits still required staff
supervision the entire time and often staff intervention. Even by the end of the permanent-
custody hearing, no increase in visitation level had been recommended.
{¶8} Regarding the parents' home, during a visit a month before the hearing,
Shope observed stairs that were dangerously steep for Verity which had no baby gate. The
home was cluttered with debris in every room to the point that it was hard to find a path
through—this despite Shope having had multiple conversations with the parents about
cleaning up. Sweeten too observed that the home was cluttered and littered with dirty
dishes.
{¶9} Verity's foster mother also testified. She said that Verity lived with her, her
husband, and their four children, whom Verity called her brothers and sisters. The foster
mother said that she and her husband "have every intention of adopting [Verity] if that's
where things go." "[H]onestly," she continued, "I couldn't imagine her not a part of our family
at this point."
{¶10} Father agreed that Verity was doing very well with her foster family. He
testified that, just before the hearing, he and Mother had been married. Father admitted his
drug use and his abuse of Verity's sister, which he attributed to the drugs and the stress in
-4-
Butler CA2022-08-079
dealing with her psychological issues. Father said that he had been smoking marijuana for
27 years and using cocaine daily for about four years. But he said that he had not used
cocaine since May 2021 and had not used marijuana since September 2021. Regarding
visitation, Father agreed that the caseworker and visitation specialist helped him prepare
for visits and often assisted during visits. Even after taking parenting classes, Father said,
he struggled during visits because he "couldn't get how they wanted, wanted us to work
with a one year old and a nine year old." Father referred to the step-grandfather's abuse of
Mother as "false rumors." He had no concerns about the grandparents babysitting the girls.
Said Father: "I'm outside of the family. I don't know what happened thirty years ago so
therefore why should I [care]."
{¶11} Mother testified that she wanted Verity and her sister to have contact with
their grandparents. Mother said that she maintained a close relationship with both
grandparents and did not believe that the step-grandfather presented any danger at all.
She claimed that as a child she had lied about the step-grandfather's sexual abuse.
{¶12} Near the end of the hearing, the GAL submitted a written report. In it, she
stated that she had visited Verity in the foster home and agreed with the foster mother that
she was a "happy, delightful child" who has "strong bonds" with foster family. The GAL
noted that Verity had never lived with Father or Mother and had none of the serious issues
that her sister had. Both parents had failed to remedy the reasons for the children's
removal, noted the GAL, despite having had three years to do so. The GAL wrote that visits
with the parents had rarely gone well and that they required "interventions by workers to
keep the children safe." The GAL noted that Father had a longstanding drug habit and that
he continued to test positive for cocaine and marijuana up until a few months before the
hearing began. The GAL's visit to the parents' home at the time of the hearing revealed
that it was "quite dirty, disorganized, and cluttered with trash and debris throughout. The
-5-
Butler CA2022-08-079
floors and surfaces in all the rooms were covered." But perhaps the biggest concern that
the GAL had was the parents' failure to recognize the threat posed by the step-grandfather,
and she worried that the children were at risk if they were returned to Father and Mother. It
was the GAL's belief that returning the girls to the parents posed a "significant risk to their
physical and mental health."
{¶13} The magistrate entered a decision in April 2022 recommending that the
juvenile court terminate parental rights and grant the Agency permanent custody of Verity.
The magistrate recommended just the opposite for Verity's sister, in a separate decision. It
was undisputed, said the magistrate, that Verity was healthy, well-adjusted, and happy, and
that she was thriving with her foster family. What stood out to the magistrate was Verity's
relationship with her foster family—a relationship that was mostly formed when Mother and
Father were unavailable to care for her because of their drug use. Verity had been with the
foster family for around 18 months before Mother stopped using drugs and around 21
months before Father stopped using. She had been out of Father's and Mother's care for
her entire young life and had never really been with them outside the highly supervised
visits. By then, said the magistrate, Verity had spent well over three-quarters of her nascent
life with the foster family, and Father and Mother were just ready to begin the process of
reunification. The magistrate found that Verity "consider[ed] her foster home to be her home
and her foster family to be her family" and that she was fully incorporated into their home
and into their family. And the foster parents wanted to make that incorporation permanent
by adopting her.
{¶14} Both Father and Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On
August 22, 2022, after a hearing, the juvenile court overruled all their objections and
adopted the magistrate's decision.
-6-
Butler CA2022-08-079
{¶15} Father appealed.2
II. Analysis
{¶16} Father presents two assignments of error. Because the issues raised are
closely related, we address them together.
{¶17} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶18} THE AGENCY FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS BY DENYING
LIBERALIZED VISITS WHICH DENIAL PRECLUDED PARENTS FROM PROGRESSING
TO REUNIFICATION.
{¶19} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶20} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT THE AGENCY PERMANENT
CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶21} Father first alleges that the juvenile court erred by finding that the Agency
made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. He contends that the Agency should have
permitted liberalized visitation. Father next alleges that the juvenile court's decision was
not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
He again raises the issue of liberalized visitation and further contends that some of the best
interest factors weighed in favor of denying the Agency's motion.
{¶22} The right to parent one's children is a fundamental right. Troxel v. Granville,
530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000); In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). To
protect this right, Ohio law requires that, before parental rights are terminated, the state
must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. In re C.F., 113
Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 43. In addition, the state is required to prove by clear
2 Mother did not appeal. We note too that this appeal concerns only Verity.
-7-
Butler CA2022-08-079
and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been
satisfied. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982).
A. Reasonable Efforts to Reunify
{¶23} R.C. 2151.419 requires a juvenile court, before it terminates parental rights,
to determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to reunify the family, which the
children services agency has the burden of proving. R.C. 2151.419(A)(1). Father contends
that the Agency failed to satisfy its duty to make reasonable efforts to reunite Verity with her
family. He argues that a major reason for granting permanent custody to the Agency was
the strength of Verity's bond with her foster family compared to her bond with him.
Permitting more liberalized visits with her, says Father, would have strengthened her bond
with him and facilitated reunification.
{¶24} As an initial matter, the juvenile court has made reasonable efforts
determinations in these proceedings before. And if a court has previously made the
determination, it need not do so during the final permanent custody hearing. In re C.F. at ¶
43. The juvenile court here made a reasonable efforts determination at least twice before,
at hearings on April 24, 2019, and December 23, 2020. Father did not object to either of
those determinations. But because the possibility of more liberalized visits did not arise
until a couple of months before the permanent custody hearing began, after the previous
determinations, we construe Father's argument to be, in essence, that the Agency's
subsequent denial of liberalized visits meant that it could no longer be said to have made
reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
{¶25} "'Reasonable efforts' does not mean all available efforts. Otherwise, there
would always be an argument that one more additional service, no matter how remote, may
have made reunification possible." (Citation omitted.) In re K.L., 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2012-08-062, 2013-Ohio-12, ¶ 18. "In determining whether the agency made
-8-
Butler CA2022-08-079
reasonable efforts * * *, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but
whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under the statute." (Citation
omitted.) Id.{¶26} Here, Father began closely supervised base-level visits with Verity shortly
after she was born. For quite a while the visits could not be liberalized because Father and
Mother continued to use drugs. It was not until roughly two months before the final
permanent custody hearing began that Father finally stopped using drugs, and it was then
that liberalized visits were recommended. While the Agency did not immediately adopt this
recommendation, it was not required to. The Agency did not liberalize visitation any further,
though, nor was further liberalization recommend, because, as the evidence showed,
Father and Mother were struggling to provide basic care for the child.
{¶27} The magistrate was very clear in his decision that the visitation level did not
play a major role (if any role at all) in the permanent custody decision. Regardless,
liberalized visitation at the end of the permanent custody proceedings would not have
materially changed the situation. The possibility of less supervision came at the end of a
very long road. By that time, Verity had already been with her foster family for most of her
life. As the magistrate said, liberalized visits at that late stage would not have made an
appreciable difference to the strength of the bond between Father and Verity. And it would
not have changed the strong bond that she had with her foster parents.
{¶28} Ultimately, it was Father's conduct that caused him to miss the opportunity to
develop a bond with his daughter. He simply did not progress quickly enough to the point
that he could have more independent visits with her.
B. The Child's Best Interest
{¶29} Father also challenges the juvenile court's decision to terminate his parental
rights and grant permanent custody to the Agency. He incorporates his argument from the
-9-
Butler CA2022-08-079
first assignment of error, that the Agency failed to allow liberalized visits. Father also argues
that granting permanent custody to the Agency was not necessary to attain a secure
permanent placement for Verity because he and Mother have completed all their case plan
services and remedied the conditions that caused her removal in the first place. In addition,
Father points out that permanent custody of Verity's sister was denied during the same
proceedings.
{¶30} R.C. 2151.414 governs a motion for permanent custody of a child and sets
forth specific determinations that a juvenile court must make before granting it. In re C.F.,
113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, at ¶ 22. As relevant here, the court must determine,
by clear and convincing evidence, first, that one or more of the conditions in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies and, second, that a grant of permanent custody is in
the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). "Clear and convincing evidence" is evidence
sufficient for the trier of fact to form a firm conviction or belief that the essential statutory
elements for a termination of parental rights have been established. Cross v. Ledford, 161
Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶31} In this case, the juvenile court determined that the condition in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied: Verity had been in the Agency's temporary custody for 12 or
more months of a consecutive 22-month period. Father does not dispute this determination.
His challenge is to the court's determination that granting the Agency permanent custody
was in Verity's best interest.
{¶32} In determining a child's best interest, a court must consider "all relevant
factors," including these five: the child's relationship with people like his or her parents,
siblings, relatives, and foster parents; the child's wishes (if the child is of sufficient age and
maturity); the child's custodial history; the child's need for a legally secure permanent
placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of
- 10 -
Butler CA2022-08-079
permanent custody to the agency; and whether any factor listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to
(11) applies. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). No one best interest factor inherently carries any
"greater weight or heightened significance" than another. In re C.F. at ¶ 57.
{¶33} An appellate court's review of a permanent custody decision is generally
limited to considering whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile
court's determination that clear and convincing evidence—evidence from which a firm
conviction or belief can be formed—showed that permanent custody is in child's best
interest. In re J.N.L.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-Ohio-3865, ¶ 22. But
we have also said that a judgment may be reversed as against the manifest weight of the
evidence if there is sufficient conflict in the evidence, that is, if after weighing the evidence
and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of witnesses, we conclude that
the juvenile court, in resolving the conflicts, clearly lost its way in finding that permanent
custody is in the child's best interest. Id. Here, after reviewing the entire record, we
conclude that sufficient credible evidence existed to support the juvenile court's
determination that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in Verity's best interest.
And there was no conflict in the evidence sufficient to suggest that the juvenile court's
judgment was against the weight of the evidence.
{¶34} The magistrate (and it may be assumed, the juvenile court) considered and
weighed all the relevant best interest factors. The magistrate did find that a legally secure
permanent placement for Verity could possibly be achieved, someday, eventually, without
granting permanent custody to the Agency. But the magistrate also found that three-year-
old Verity had been living with her foster family for almost her whole life, and that she had
come to see them as her family. She was thriving and happy with the foster family, and the
family wanted to adopt her. Verity had never been with Father outside highly supervised
visits, and she lacked any real bond with him. For her, then, reunification with Father would
- 11 -
Butler CA2022-08-079
require removing her from the only home that she has ever known, taking her away from
the people who have loved her and cared for her as long as she can remember, and giving
her to people who are all but strangers.
{¶35} Father's argument puts great stock in the fact that he completed his case plan
services. But "a parent's successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive
on the issue of reunification, as the case plan is simply a means to a goal, but not the goal
itself." In re A.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-143, 2016-Ohio-4919, ¶ 18; see also In
re N.L., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27784, 2015-Ohio-4165, ¶ 35 (stating that "substantial
compliance with a case plan, in and of itself, does not establish that a grant of permanent
custody to an agency is erroneous”). "[T]he key concern is not whether the parent has
successfully completed the case plan, but whether the parent has substantially remedied
the concerns that caused the child's removal from the parent's custody." (Emphasis sic.)
In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 24. "Indeed,
because the trial court's primary focus in a permanent custody proceeding is the child's best
interest, 'it is entirely possible that a parent could complete all of his/her case plan goals
and the trial court still appropriately terminate his/her parental rights.'" In re J.M., 4th Dist.
Highland No. 21CA13, 2021-Ohio-4146, ¶ 60, quoting In re Gomer, 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos.
16-03-19, 16-03-20, and 16-03-21, 2004-Ohio-1723, ¶ 36. Consequently, even if Father
had completed his entire case plan, it would not necessarily mean that placing Verity in his
custody would serve her best interest.
{¶36} There is evidence here that even toward the end of the proceedings, Father
was unable to care for Verity on the most fundamental level. At supervised visits he
struggled with such basic tasks as changing her diaper and dressing her, and he
consistently failed to recognize her developmental needs. His apartment was filthy and
there were conditions that made it unsafe for a young child. Also, if Verity were placed with
- 12 -
Butler CA2022-08-079
Father, she would return to living with Mother, whose fitness to care for the child was
questioned by the magistrate. It was likely that Mother would be the primary caregiver while
Father is working.
{¶37} Father also contends that the decision to deny permanent custody as to
Verity's sister undermines the decision to grant permanent custody as to Verity. But the
situation of her sister is easily distinguished. Unlike Verity—who has never lived with Father
or Mother, is healthy, and has been thriving with her foster family for nearly three years—
the sister had very serious mental health issues, had cycled through multiple foster homes,
and was in an institutional lockdown setting at the time of the permanent custody hearing.
Moreover, the sister was 11 years old, had lived with Mother for eight years, and had
expressed a desire to return to Mother. In sum, the sister's circumstances are quite unlike
Verity's.
{¶38} We recognize that "parents' interest in the care, custody, and control of their
children 'is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e United
States Supreme] Court.'" In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 19, quoting
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. at 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054. But "[t]he fundamental interest of
parents is not absolute * * *. Once the case reaches the disposition phase, the best interest
of the child controls." In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 2007-Ohio-1105, ¶ 11. '"[T]he natural
rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the
polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100,
106 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974). And a child's best
interest is "served by being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability,
and security." In re F.S., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and CA2020-08-012,
2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 69.
{¶39} In this case, Father's effort to rectify his past mistakes must be commended,
- 13 -
Butler CA2022-08-079
and his love for his daughter is not doubted. But the focus must be on what is best for the
child. The evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that what is best for Verity
was granting permanent custody to the Agency.
III. Conclusion
{¶40} The two assignments of error presented are overruled. The juvenile court's
judgment is affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
- 14 -