In re H.F , 2014 Ohio 4909 ( 2014 )

[Cite as In re H.F, 2014-Ohio-4909.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
H.F. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
A.W. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
:
: Case No. 2014CA00088
: 2014CA00089
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
Nos. 2012JCV 01093, 2013JCV00779
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For - Appellee For - Appellant
LISA LOUY DAVID L. SMITH
STARK COUNTY JFS 245 - 33rd Street N.W.
221 Third Street S.E. Canton, OH 44709
Canton, OH 44702
[Cite as In re H.F, 2014-Ohio-4909.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant M.W. (“Father”) appeals from the May 2, 2014 judgment entry of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated his
parental rights with respect to his minor children H.F. and A.W. and granted permanent
custody of the children to appellee Stark County Department of Job and Family
Services (“SCDJFS”).
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} M.W. is the father of H.F., born August 7, 2012, and A.W., born August 3,
2013. On November 6, 2012, SCDJFS filed a complaint of neglect and dependency
with regard to H.F. The complaint alleged, in part, that there were admitted domestic
violence issues between Father and A.F. (“Mother1”), and also cited concerns about
Father’s sobriety and drug abuse given his extensive criminal conviction history for drug
abuse. After a shelter care hearing on November 7, 2012, the court ordered H.F. into
the emergency custody of SCDJFS.
{¶3} On January 10, 2013, H.F. was adjudicated dependent after both parents
stipulated to the finding of dependency and H.F. was placed into the temporary custody
of SCDJFS. The court further found that the agency had made reasonable efforts to
prevent the need for removal of the child from the home and approved and adopted the
case plan. In the case plan Father was ordered to: obtain and maintain stable housing,
obtain and maintain employment, complete an assessment at Quest and all
recommendations, submit to drug testing twice weekly and/or as requested by the
1
Mother filed a separate appeal. In the Matter of H.F., A.W., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2014CA00093, 2014-
Ohio-3899.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 3
agency, complete a parenting assessment at Northeast Behavioral Health, and attend
Goodwill Parenting upon the successful completion of substance abuse treatment.
{¶4} At a case review hearing on May 3, 2013, the case plan review packet
was approved and adopted and the court made reasonable efforts and compelling
reasons findings. The status quo was maintained. Father did not appear for the
hearing.
{¶5} On August 3, 2013, Mother gave birth to A.W. On August 7, 2013,
SCDJFS filed a complaint of neglect and dependency seeking temporary custody of
A.W. After a shelter care hearing on August 7, 2013, the court ordered A.W. into the
emergency temporary custody of SCDJFS. On October 2, 2013, A.F. was adjudicated
dependent after both parents stipulated to the finding of dependency. The agency
removed the allegations of neglect. Temporary custody of A.W. was granted to
SCDJFS and a case plan was adopted.
{¶6} On September 25, 2013, SCDJFS filed a motion to extend temporary
custody of H.F. because Father had just initiated contact with the agency. Father’s
case plan was amended and he was ordered to complete an anger assessment at
Melymbrosia and complete any recommendations made. Both parents stipulated to the
extension and the case plan. At a case review hearing on October 2, 2013, the trial
court ordered all visitation between Father and the children suspended until he
completed a Quest assessment, follow any recommendations from Quest, and
maintained sobriety as evidenced by clean urine screens.
{¶7} On March 5, 2014, SCDJFS filed motions for permanent custody of both
children. On April 14, 2014, Father and Mother separately filed motions to extend
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 4
temporary custody of both children. Father stated he had no pending criminal cases
and had made an appointment at Goodwill Parenting. On April 24, 2014, the trial court
conducted a trial on SCDJFS’ motions for permanent custody.
{¶8} At trial, Vicki Mitchell (“Mitchell”), the initial caseworker for H.F., testified
that the agency became involved with the family after H.F.’s birth when Mother tested
positive for marijuana. There were additional concerns with domestic violence between
the parents. SCDJFS attempted to work voluntarily with the parents through the
Alternative Response Unit. However, because the parents were failing to follow through
with services, SCDJFS filed its complaint.
{¶9} Mitchell stated that in December of 2012, Father appeared for a visit with
the children and appeared to be intoxicated. The guard at the building confiscated
alcohol from Father and he was not permitted to visit the children. Mitchell testified that
she gave Father a copy of the case plan and reviewed it with him. On January 10,
2013, Father smelled strongly of alcohol and walked away when Mitchell attempted to
talk with him and said he did not have time to talk with her. Mitchell told him to go to
Quest to submit urine screens and contact her about visitation; however, Father never
called her. When she attempted to call Father, his phone was disconnected. Mitchell
testified that on February 18, 2013, Mother stated she missed the previous day’s class
at Goodwill parenting because Father refused to leave her home, kicked her in the
stomach, and would not allow her to leave the apartment for twelve hours. Shortly after
that incident, Mitchell testified that she received a call from Mother stating she was on a
SARTA bus and Father was on the bus threatening and yelling at Mother.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 5
{¶10} On June 27, 2013, Mitchell went to Mother’s home and found Father
entering her apartment with his own key. Mitchell found this concerning since Father
had made no effort to complete case plan services. She again went over the case plan
with him and had Father place the information about his case plan into his phone.
{¶11} Mitchell stated that since H.F. has been in the temporary custody of
SCDJFS since January 10, 2013, H.F. has been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS
more than twelve out of the last twenty-two months. Further, that as of August of 2013
when another case worker was assigned to the children, Father had done nothing to
complete any case plan services.
{¶12} Dr. Aimee Thomas (“Thomas”), a psychologist at Northeast Ohio
Behavioral Health, completed a parenting assessment with Father. Thomas testified
Father’s description of himself was not consistent with his lengthy criminal history.
Thomas stated Father has antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality
disorder, cannabis dependence, and probable alcohol dependence. Thomas testified
that due to his narcissistic personality disorder, Father is more focused on his needs
and not the needs of his children, cannot change his personality if he is not willing to
acknowledge his problems, and that his cannabis dependence hinders his ability to
learn to parent and/or to retain information from an anger management program.
Thomas stated Father’s history of domestic violence demonstrates that the children may
become the target of this violence. In her report, Thomas stated that, as a result of his
chronic criminal history, his lack of conscience, and his narcissism, his prognosis was
“exceedingly poor” if he did not complete the recommendations she established.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 6
{¶13} Thomas recommended the following with regards to Father: complete an
intensive anger management program at Melymbrosia, avoid future contact with law
enforcement officials, substance abuse treatment, gain employment and independent
housing, then, after Father’s anger and sobriety are managed, attend Goodwill
Parenting and possible Intensive Child Interaction Program. Thomas testified Father
had to manage his anger and maintain his sobriety before he could gain skills or
parenting techniques. When asked about a particular anger management program
Father attended in Alliance, Thomas stated this program was not intensive enough
considering the level of anger presented by Father.
{¶14} Stacy Senff (“Senff”), an ongoing caseworker at SCDJFS, took over H.F.’s
case in August of 2013 and was the caseworker for A.F.’s case. Senff testified that
Father had the same case plan as in H.F.’s case except that it was amended in October
to also add the requirement of anger management treatment for Father, specifically at
Melymbrosia. On October 15, 2013, Senff accidentally happened upon Mother and
Father waiting together at a bus stop in Alliance. On November 27, 2013, Senff
received a call that Mother and Father were attempting to apply for public assistance
and were stating that they lived together and had custody of the children, despite a no
contact order for Mother and Father issued in Father’s criminal case.
{¶15} Senff testified that Father has not substantially complied with case plan
objectives. While he completed intake at Melymbrosia in October of 2013, Father went
to treatment a few times, but never went back and informed her that he “fired”
Melymbrosia. When asked about the Alliance anger management program attended by
Father, Senff stated that the program does not comport with the requirements of the
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 7
case plan as it specifically requires him to go to Melymbrosia. Senff stated Father has
not complied with substance abuse recommendations. Father did not complete his
Quest assessment until February of 2014 and, when he did, he informed the assessor
he had not used drugs since 2006, which was in direct conflict with his criminal record of
multiple drug abuse convictions. Senff repeatedly asked Father to submit random drug
screens, but Father never submitted when Senff asked. Father did complete two clean
drug screens in February of 2014, but he chose the date and time of the drug screens.
Senff testified that when she repeatedly asked Father to submit to random drug
screens, he told her many times he would not submit because he “uses weed on a daily
basis.”
{¶16} Senff stated that on September 25, 2013 when she asked Father about a
random drug screen, Father instantly became hostile and verbally abusive with her.
Father later apologized to Senff for treating her like he would a girlfriend. Due to this
incident, the trial court issued an order in October stating that Father could have no
more visits with the children until he maintained his sobriety, including a Quest
assessment and any recommended treatment and the completion of random drug
screens. The visits were not reinstated because he failed to complete the recommended
treatment to maintain his sobriety and submit to random drug screens. Senff stated
Father last visited H.F. and A.W. on September 25, 2013, over ninety days prior to the
April 24, 2014 trial. Senff testified that Father did go to Goodwill Parenting, but, to
complete the program, he is required to have visitation with the children and since he
had not complied with the treatment recommended by Quest, he could not complete the
Goodwill Parenting program.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 8
{¶17} Senff stated Father should not be given more time to work on his case
plan because he is not willing stop abusing drugs and alcohol, has no relationship with
his children, his general lack of progress in the case plan, and the reports from the
service providers. Further, that the initial concerns of domestic violence and drug abuse
have not been remedied. Father told Senff he was boxing in matches, but Senff stated
she does not consider this a regular job. Senff stated that she returned many of
Father’s calls, but frequently could not reach him because the number he gave her did
not work. Further, that Father’s issue with the case plan is not due to any cognitive
impairment because his primary issue with case plan compliance is continued abuse of
drugs and alcohol and that he cannot address the other case plan services until he is
sober.
{¶18} When Senff testified in the best interest portion of the trial, she stated that
H.F. has no behavioral or medical issues. A.W. has reflux and is on a special formula
but is otherwise healthy. The girls are placed together in a foster-to-adopt home. This
is a newer home for them as their initial foster placement was an older couple who are
not willing to adopt. The girls transitioned to their new home without issues and are
doing very well there. SCDJFS did look into potential relative placements (a paternal
relative and a maternal relative) but neither of those relatives were able to pass a home
study and therefore could not be considered for placement.
{¶19} Senff testified the girls have no bond with Father and they do not know
him. Senff stated that she believes that an order granting permanent custody of the
children to SCDJFS would be in their best interests as the girls are thriving in their
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 9
current placement and the parents cannot provide them with a safe, stable, nurturing
home.
{¶20} Cedrick Gooden (“Gooden”) is a chemical dependency counselor at
Quest. Father was referred to Gooden after it was determined he needed individual
therapy due to him being a high risk and anger issues. Gooden testified that Father is
supposed to see him once per week and has an appointment with Gooden every
Monday. Father appeared for his first appointment on February 14, 2014.
Subsequently, Father was not consistently attending and Gooden last saw Father on
March 31, 2014. Out of nine weeks, Father missed five appointments and appeared for
four appointments. Gooden testified that this is not substantial compliance with
substance abuse treatment.
{¶21} Father testified that he has substantially complied with his case plan and
the only reason he did not substantially comply quicker is because he thought Mother
was completing her case plan. Further, it took him so long to start on his case plan
because he was fighting criminal cases so he would jump in and out of his case plan
while disputing his other cases. Father stated he has stable housing as he is living with
his mother and is employed as a professional boxer. Father believes he has completed
six negative urine screens and testified that he has not done drugs since 2006. Father
admitted he has been charged with domestic violence five times and does not know
why people are scared around him, especially women. Father testified he could
complete his case plan if his motion for extension were granted because he thought
Mother was going to get the kids back and when he found out she wasn’t, he started
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 10
case plan services. Father assumed since Mother did not have a criminal record and
he did, she would get the children.
{¶22} Father testified that Dr. Thomas was lying when she testified that he told
her he was still in a relationship with Mother. Father stated Senff was lying when she
testified that he told her he smoked weed every day. Father left Melymbrosia because
someone there lied about him. Father testified that everybody but him lies. Father did
not go to counseling because he was unmotivated and felt like he could not win. Father
stated that he went to anger management classes in Alliance. However, on cross-
examination, Father admitted he was doing this because it was court-ordered in his
criminal cases and he gets a reduction of his fines in his criminal cases if he attends the
class.
{¶23} On cross-examination, Father confirmed that he has the following
convictions: in March of 2014, possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, in
2013, drug abuse, disorderly conduct, and menacing, in 2012, assault, in 2011, two
counts of drug paraphernalia, criminal trespass, possession of drugs, possession of
marijuana, criminal mischief, domestic violence, and drug abuse, in 2009, criminal
trespass, in 2006, possession of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine, in 2005, drug abuse
and possession of marijuana, in 2004, drug abuse and trafficking in cocaine. Father
went to prison for two years in 2006 and for eleven months in 2004.
{¶24} In a report dated April 16, 2014, the children’s Guardian Ad Litem “strongly
supports” the agency’s motion for permanent custody.
{¶25} Pursuant to a judgment entry filed on May 2, 2014, the trial court
terminated Father’s and Mother’s parental rights and granted permanent custody of H.F.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 11
and A.W. to SCDJFS. The trial court found that H.F. has been in the custody of
SCDJFS for more than twelve months of the last twenty-two consecutive months.
Further, that Father failed to remedy the conditions that led to the removal of the
children. The trial court found the children could not be placed with either parent at this
time or within a reasonable amount of time and that the children were abandoned by
Father based upon the lack of contact for more than ninety (90) days. The trial court
further found it is in the best interest of H.F. and A.W. that permanent custody be
granted to SCDJFS. The trial court denied Father’s motion for extension of temporary
custody.
{¶26} Father appeals from the trial court’s May 2, 2014 judgment entry and
raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶27} “I. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT APPELLANT
ABANDONED THE MINOR CHILD WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶28} "II. THE COURT’S ORDER STATING THAT THE CHILDREN COULD
NOT BE PLACED WITH ANY BIOLOGICAL PARENT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”
Permanent Custody
{¶29} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re
Murray, 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972). An award of permanent custody must
be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 12
{¶30} 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, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). “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.” Id. at 477. If some
competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case supports
the trial court’s judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment and not substitute
its judgment for that of the trial court. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio
St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978).
{¶31} Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
the evidence are primarily for the trier of fact. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Deferring to the trial court on matters of
credibility is “crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evidence in the
parties’ demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v.
Flickinger, 77 Ohio St. 3d 415, 419, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).
{¶32} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must follow when
deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) mandates the trial court
schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody
of a child by a public children services agency.
{¶33} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to
grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 13
grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child
is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child’s
parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents; (b) the
child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who
are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody
of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after
March 18, 1999.
{¶34} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial
court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, a trial
court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding
the best interest of the child.
I.
{¶35} Father first argues the trial court’s finding that he abandoned H.F. and
A.W. pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of
the evidence. Father argues that he is now able to communicate with the children as he
is in a sober state where visitation is appropriate. We disagree.
{¶36} For purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b), “abandoned” is defined by R.C.
2151.011(C), which provides that “a child shall be presumed abandoned when the
parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than
ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that
period of ninety days.”
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 14
{¶37} Senff testified that Father’s last contact with H.F. and A.W. was on
September 25, 2013 and he had no further visits as of the trial held April 24, 2014. On
October 4, 2013, the trial court suspended Father’s visits with both children until he
demonstrated a level of sobriety by completing a Quest assessment, any recommended
treatment, and dropping clean random urine screens. Father admitted he failed to
timely start his case plan because of his criminal cases and his thought that Mother was
completing her case plan. Father did not go to Quest for an assessment until February
7, 2014, more than ninety days after his last visit with his children. Father provided two
negative urine screens and a negative swab since August of 2012, but never tested at
the agency’s request as he chose the timing for the tests he did take. Senff testified
that she repeatedly asked Father to submit to random drug screens. Gooden testified
that after Father started substance abuse treatment in February of 2014, Father
attended only half of the weekly sessions. Gooden stated that this is not substantial
compliance with substance abuse treatment.
{¶38} Father could have begun visiting again by complying with the trial court’s
order of October 2013, but Father chose not to do so. Father intentionally chose to
delay in starting his case plan services. As the statute defines “abandonment” as failure
to make contact for more than ninety days, the trial court’s finding that Father
abandoned H.F. and A.W. is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the
evidence. Father’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶39} Father argues the trial court’s determination that the children could not be
placed with either parent within a reasonable time is against the manifest weight and
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 15
sufficiency of the evidence. Father contends he has housing and employment and is
actively engaged in case plan services.
{¶40} We first note that the trial court determined that, pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d), H.F. has been in the temporary custody of the agency for a period of
time in excess of twelve of the prior twenty-two consecutive months. Mitchell testified
that H.F. was placed in the temporary custody of SCDJFS on January 10, 2013 and, as
of the hearing date of April 24, 2014, H.F. was in the custody of the agency for more
than twelve out of the last twenty-two months.
{¶41} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are
alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the
motion for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2007 AP 0041,
2007-Ohio-5805. Therefore, because Father has not challenged the twelve of twenty-
two month finding, we would not need to address the merits of this assignment of error
with respect to H.F. In re N.D., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2010CA00334, 2011-Ohio-685. This
finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant
of permanent custody of H.F. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118, 2008-
Ohio-5458.
{¶42} However, with regards to A.W. and even if we considered Father’s
argument with regards to H.F., the trial court did not err in determining that the children
cannot be placed with Father at this time or within a reasonable period of time.
{¶43} Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all relevant
evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter such a
finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 16
enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child’s
parents. The relevant portions of R.C. 2151.414(E) are as follows:
(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. 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. * * *
(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental
retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent 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 after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of
this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of
the Revised Code. * * *
(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the
child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 17
when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to
provide an adequate permanent home for the child * * *
(10) The parent has abandoned the child.
{¶44} A review of the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that H.F. and
A.W. cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable time. Senff stated that Father
should not be given more time to complete the case plan because he is not willing to
stop abusing drugs and alcohol, has no relationship with his children, the lack of
progress in his case plan, and due to reports from the service providers. Senff testified
that Father has not remedied the initial concerns of domestic violence and drug abuse
that were why the children were removed. As testified to by Mitchell and Senff, Father
initiated no case plan services until several months into the case and then failed to
substantially comply with case plan services. Father admitted that he knew about the
requirements of the case plan and that he did not start his case plan services in a timely
manner because he was working on his criminal cases and because he thought Mother
was going to get the children. However, temporary custody was extended once in
September of 2013 by stipulation due to the fact that Father had just initiated case
services and Father still failed to take any action until February of 2014 to address his
issues with substance abuse and attain visitation with his children that was suspended
in October of 2013 due to his inappropriate behavior at a visit.
{¶45} Father failed to complete the anger management program at Melymbrosia
as required by this case plan and as recommended by Dr. Thomas. Senff testified that
Father told her he “fired” Melymbrosia. Both Senff and Dr. Thomas testified that the
program Father attended in Alliance was not an intensive anger management program
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 18
as required by the case plan. Father admitted that he attended the anger management
program in Alliance as a part of a requirement for his criminal cases and to reduce his
fines in the criminal cases. Further, though Father completed a Quest assessment for
substance abuse in February of 2014, when Father was recommended individual
treatment to the fact that he was too high-risk for a group situation, Father attended only
half of his weekly treatment meetings. Senff and Gooden testified this is not
“substantial compliance” with substance abuse treatment. Senff stated that she
repeatedly asked Father to submit random drug screens, but he continually failed to do
so. The two negative urine screens and one negative swab that Father provided were
all completed at times Father chose, not at the agency’s request. As detailed above,
Father failed to visit his children since September of 2013 as he failed to comply with
the magistrate’s order requiring substance abuse treatment and negative random drug
screens prior to visitation. Father could have begun visiting again at any time by
complying with the order, but chose not to do so. Due to this lack of visitation, Senff
testified that Father has no relationship or bond with either of the children. As testified
to by Mitchell and Senff, Father and Mother continued to remain involved in a
domestically violent relationship.
{¶46} Testimony from Dr. Thomas shows Father has significant mental health
and substance abuse issues. Father’s extensive substance abuse issues are also
demonstrated by Father’s extensive and continual criminal record. The trial court found
Father’s testimony that he had not used drugs since 2006 not credible and directly
contradictory to his criminal history and his reports to Dr. Thomas. Dr. Thomas
concluded Father’s prognosis was exceedingly poor unless he completed her
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 19
recommendations, including substance abuse treatment and intensive anger
management treatment at Melymbrosia. As discussed above, Father did not complete
the Melymbrosia program or substantially comply with substance abuse treatment. Dr.
Thomas also expressed concern that, given Father’s history of domestic violence, the
children may become the target of this violence. Dr. Thomas further testified that Father
had to manage and maintain his sobriety before he could gain any skills or parenting
techniques.
{¶47} We find there is competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s
finding that the children cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable amount of
time because the delay in completing the case plan objectives and the failure to reduce
the risks posed when the children were first removed are directly attributable to the
actions and inactions of Father. Father’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00088 & 2014CA00089 20
{¶48} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s determination that
Father abandoned the children and that the children could not be placed with him within
a reasonable time or should not be placed with him was based upon competent and
credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.
Father’s assignments of error are overruled and the May 2, 2014 judgment entry of the
Stark County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Delaney, J., and
Baldwin, concur