In re J.T.
Citation2023 Ohio 4681
Date Filed2023-12-21
DocketL-23-1181
JudgeSulek
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Syllabus
Termination of parental rights is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where father continues to use illegal drugs, has not provided evidence of stable housing, and continues to need intensive mental health treatment.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
[Cite as In re J.T.,2023-Ohio-4681
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
In re: J.T., R.T. Court of Appeals No. L-23-1181
Trial Court No. 21286034
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: December 21, 2023
*****
Janna E. Waltz, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney for, appellee.
Laurel Kendall, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant-father, James T., appeals the judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which terminated his parental rights
and awarded custody of the minor children, J.T. and R.T., to appellee Lucas
County Children Services (“LCCS”). For the reasons that follow, the juvenile
court’s judgment is affirmed.
II. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} James T. is the father of J.T., born in 2013, and R.T., born in 2017.1
The present matter was initiated on September 2, 2021, when LCCS filed a
complaint in dependency, abuse, and neglect.
{¶ 3} The complaint alleged that on August 20, 2021, LCCS received a
referral that the children were residing with their mother and mother’s boyfriend,
both of whom had substance abuse problems, with mother using
methamphetamine and recently overdosing on heroin, and her boyfriend using
methamphetamine and marijuana. The referral also stated that R.T. had been
observed holding a torch lighter and in possession of a THC vape pen. It further
detailed that mother and her boyfriend had left the children unsupervised all day
while mother and her boyfriend were intoxicated. Finally, the referral stated that
EMS and law enforcement had been notified that R.T. had ingested substances.
LCCS investigated the referral and confirmed some of the allegations and
determined others were inaccurate.
{¶ 4} According to the complaint, mother admitted to LCCS that she had a
history of heroin use and was still using marijuana. Mother also claimed that she
1
J.T. and R.T.’s mother has not appealed the juvenile court’s termination of her
parental rights.
2.
completed services at Aurora House and had been sober since 2019. The children
told LCCS that mother did not use drugs but they had seen father use needles.
{¶ 5} Regarding father, the complaint alleged that he had an active warrant
arising out of charges in Toledo Municipal Court for making false alarms and
misuse of the 911 System. A Toledo Police report stated that father had called 911
and falsely reported that R.T. had ingested methamphetamine. Father had also
recently been released from prison in Michigan on parole.
{¶ 6} In addition, the complaint alleged that a custody dispute existed
between mother and father. Father claimed that he had been given custody of the
children while mother was undergoing treatment for substance abuse. Father then
went to prison, and the children lived with relatives in Michigan until two months
before the referral. At that time, according to father, the children began living
with mother. Mother alleged that the children had been living with her since
February 2021. LCCS was unable to confirm custody.
{¶ 7} Finally, the complaint alleged that both mother and father failed to
complete a drug screen as requested.
{¶ 8} At a shelter care hearing on September 2, 2021, the juvenile court
ordered that the children would remain in mother’s home and LCCS would
provide protective supervision. Further, due to concerns about domestic violence,
mother’s boyfriend was ordered to vacate mother’s residence and the court issued
an order prohibiting mother’s boyfriend from having any contact with the children.
3.
{¶ 9} The juvenile court ordered that: (1) mother and father undergo a dual
diagnostic assessment and substance abuse screening; (2) J.T. be enrolled in
school immediately and R.T. to be enrolled in protective day care; and (3) J.T. and
R.T. not be removed from the jurisdiction.
{¶ 10} On September 14, 2021, the juvenile court issued an ex parte order
determining that LCCS was to take shelter care custody of the children, and the
children were placed in an emergency foster home.
{¶ 11} The next day, LCCS moved for an emergency shelter care hearing
and requested interim temporary custody of the children. LCCS alleged that
mother had failed to provide a urine screen, and LCCS had not been able to make
contact with her since the shelter care hearing on September 2, 2021 despite
several attempts. A neighbor told an LCCS caseworker that mother’s boyfriend
continued to reside with mother, and mother’s boyfriend told the caseworker that
mother had not told him the juvenile court had ordered him to vacate the
residence. LCCS also alleged that father admitted to using fentanyl approximately
40 days earlier, and the children had been residing in Michigan, outside the court’s
jurisdiction, with father and father’s girlfriend, Abbie McIntosh.
{¶ 12} The juvenile court held a hearing on LCCS’s motion the same day
and ordered the children be placed in the interim temporary custody of LCCS.
The court appointed Mary Beth Orr as the children’s guardian ad litem, and both
parents were granted level 1 visitation with the children at LCCS. Further, the
4.
court ordered father to clear his warrants and that mother and father comply with a
case plan.
{¶ 13} Under the case plan, the goal was reunification, and father was to
undergo substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, secure stable housing,
and comply with the terms of his parole. In October 2021, however, father was
removed from the case plan after he expressed that he did not want to engage with
his LCCS caseworker.
{¶ 14} At the adjudication and disposition hearing on November 18, 2021,
the juvenile court continued LCCS’s temporary custody of the children and
ordered father to provide a urine screen to LCCS immediately following the
hearing.
{¶ 15} On December 1, 2021, the juvenile court granted father’s motion for
an expedited interstate home study for placement of the children with McIntosh,
but the home study was later denied because father had been living with McIntosh.
{¶ 16} At a review hearing on March 10, 2022, the juvenile court noted that
father had not complied with and had been removed from the case plan, but father
had been participating in weekly Zoom calls with the children, and he had cleared
his warrants. The children were doing well in their foster placement, and no
appropriate kin placement had been found.
{¶ 17} On July 14, 2022, LCCS moved for permanent custody of J.T. and
R.T. LCCS alleged that father had been linked with providers since January 2022
but had not made progress on his case plan. It alleged that father provided positive
5.
drug screens on March 8, March 22, March 23, March 30, April 6, April 14, and
April 27, 2022. Additionally, father had been charged with possession of
paraphernalia in March 2022, causing his parole to be extended an additional 90
days. LCCS asserted that J.T. and R.T. could not be placed with either parent
within a reasonable period of time due to the circumstances listed in R.C.
2151.414(E)(1), R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), and R.C. 2151.414(E)(4).
{¶ 18} In August 2022, LCCS moved for an order extending temporary
custody for an additional six months and withdrew its motion for permanent
custody. Father had progressed in his mental health and substance abuse
treatment, and he moved to Toledo in August 2022 to facilitate in-person visits
with J.T. and R.T.
{¶ 19} At a review hearing on September 16, 2022, the juvenile court noted
that father had completed a dual assessment and was engaged in dual services.
The court also noted that father had started level 2 visitation at LCCS. The court
found that the children should remain in the temporary custody of LCCS.
{¶ 20} On December 6, 2022, McIntosh appeared at a review meeting,
reporting that father would not be attending the meeting and his whereabouts were
unknown. A few weeks later, on December 22, 2022, LCCS moved for permanent
custody of J.T. and R.T. again. In its motion, LCCS alleged that father was not
compliant with the terms of his probation in Michigan and had an active warrant.
{¶ 21} On March 7, 2023, McIntosh filed a motion seeking legal custody of
the children. Father filed a motion for an expedited home study regarding
6.
McIntosh the next day, and LCCS filed an objection to father’s motion. On April
18, 2023, father moved to extend temporary custody. The next day, at a hearing in
which father failed to appear, the juvenile court denied father’s motion for an
expedited home study.
{¶ 22} The juvenile court held a hearing on May 17, May 23, June 2, and
June 9, 2023 on father’s motion to extend temporary custody, McIntosh’s motion
for legal custody, and LCCS’s motion for permanent custody. On May 17, 2023,
LCCS caseworker Hannah Beaudrie, and the children’s guardian ad litem, Orr,
were present with counsel. In addition, an attorney for J.T. and R.T. was present.
Abbie McIntosh appeared pro se. Although father appeared with counsel on May
17 and June 9, father was not present on May 23 or June 2. Father’s counsel
appeared on his behalf on the dates he was absent.
{¶ 23} At the outset of the hearing, the juvenile court considered a motion
to withdraw from father’s attorney. His attorney told the court that she had not
had substantial compliance from father. She had been unable to reach father for
the past couple of months despite trying to contact him numerous times through
different means. She also noted that she was his third attorney on this case. The
court denied the motion but gave father’s attorney time to consult with father
before beginning the hearing.
{¶ 24} The juvenile court then heard testimony from the following:
Beaudrie, the LCCS caseworker who had worked with the family since October
2021; Anthony Cardenas, an LCCS employee specializing in finding children’s
7.
family members for potential placement; Zahraa Saab, father’s clinical therapist;
and Mary Beth Orr, the children’s guardian ad litem. The relevant testimony and
the events occurring during the three hearing dates are summarized below. For
clarity, the testimony is organized by the chronological events of the case rather
than the order the testimony was given.
{¶ 25} Beaudrie testified that the case plan established in September 2021
identified several services for father, including substance abuse, mental health,
housing, and compliance with his probation. Beaudrie testified that father did not
initially comply with the case plan.
{¶ 26} Father did, however, visit his children beginning in October 2021
according to Beaudrie’s testimony. Initially, his visits were over videoconference
because the terms of his parole prohibited him from leaving Michigan, but after
his parole ended, he visited the children in person at LCCS.
{¶ 27} Father began receiving some of the services from his case plan in
January 2022. He was linked to Team Wellness in Southgate, Michigan for
mental health services. Zahraa Saab, a clinical therapist at Team Wellness,
testified that she began seeing father for therapy in January 2022 for trauma,
depression, and substance use treatment. Father had weekly therapy sessions,
mostly over the phone, with Ms. Saab. Father also saw a psychiatrist, Dr. Xavier
White, at Team Wellness for medication.
{¶ 28} Father’s Team Wellness records, admitted as an exhibit, stated that
father disclosed to Ms. Saab that he had been sexually assaulted on October 7,
8.
2021, and one of the issues that Ms. Saab was addressing with father was trauma.
Although father had given Ms. Saab permission to discuss his assault with the
LCCS caseworker, Ms. Saab testified that she had not done so.
{¶ 29} Beaudrie testified that in March 2022, LCCS put father on a one-
hour call for his visits, requiring him to call LCCS one hour ahead of the
scheduled visit to confirm he would attend. LCCS puts a parent on a one-hour call
to prevent the children from going to a visit and not getting to see the parent.
Father continued to be on a one-hour call for several months.
{¶ 30} Beaudrie also stated that in March 2022, father was charged with
paraphernalia and his probation was extended. That same month, he also began
receiving substance abuse services—suboxone services—through Dr. Saab2 in
Dearborn, Michigan.
{¶ 31} Although father did have several positive drug tests in spring 2022,
Beaudrie testified that father then began to make good progress with his services.
In August 2022, LCCS withdrew its motion for permanent custody filed in July
2022 and moved to extend temporary custody. Father moved from Michigan to
Toledo in August 2022 to facilitate his visits with his children, and he began
completing drug screens for LCCS in Toledo then as well. Before father’s move
to Toledo, LCCS had accepted drug screenings conducted through Dr. Saab,
2
Father was treated by two individuals with the same last name: Dr. Saab, who
prescribed father suboxone in 2022, and Zahraa Saab, father’s clinical therapist.
For clarity, father’s suboxone provider is referred to as Dr. Saab, and father’s
clinical therapist is referred to as Ms. Saab.
9.
father’s suboxone provider, as well as screenings father completed as a condition
of his probation in Michigan.
{¶ 32} Things began to change for father in fall 2022, around the time of
the anniversary of his sexual assault. According to Ms. Saab, on September 30,
2022, father told her that he had been clean for six months and was in a good
place. Saab believed father had improved at that point. Beaudrie, however, stated
that father tested positive for cocaine in September 2022 in an LCCS drug screen.
{¶ 33} Beaudrie also testified that father’s last appointment at Dr. Saab’s
office for suboxone was on October 26, 2022. Father told Beaudrie that he was
planning to receive suboxone services through Hill Clinic in Toledo instead, but
Beaudrie testified that father never actually received services from Hill Clinic.
{¶ 34} Team Wellness likewise reported that father’s last appointment was
in October 2022. Ms. Saab testified that she and father’s caseworker at Team
Wellness attempted to reach out to father many times, but father did not answer
their calls. As a result, Team Wellness closed out his case for noncompliance.
{¶ 35} On November 3, December 8, and December 9, 2022, father failed
to complete drops for his drug screening with LCCS.
{¶ 36} In November 2022, father’s visits with J.T. and R.T. became less
regular. He visited the children on November 7, then December 7, and then his
visits ceased. Beaudrie testified that LCCS removed father from the schedule in
January 2023 due to his failure to appear for visits.
10.
{¶ 37} Also in November 2022, Beaudrie attempted to conduct a home visit
at father’s Toledo address. But when she arrived, she was informed that father no
longer resided there.
{¶ 38} Around the same time, Beaudrie learned from McIntosh that father
had been sexually assaulted about a year earlier, in October 2021. Beaudrie
testified that she did not speak with father about the rape, its impact, or any
additional services father may need as a result. She explained that father was
already connected with mental health providers, so she believed that his therapist
was the best person to either provide treatment or identify additional necessary
treatment. Beaudrie agreed that it was possible father may have made better
progress on his case plan if father had received additional treatment to address the
incident.
{¶ 39} In December 2022, father was admitted into Samaritan Behavioral
Health, a mental health hospital, for inpatient treatment following a suicide
attempt. According to his medical record, which was admitted as an exhibit, at the
time of his admission, father tested positive for fentanyl and cocaine. Father also
admitted to using cocaine 20 times in the previous 30 days. He was diagnosed
with opioid dependence, depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, polysubstance
dependence, and major depressive disorder. Beaudrie testified that to her
knowledge, father was admitted into a mental health institution three times during
the pendency of the case.
11.
{¶ 40} On January 10, 2023, father was discharged from the hospital.
Before he was discharged, a medication appointment was scheduled on father’s
behalf with Team Wellness for January 17, 2023. Team Wellness records indicate
that father was a no-show for that appointment.
{¶ 41} In February 2023, father reengaged with Team Wellness for mental
health services, but according to Ms. Saab, father was not compliant with his
treatment. Father missed seven out of fifteen appointments with Team Wellness,
many of which were telephone appointments, over the next two months. Ms. Saab
testified that when she asked father why he was missing appointments, father said
that he was “good.”
{¶ 42} On March 3, 2023, father completed a psychiatric evaluation with
Team Wellness, and Dr. White’s evaluation report indicated father was evasive
and avoidant, drug seeking, and reported no substance abuse issues. The
psychiatrist recommended inpatient services, case management services, and
psychotropic drugs. As of May 16, more than two months after the
recommendations had been made, father had not yet followed through with any of
the recommendations.
{¶ 43} On February 15, 2023, father resumed weekly visits with J.T. and
R.T. Beaudrie testified that J.T. requested to change the time of his visits with his
father so he would not have to miss his sporting activities after school.
Accordingly, the LCCS scheduler set the visits for noon, over J.T.’s school lunch
period. Beaudrie testified that she had no role in setting the visit time—it was up
12.
to the scheduler—and she could not say whether J.T.’s sports schedule made him
unavailable for all five weekday evenings. Father told Beaudrie that noon visits
were difficult for him to attend due to work, and Beaudrie conveyed father’s
request to change the visit time to the scheduler, who was working on it. Father
did appear for some of the noon visits.
{¶ 44} When father’s visits first resumed, LCCS required father to be at the
place of the visit one hour before the visit time (LCCS refers to this as a parent
being “on a show”) due to his prior missed visits. Beaudrie testified in the five
weeks that father was on a show, he missed one visit out of five. LCCS then
agreed to allow father to call in advance to confirm his attendance at visits to
accommodate his work schedule and travel time for the visits. Beaudrie testified
that father completed his last visit with his children on March 22, 2023. After
father missed the next three visits, he was removed from the schedule. At the time
of Beaudrie’s testimony on May 16, 2023, father had not requested to resume his
visits.
{¶ 45} Ms. Saab from Team Wellness testified that her last therapy session
with father was on March 31, 2023. Her appointment notes stated that her
sessions with father had been very surface level and his attendance was scattered.
Ms. Saab also noted that she and Dr. White were questioning whether Team
Wellness could provide an appropriate level of care for father. Ms. Saab testified
that although in 2022 she had believed father was receiving sufficient treatment
for his trauma, mental health, and substance use based on his progress at that time,
13.
she now believed that he needed inpatient care and more specialized care in
trauma.
{¶ 46} Father began receiving suboxone services from Metro Hybrid Clinic
in Michigan in December 2022. Beaudrie testified that father had been compliant
with that service at the time of the hearing, but on March 29, 2023, father did not
appear for a scheduled drug screen at Metro Hybrid Clinic.
{¶ 47} In addition, Beaudrie testified that father’s last completed drug
screening for LCCS was in September 2022, when he tested positive for cocaine.
Father appeared for a screen at LCCS’s facility in February 2023 and one in
March 2023, but he did not go and he refused to complete a swab because the
results could not be contested. Beaudrie also testified that father’s drug screens
conducted by Metro Hybrid Clinic were a concern for LCCS because they were
scheduled drops rather than random drops.
{¶ 48} According to Beaudrie, father also did not comply with the terms of
his probation as required by the case plan. She testified that a Michigan court had
issued a bench warrant for father with a $10,000 bond for failing to appear for a
hearing in April 2023.
{¶ 49} Beaudrie further noted that father had not demonstrated that he
secured independent housing as required by his case plan. She did not know
where father was residing at the time of the hearing. Beaudrie explained that
father’s contact with her had been irregular throughout the case, and the last time
14.
she saw him was in March 2023 and the last time she had spoken to him was by
phone in April 2023.
{¶ 50} Beaudrie believed that father was not able to provide a safe, stable,
or permanent environment for J.T. and R.T. based on father’s failure to make
significant progress in case plan services to address the concerns. LCCS had
ongoing concerns about father’s substance abuse and mental health, and father had
not demonstrated he had stable housing.
{¶ 51} In addition, Beaudrie stated her belief that father would not be able
to significantly remedy his problems given an extension of time to receive case
plan services. She testified that father needed inpatient substance abuse treatment,
which was in her experience approximately 30 days. After discharge, a patient
must next complete intensive outpatient services, which generally take 10 to 16
weeks. After that, a patient must complete aftercare services for an additional 12
to 16 weeks. As such, Beaudrie testified that there was insufficient time in the
case for father to demonstrate active sobriety.
{¶ 52} LCCS did not have a plan for a permanent placement according to
Beaudrie. The children’s foster caregivers were not certified to adopt, and they
had not yet decided whether they would consider adopting J.T. and R.T. In the
past, the foster parents had expressed that they did not intend to adopt, but they
notified LCCS that they were reconsidering at the time of the hearing. The foster
parents had agreed to keep the children until a permanent placement was found for
them.
15.
{¶ 53} LCCS had not been able to identify any appropriate relatives despite
conducting a search into the children’s family and contacting several relatives.
Anthony Cardenas, an LCCS employee whose job was to find family members of
kids in foster care, testified that he had done a search of both sides of the
children’s family but had not identified anyone, though a cousin had very recently
come forward expressing an interest in custody of the children.
{¶ 54} Beaudrie did not consider McIntosh a suitable option because father
had been living with McIntosh in her home on and off throughout the case, and
father was still using McIntosh’s address for probation purposes. LCCS was
concerned with the type of contact that McIntosh would permit father to have with
the children.
{¶ 55} LCCS also had concerns with McIntosh stemming from a report it
received from a caseworker from another agency who worked with the foster
parents. The report, dated March 16, 2023, stated that J.T. had been coached to
tell a caseworker that he wanted to live with McIntosh. J.T. told the caseworker
that his father was going to marry McIntosh and she was going to be his
stepmother. The caseworker was surprised because J.T. had never before
expressed a wish to live with McIntosh. Later that evening, J.T. confessed to one
of his foster parents that he had been coached by father to say those words, and
doing so made his stomach hurt. LCCS was concerned with this report in part
because of J.T.’s statement that father and McIntosh were to marry, which
suggested that father and McIntosh continued to be in a relationship.
16.
{¶ 56} According to Beaudrie, it was not in the children’s best interests for
the court to grant McIntosh legal custody of the children because of her ongoing
relationship with father. Rather, she believed it was in the children’s best interests
for LCCS to have permanent custody of the children
{¶ 57} Although father attended the hearing on May 17, father did not
appear on May 23 or June 2, 2023. On May 23, father’s attorney explained that
she had just learned that father had been admitted into a mental health institution,
and she requested a continuance so that father could be at the hearing. LCCS
objected, arguing that the case had been continued many times already and
father’s timing in seeking inpatient treatment was suspect. The juvenile court
denied the request for a continuance, and the hearing proceeded in father’s
absence.
{¶ 58} Ms. Saab testified that father had been admitted into Henry Ford
Kingswood, a psychiatric hospital, on May 22, 2023. According to Ms. Saab,
father was being treated for major depressive disorder, opioid use disorder, and
PTSD. In addition, father had expressed interest in going to a residential treatment
center for substance use after leaving Kingswood.
{¶ 59} Ms. Saab further testified that as of the date of her testimony, May
23, 2023, father still needed additional treatment for trauma. She believed that if
father received the right treatment, he could potentially be ready to reunify with
his children in three or four months. She also recognized, however, that he may
require more substantive long-term treatment to make significant progress. He
17.
had made some progress, but Ms. Saab could not say how much more treatment he
needed. She explained, “Maybe we only touched the surface. It’s hard to say at
this moment.” Ms. Saab acknowledged that she did not know how long father
would need treatment for substance abuse because she did not have enough
experience in that area to give an opinion.
{¶ 60} On June 2, 2023, father’s counsel informed the court that to the best
of her knowledge, father would not be appearing in court for the hearing that day.
Father’s counsel represented that all she knew about father’s whereabouts was that
he had been in treatment.
{¶ 61} Finally, Orr, the guardian ad litem, testified. In addition to
submitting her report, Orr testified that she did not believe that it would be in the
best interest of the children to be reunified with father. Orr, who attended several
of father’s visits with the children, expressed concerns about father’s parenting at
visits. For example, Orr noted that father would bring food to the noon visits.
R.T. had been in therapy for food fixation, and father had ignored Orr’s request to
bring in healthier foods in accordance with that therapy. Father had not addressed
R.T.’s inappropriate behavior on another occasion, and father had encouraged the
children to fight back rather than to run away or get an adult if they got into an
altercation at school.
{¶ 62} Orr also did not recommend that McIntosh be granted legal custody
of J.T. and R.T. based on McIntosh’s on-again, off-again relationship with father.
Orr also cited an incident in which McIntosh had unexpectedly appeared at J.T.’s
18.
baseball game. When J.T. saw her, McIntosh told him not to tell his foster parents
that she was there. At the hearing, McIntosh clarified that when she said that, J.T.
had then pointed behind her, where his foster parents had been standing, and
McIntosh had told J.T. she was just kidding and apologized. Orr testified that
even if McIntosh’s explanation was true, she did not think McIntosh’s actions had
been appropriate. Orr emphasized that she did not think joking about J.T. hiding
things from his foster parents was okay, and J.T. should not have been put in such
a position.
{¶ 63} Orr testified that the children had expressed a desire to be in a
permanent home situation. J.T. and R.T. had previously asked to live with father,
but they had changed their minds. Orr testified that both children struggled when
father was inconsistent with visitation. J.T. told Orr that he was afraid his father
would use drugs. Thus, Orr stated that J.T. wanted to be adopted by his foster
parents, in part because he wanted to stay in his current school system with his
friends and continue playing sports. R.T. told Orr he did not want to live with his
dad and wanted to live with relatives of his foster family.
{¶ 64} The children were doing well in their placement according to both
Beaudrie and Orr. Both J.T. and R.T. were receiving regular counseling, and they
were bonded to their caregivers. Orr testified that J.T. was doing “exceptionally
well” in school and was on the honor roll.
{¶ 65} In his closing argument at the hearing, father’s counsel requested
that the juvenile court not award permanent custody of the children to LCCS, but
19.
instead grant an extension of time for father to successfully complete his treatment
and reunite with the children. Father had been progressing in his treatment until
he had been triggered by the anniversary of a traumatic event, and he had recently
resumed treatment. The case still had nearly four months before the two-year
mark, and father contended he could potentially be well enough to reunify with the
children in that time. Further, father pointed out that although LCCS argued that
permanency was in the children’s best interests, LCCS had not yet identified a
permanent placement.
{¶ 66} Alternatively, father argued in favor of granting legal custody to
McIntosh, whom father alleged had no criminal history, was financially sound,
and had an appropriate home. Father contended the children’s best interests
would be better served if the children were in the custody of McIntosh than if the
they had to start over with an unknown person. Father also represented that there
was no evidence that McIntosh had been in a relationship with father since
December 2022.
{¶ 67} McIntosh presented similar arguments, providing some details about
the stable home she could provide the children as well as her prior parenting
experience. McIntosh argued that she was invested in the children, asserting that
she had attended nearly every hearing and meeting in this case. McIntosh denied
being in a relationship with father and said had not been for some time. She
asserted that she would not allow father to be around the children if he were
20.
unstable, explaining she had never previously allowed him in her home when he
was using.
{¶ 68} J.T. and R.T.’s attorney argued in favor of granting permanent
custody to LCCS. In support, she stated that the children had told her that they
were tired of being in this situation, they did not believe that father could be
consistent and stable, and they feared if they were to be reunited with father that
they would end up in foster care again. She pointed out that father had not been
consistent with visiting the children or with his treatment.
{¶ 69} Further, the children’s attorney echoed the concerns expressed by
Beaudrie and Orr regarding McIntosh. She asserted that McIntosh did not have a
long-term relationship with the children and had only known them for about three
to four months, and she was concerned about the level of involvement McIntosh
had in this case based on such a short relationship. The children’s attorney also
suggested McIntosh’s failure to seek legal assistance was another mark against
her.
{¶ 70} The juvenile court took the matter under advisement.
{¶ 71} Following the permanent custody hearing, the juvenile court entered
its judgment terminating father’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody
of the children to LCCS. As to father, the court found by clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be placed with him within a reasonable time or
should not be placed with him. Specifically, it found under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)
that notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by LCCS, father
21.
failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that
caused the children to be placed outside of the family home. The court determined
that although father was in substantial compliance with his case plan for a period
of time, he was no longer in compliance. It noted that father stopped engaging in
services for several months and that he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for
an attempted suicide and had been admitted to an inpatient treatment center during
trial.
{¶ 72} The juvenile court also found under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) that father
suffers from such severe chemical dependency and chronic mental illness that he
was unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children at that time,
and that it is highly unlikely that father will remedy his chemical dependency and
chronic mental illness within one year from the trial date. In addition to the
circumstances the court cited to support a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the
court noted that father failed to provide samples for drug screening, hindering
LCCS from monitoring his sobriety and progress. The court recognized that father
had many mental health, substance abuse, and trauma-related issues, but explained
that the children did not have to wait indefinitely for him to address those issues.
{¶ 73} The juvenile court also found that granting legal custody to
McIntosh was not in the children’s best interest. First, neither McIntosh nor father
made any argument to explain why McIntosh’s relationship with the children
should be preserved. McIntosh, who had known the children for five months
before the children went into care nearly two years earlier, had not established the
22.
children were bonded to her or had asked to live with her. The court stated that
McIntosh’s actions in appearing uninvited at J.T.’s baseball game and joking with
him to lie to his foster parents about her presence were inappropriate.
{¶ 74} Next, the juvenile court explained that McIntosh’s relationship with
father made her an unsuitable choice for custody of the children. Even if
McIntosh and father were no longer romantically involved, McIntosh allowed
father to live with her when he needed support throughout the case. The court
expressed concern that McIntosh would continue to allow father to do so,
exposing the children to father’s struggles, which had a negative impact on the
children. It also noted that McIntosh had the opportunity to admit evidence and
call witnesses to support her motion, but she had only called Beaudrie, who opined
against McIntosh having custody of the children.
{¶ 75} Accordingly, the juvenile court found under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)
that it was in the best interest of the children to award permanent custody to LCCS
for adoptive placement and planning. The court noted that the children were
bonded with their foster family and doing well, the children desired permanency
and neither child wanted to live with father.
III. Assignments of Error
{¶ 76} Father has timely appealed the judgment terminating his parental
rights and now asserts three assignments of error for our review:
1. The trial court’s finding that father did not remedy the
issue which caused the removal such that the children could not be
23.
placed with him within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with him pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2) was not
supported by clear and convincing evidence when time remained on
the case.
2. The trial court’s finding that father demonstrated a lack of
commitment to the children by failing to regularly support or visit
them when able to do so, or otherwise demonstrating an
unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the
children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence.
3. The court’s denial of legal custody to Ms. McIntosh, a
potential third party custodian, was not supported by clear and
convincing evidence.
IV. Analysis
A. The juvenile court’s decision terminating father’s parental
rights is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 77} Father’s first and second assignments of error challenge the juvenile
court’s decision to terminate his parental rights.
“A trial court’s determination in a permanent custody case will not be
reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re
A.H., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1057, 2011-Ohio-4857, ¶ 11, citing In re Andy- Jones, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-1167, 03AP-1231,2004-Ohio-3312, ¶ 28
. 24. “Reversal is proper only where its determined, after weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences including the credibility of the witnesses, that the juvenile court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed.” In re S.S., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1219, 2023- Ohio-1663, ¶ 27, citing In re T.J.,2021-Ohio-4085
,180 N.E.3d 706
, ¶ 40 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins,78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387
,678 N.E.2d 541
(1997).
{¶ 78} The juvenile court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh
the evidence and evaluate the testimony. In re A.H. at ¶ 11, citing In re Brown, 98
Ohio App.3d 337, 342,648 N.E.2d 576
(3d Dist.1994). “Thus, in determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.” In re S.S. at ¶ 28, quoting In re W.M., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1016,2022-Ohio-1978, ¶ 42
.
{¶ 79} To terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child
to a public services agency under R.C. 2151.414, the juvenile court must find, by
clear and convincing evidence, both of the following: (1) one of the enumerated
factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) permanent custody is in the
best interests of the child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). To be clear and convincing, the
evidence must be sufficient for the trier of fact to form a firm belief or conviction
as to the facts sought to be established. In re T.J., 2021-Ohio-4085,180 N.E.3d 706
, ¶ 36 (6th Dist.), citing Cross v. Ledford,161 Ohio St. 469
,120 N.E.2d 118
(1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. The clear and convincing standard
25.
requires more than a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 80} In this case, father contests the juvenile court’s finding that R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies. He does not separately contest the court’s
determination that permanent custody to LCCS is in the best interest of the
children.
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) provides that a trial court may grant permanent
custody of a child to the agency if it finds that, in addition to the placement being
in the best interest of the child,
The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not 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 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.
R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot be placed
with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed
with either parent if any of sixteen factors are met.
Here, the juvenile court found that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4)
applied to father. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) states,
Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home
and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by
26.
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.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) states,
Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual
disability, 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.
R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) states,
The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward
the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with
27.
the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an
unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.
Notably, the juvenile court “only needed to find that one [R.C.
2151.414(E)] factor applied to support its holding.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73,2007-Ohio-1104
,862 N.E.2d 816
, ¶ 50; In re Za.G., 6th Dist. Williams Nos. WM- 19-019, WM-19-020, WM-19-021, WM-19-022,2020-Ohio-405, ¶ 102
.
{¶ 81} Father first contends that the juvenile court’s finding under
R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that the children could not be placed with him within a
reasonable time is not supported by clear and convincing evidence because father
has made substantial progress with his substance abuse and mental health services.
In support of this argument, father asserts that: (1) LCCS recognized father’s
success with dealing with his substance abuse issues; (2) he complied with case
plan services; (3) he responded constructively to the relapse he went through
around the first anniversary of being sexually assaulted; and (4) time remained on
the case for father to demonstrate that custody could be returned to him.
{¶ 82} While father made some progress on his case plan services for a
time, he experienced a significant relapse that lasted months, during which he
resumed significant drug use, attempted suicide, and sought admittance to a
mental health hospital in December 2022.
{¶ 83} After his discharge on January 10, 2023, father took a month to
reestablish his mental health services. He was not compliant with his mental
health treatment over the next two months, missing nearly half of his appointments
28.
with his therapist and psychiatrist. Ms. Saab considered the sessions he did attend
to be “surface level,” and his psychiatrist noted that father was evasive and
avoidant, drug-seeking, and reported no substance abuse issues. Dr. White and
Ms. Saab recommended more intensive treatment, including inpatient treatment, to
father in March 2023. Father, however, did not act on their recommendation for
two months, and he stopped attending formal therapy sessions altogether after his
appointment with Ms. Saab on March 31, 2023. And when father did seek an
admission to a psychiatric hospital (his third such hospitalization during the case’s
pendency), he chose to do so the day before the second hearing date on LCCS’s
motion for permanent custody. As a result, father lost the opportunity to testify at
the hearing.
{¶ 84} As for Ms. Saab’s testimony that father would potentially need only
three to four months of treatment for his trauma to be well enough to reunify with
his children, she expressly limited her opinion to father’s treatment for trauma, not
his substance abuse. She acknowledged that she was not qualified to give an
opinion on the time necessary to treat an opioid addiction. She also testified that it
was difficult for her to say how much treatment father still needed for trauma,
clarifying that his mental health team “may have only scratched the surface.”
{¶ 85} In addition to mental health issues, father also had substance abuse
issues to address in his case plan. Throughout the 21-month history of the case,
father had only about five months, from approximately May 2022 to September
2022, in which he dropped at a random drug screening and was not positive for
29.
any substance other than suboxone. Most recently, on his admission to the mental
health hospital in December 2022, father tested positive for fentanyl and cocaine
and admitted to using cocaine 20 out of the previous 30 days. Father did not
provide drops to LCCS in February and March 2023, he has not been undergoing
random screenings with his suboxone provider or through his probation, and he
failed to appear for his scheduled screen with his suboxone provider at the end of
March.
{¶ 86} Indeed, at the time of the hearing, father’s substance abuse issues
still required significant long-term treatment. Ms. Saab testified that after he was
discharged from the hospital, father planned to seek residential substance abuse
treatment. Beaudrie testified that residential treatment for opioid addiction is
typically 30 days, which is then followed by intensive outpatient services for
approximately 10 to 16 weeks, and then aftercare services for an additional 12 to
16 weeks. Beaudrie testified that only after the completion of all three forms of
treatment would father have reached a point in his sobriety when he could be
reunified with his children. Accordingly, even if all of father’s substance-abuse
treatment went as well as possible and father did not experience any additional
relapses, father would not be ready to reunify with his children for at least six to
nine months.
{¶ 87} Beyond the treatment father still required for his mental health and
substance abuse issues, father also failed to establish he had independent housing
as required by his case plan. The only person who testified during the hearing
30.
concerning father’s current residence was Beaudrie, and she testified that she did
not know where father was living because he was not in regular communication
with her.
{¶ 88} Accordingly, the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)
that father failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the
conditions causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home is not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, the court’s findings under
R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) and (E)(4) need not be considered. In re A.E., 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-23-1043, 2023-Ohio-2310, ¶ 68.
{¶ 89} Accordingly, father’s first and second assignments of error are not
well-taken.
B. Father lacks standing to challenge the denial of McIntosh’s motion
for legal custody
{¶ 90} Next, father argues that because an adoptive home had not been
identified for J.T. and R.T. at the time of the hearing, the juvenile court abused its
discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion for legal custody. However, “[a
parent’s] standing in [an appeal of a juvenile court’s order terminating parental
rights] is limited to challenging whether the court improperly terminated her
parental rights. [The parent] has no standing to challenge whether the court erred
in failing to grant custody of the child to a third party.” In re J.S., 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-14-1055, 2014-Ohio-3130, ¶ 25, citing In re R.V., 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L- 10-1278, L-10-1301,2011-Ohio-1837
, ¶ 15-16. Father’s standing is limited to
31.
challenging the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, and therefore he
does not have standing to challenge the juvenile court’s denial of McIntosh’s
motion for legal custody. Accordingly, father’s third assignment of error is not
well-taken.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 91} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Father is ordered to pay the
costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J. ____________________________
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
32.