[Cite as In re R.B., 2023-Ohio-3146.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN RE: :
R.B. : CASE NO. CA2023-04-035
: OPINION
9/7/2023
:
:
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 20-D000083
Dearie, Fischer & Martinson, LLC, and John A. Fischer, for Mother.
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Clouse Law Firm Co., LPA, and Lauren L. Clouse, for appellant.
The Logsdon Law Office, LLC, and Brooke L. Logsdon, for CASA.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the father of "Roger," appeals the decision of the Warren County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of the child to
Warren CA2023-04-035
Warren County Children Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons outlined below, we
affirm the juvenile court's decision.
{¶ 2} On December 18, 2020, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that Roger, a
child born on December 14, 2020, was a dependent child. The complaint states that Mother
was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder
("PTSD"), obsessive compulsive disorder ("OCD"), chronic depression, and anxiety, but
stopped taking medications for her mental health in 2016. Mother exhibited cutting
behaviors and was last hospitalized for a suicide attempt in 2018. While at the hospital for
Roger's birth, Mother claimed that she saw things coming out of the walls.
{¶ 3} The complaint further alleged that Mother had difficulty caring for Roger while
at the hospital, including difficulties breastfeeding the child. Due to complications in
producing sufficient breastmilk, the child was not receiving full feedings and did not produce
any urine or feces for the first 24 hours after his birth. Mother was resistant to using formula
to supplement her breastmilk, and due to the lack of nutrition, Roger had lost one-half pound
since birth. The complaint also alleged that Mother was agitated with Roger at the hospital
and lacked any problem-solving skills to resolve her increasing anxiety, frustration, and
annoyance with Roger's needs.
{¶ 4} Regarding Father, the complaint alleged that although he lived with Mother,
he worked 12 hours per day. Mother did not want anyone around the baby when she
returned home from the hospital, and refused any help taking care of Roger until he was
old enough to speak. The complaint indicated Mother did not make much progress in caring
for Roger between December 14, 2020 and December 18, 2020, despite help from the
hospital.
1. "Roger" is a pseudonym adopted in this opinion for purposes of privacy and readability.
-2-
Warren CA2023-04-035
{¶ 5} Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted emergency temporary custody
to the Agency and Roger was placed in a foster home. The juvenile court appointed counsel
for Mother and Father, as well as a court appointed special advocate ("CASA") to represent
Roger, and counsel to represent CASA. Approximately two months later, in February 2021,
Roger was placed with his current foster mother in a foster-to-adopt home.
{¶ 6} On February 17, 2021, Roger was adjudicated dependent. After a
dispositional hearing on March 17, 2021, the Agency was awarded temporary custody of
the child, and he returned to the foster home.
{¶ 7} The Agency prepared a case plan with reunification as the goal. The case
plan indicates the Agency wanted Father to obtain and maintain safe and stable housing;
demonstrate mental health stability; obtain and maintain employment and provide a steady
source of income; and to not associate with any known substance abusers. The case plan
also noted concerns regarding Father's parenting, including working 12-hour shifts, as well
as his lack of engagement with Roger during visits. To address the Agency's concerns, the
case plan required Father to submit to random drug screens; submit to a psychological
evaluation and follow all recommendations; complete a mental health assessment and
follow all recommendations; and to sign all necessary releases for the Agency. The case
plan identified similar concerns for Mother, but also detailed the Agency's concerns relating
to her mental health and cognitive abilities.
{¶ 8} Mother and Father made progress on their case plans and as a result, the
juvenile court extended temporary custody twice throughout the case. The Agency also
expanded the parents' visitation time with Roger, which advanced from four hours of
supervised visitation at the Agency to two four-hour visits per week at maternal
grandmother's home, where the couple was living at the time. Four hours of their visitation
time was unsupervised, while the remaining four hours were supervised by an employee
-3-
Warren CA2023-04-035
from Agape for Youth ("Agape"), a program that works with families through either
enhanced visitation or reunification services. In May or June of 2022, Father was awarded
eight additional hours of unsupervised visitation time, however, he did not take advantage
of the additional time with Roger.
{¶ 9} On November 28, 2022, approximately one month following the final
extension of Mother and Father's visitation time, CASA moved to terminate Mother and
Father's parental rights and for an order awarding permanent custody of Roger to the
Agency. While the motion was pending, Mother and Father continued exercising their eight
hours of visitation time with Roger. Thereafter, on March 6 and 14, 2023, the juvenile court
held a two-day hearing on CASA's motion. During the hearing, the juvenile court heard
testimony from 11 witnesses, including Mother, Father, Roger's foster mother ("Foster
Mother"), a caseworker and caseworker supervisor from the Agency, Roger's CASA, the
psychology assistant who conducted Mother's psychological assessment, two family
support specialists from Agape, an employee from Help Me Grow, and Mother's former
mental health therapist. In addition to testifying at the permanent custody hearing, Roger's
CASA also submitted a report recommending that permanent custody be awarded to the
Agency.
{¶ 10} On March 21, 2023, the juvenile court issued a decision granting permanent
custody of the child to the Agency. In analyzing the best interest factors, the juvenile court
found that Roger is bonded to his foster family and is doing well. It further found that Roger's
need for a legally secure permanent placement could not be achieved without a grant of
permanent custody to the Agency, as Mother and Father are unable to meet Roger's needs,
despite having ample time to remedy the conditions that caused his removal from their care.
The court noted that Mother chooses to ignore her mental health issues and is incapable of
parenting Roger or understanding what he needs. The court detailed its concerns regarding
-4-
Warren CA2023-04-035
Father, including his lack of knowledge regarding Mother's mental health issues, as well as
his reliance upon Mother for housing due to his undocumented status and lack of support
outside of the home. The court ultimately concluded that the best chance for Roger was
adoption and that awarding permanent custody to the Agency was in Roger's best interest.
{¶ 11} Father now appeals the juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody
of Roger to the Agency, raising the following assignment of error for our review:
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, PURSUANT TO THE
FACTORS SET FORTH IN R.C. 2151.414(D), WAS REACHED BY GRANTING
PERMANENT CUSTODY TO WARREN COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES.
{¶ 13} On appeal, Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that it was in the best interest of Roger to grant permanent custody to
the Agency.
{¶ 14} Before a parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and
custody of his or her children may be terminated, the state must prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. In
re K.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-124, 2015-Ohio-4315, ¶ 11, citing Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An appellate court's review of a juvenile
court's decision granting permanent custody is generally limited to considering whether
sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court's determination. In re M.B.,
12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-06-130 and CA2014-06-131, 2014-Ohio-5009, ¶ 6. "This
court will therefore reverse a juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody only if
there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented." In re L.S., 12th Dist. Brown Nos.
CA2019-03-001 and CA2019-03-002, 2019-Ohio-3143, ¶ 17, citing In re K.A., 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2016-07-140, 2016-Ohio-7911, ¶ 10. "However, even if the juvenile court's
-5-
Warren CA2023-04-035
decision is supported by sufficient evidence, 'an appellate court may nevertheless conclude
that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.'" In re C.S., 12th Dist.
Clinton No. CA2020-04-006, 2020-Ohio-4414, ¶ 15, quoting In re T.P., 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2015-08-164, 2016-Ohio-72, ¶ 19.
{¶ 15} In determining whether a juvenile court's decision to grant a motion for
permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court
"'weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses
and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost
its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be
reversed and a new trial ordered.'" In re S.M., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-08-088 thru
CA2018-08-091 and CA2018-08-095 thru CA2018-08-097, 2019-Ohio-198, ¶ 16, quoting
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. "In weighing the evidence,
there is a presumption in favor of the findings made by the finder of fact and evidence
susceptible to more than one construction will be construed to sustain the verdict and
judgment." In re M.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-129, 2019-Ohio-5367, ¶ 15, citing
In re C.Y., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-11-231 and CA2014-11-236 thru CA2014-11-238,
2015-Ohio-1343, ¶ 25.
{¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court may terminate parental
rights and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court
makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. In re G.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-
248, 2014-Ohio-2580, ¶ 9; In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102, ¶ 18. First, the
juvenile court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best
interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D). In re D.K.W.,
12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶ 21. Second, pursuant to R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e), the juvenile court must find that any of the following apply: (1) the
-6-
Warren CA2023-04-035
child is abandoned; (2) the child is orphaned; (3) the child has been in the temporary
custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; (4) where
the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within
a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; or (5) the child or another child
in the custody of the parent from whose custody the child has been removed, has been
adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions. In re
C.B., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-04-033, 2015-Ohio-3709, ¶ 10. Only one of these
findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.
In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio- 3188, ¶ 12.
{¶ 17} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that
the child had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for at least 12 months of a
consecutive 22-month period. The juvenile court also found that the child could not be
placed with Mother or Father within a reasonable period of time, or should not be placed
with them. Father does not dispute that the child has been in the temporary custody of the
Agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and concedes this
finding is supported by the record. As noted above, only one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)
findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.
Id. As such, because Father does not challenge the juvenile court's "12 of 22" finding, we
need not review the issue further. In re G.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-
Ohio-3865, ¶ 43.
{¶ 18} In light of the above, the only issue remaining is whether an award of
permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best interest. When considering the
best interest of a child in a permanent custody case, the juvenile court is required under
R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to consider all relevant factors. In re D.E., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.
CA2018-03-035 and CA2018-04-038, 2018-Ohio-3341, ¶ 32. These factors include, but
-7-
Warren CA2023-04-035
are not limited to: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents,
siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who
may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the
child or through the child's guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the
child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement
can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; and (5) whether any
of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) thru (11) apply in relation to the parents and
child. In re J.C., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2017-11-015, 2018-Ohio-1687, ¶ 22, citing R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(a) thru (e). The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) involve a
parent's having been convicted of or pled guilty to specific criminal offenses against the
child, the child's sibling, or another child who lived in the parent's household; a parent's
withholding of medical treatment or food from the child; a parent's repeatedly placing the
child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or drug abuse; a parent's abandoning
the child; and a parent's having had parental rights as to the child's sibling involuntarily
terminated. In re B.M., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2022-11-028, CA2022-11-029, and 2023-
Ohio-1112, ¶ 54.
{¶ 19} Based upon its consideration of the R.C. 2151.414 factors, the juvenile court
found that it was in Roger's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency. On
appeal, Father argues the juvenile court's finding was in error, as the testimony at trial
revealed that Father positively interacts with Roger and that he could successfully parent
Roger. Father also claims the criticisms noted by the court, namely his failure to obtain
independent housing, working too much, lack of a driver's license, and his status as
undocumented, are not justifiable reasons for permanently severing his parental rights.
After our review of the entire record, we find no merit to Father's claims.
{¶ 20} While the testimony at the permanent custody hearing largely focused on
-8-
Warren CA2023-04-035
Mother's mental health diagnoses and her inability to parent Roger, it also revealed that
Father is entirely codependent upon Mother for housing and childcare, yet remains oblivious
to the serious concerns relating to her mental health and ability to care for Roger. Beginning
with the couple's relationship, the record indicates that Mother and Father have engaged in
a somewhat strained relationship for approximately four years. The Agency had concerns
regarding the nature of their relationship, including Mother's statement that she stays with
Father because he "fill[s] certain" sexual and financial "needs" for her, as well as Father's
reliance upon Mother for housing and other necessities he cannot obtain due to his
undocumented status. Neither Father nor Mother have a driver's license, but Father drives
himself and Mother when necessary. Father does not speak English and relies upon Mother
to translate for him if no translator is present during visits. At one point, Mother stopped
translating for Father because she became unhappy with the Agape family support
specialist.
{¶ 21} The testimony at the hearing also revealed that the Agency had many
concerns relating to the parenting of Roger. Specifically, the Agency remained concerned
regarding Mother and Father's ability to co-parent Roger, as well as Father's ability and
desire to reunify with and parent Roger on his own. Regarding the couple's co-parenting,
the record reflects that Mother struggled to allow Father to parent Roger without her
interference or direction. According to the caseworker supervisor, Mother was easily
frustrated by Father and did not like the way he performed basic tasks like changing Roger's
diapers or feeding him. As a result, Father tended to step away from Roger. Additionally,
the couple bickered frequently, including in front of the child, and Mother kicked Father out
of their home on several occasions. Even when no translator was present, others
understood Mother and Father were bickering based upon their demeanor and actions
toward one another. The couple has also engaged in physical altercations in front of the
-9-
Warren CA2023-04-035
child, including one occasion where Mother smacked Father hard on the arm and another
where she threw a pair of shoes at him. Roger has displayed an increase in aggressive
behavior after his extended visits with his parents and was described as staring wide-eyed
when Mother and Father were bickering.
{¶ 22} There were also concerns regarding recent changes to Father's behavior
during visits. Although Father typically followed Mother's lead during visits with Roger, he
was initially very engaged and interacted appropriately with Roger. However, in the weeks
and months preceding the permanent custody hearing, the CASA noticed Father's behavior
had changed, and that he was not as involved with the child and tended to allow Mother to
take care of Roger on her own. Father did not assist Mother when she was visibly frustrated
and yelling at Roger, which was different from earlier visits where he would step in if Mother
was having difficulties. As a result of this change in behavior, the CASA observed that
Roger did not go to Father for comfort like he had in the past.
{¶ 23} Regarding Father's ability to parent Roger on his own, the record reflects
Father did not take advantage of any opportunity to visit Roger without Mother. In the
summer of 2022, Father was awarded an additional eight hours of unsupervised visitation
with Roger. Due to his belief that the visits were cancelled because of issues with
transportation, Father did not exercise any of the additional time with Roger. The
transportation issues related to Father's reliance on maternal grandmother for
transportation. The record indicates the caseworker spoke with Father "on multiple
occasions" regarding the additional visitation, and indicated that, although maternal
grandmother was not approved to transport after improperly buckling Roger's car seat in
the past, Father could provide alternative transportation options or take advantage of other
Agency resources like transit tickets. Mother and Father elected to provide a list of alternate
transportation options, but the named individuals never responded to the Agency, and
- 10 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
Father never followed up on his additional visitation time. Instead, and because he could
not locate anyone other than maternal grandmother with a valid license, Father chose to do
nothing.
{¶ 24} The Agency also noted concerns regarding Father's ability to parent Roger on
his own due to his demanding work schedule and reliance upon Mother for childcare and
housing. Father works for a construction company in Liberty Township, Ohio. When the
complaint was filed, Father was working 12-hour days, six or seven days a week. Father
indicated he could not be Roger's primary caretaker at that time without Mother's help. By
the time of the permanent custody hearing, Father had reduced his work schedule to nine-
hour days on Monday through Thursday, an eight-hour day on Friday, and four hours on
Saturday. If Roger was returned to his care, Father planned to have Mother care for the
child while he worked.
{¶ 25} In addition to childcare, Father also relies upon Mother for housing, which was
a major concern throughout the case. Prior to Roger's birth, the couple lived in a trailer with
friends. Shortly before Roger was born, Mother and Father moved in with maternal
grandmother. Although Father testified Mother and maternal grandmother had a "normal"
relationship, the record indicates they have had an inconsistent relationship since Mother
was young, and that maternal grandmother is responsible for some of Mother's mental
health diagnoses and most of her past traumas. Although Mother testified that she and
maternal grandmother get along, she also stated they argue a lot and that maternal
grandmother oftentimes wants Mother and Father out of the home. Mother and maternal
grandmother were involved in physical altercations in the home, including one occasion in
2022 where maternal grandmother kicked in Mother's bedroom door and attacked Mother
with a broom. Notably, the Agency recommended family therapy to address some of these
concerns, but maternal grandmother refused to participate. As a result of the hostile
- 11 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
relationship between Mother and maternal grandmother, the Agency considered the home
environment to be toxic.
{¶ 26} Throughout the case, multiple providers worked with Mother and Father to
find alternative housing but were ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. In February 2022,
Father informed the caseworker that he had been looking for an apartment but planned to
buy a house after saving enough money. By the time of the permanent custody hearing,
Father's housing situation had not changed, despite another year passing and applying for
approximately 30 apartments. Father testified he and Mother now planned to buy a trailer
and to buy a house after Mother's credit improved, but he was unsure when that would
happen, as he was unfamiliar with the process in the United States.
{¶ 27} The record indicates that much of Mother and Father's difficulty in finding
independent housing related to Father's status as undocumented and Mother's status as a
resident. Although the Agency did not consider Father's status as undocumented to be
concerning on its own, it remained concerned that his status inhibited him from acquiring
independent housing. Father and Mother testified that obtaining citizenship would alleviate
their issues with finding housing, as well as receiving their licenses, but neither party had
taken any legitimate steps toward changing their legal status at the time of the hearing.
Father indicated he spoke with an attorney at one point, but decided not to pursue
citizenship at that time because the process would have taken three to four years to
complete. Mother, on the other hand, relied upon maternal grandmother to assist her with
the citizenship process. Thus, in light of their inability to obtain independent housing,
Mother and Father planned to continue residing with maternal grandmother if Roger was
returned to their care.
{¶ 28} The testimony at the hearing reflects that, although the Agency did not have
the same concerns with Father's mental health as it did with Mother's, it was concerned that
- 12 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
Father does not understand the significance of Mother's mental health illnesses. At the
hearing, evidence was presented that Mother has an extensive history of mental health
concerns, including significant past trauma relating to sexual assault by relatives when she
was a child, as well as sexual assault perpetrated by men maternal grandmother allowed
to live in her home. Mother began mental health treatment at 16 years old and had been
hospitalized for mental health issues more than 15 times. Mother has a history of self-harm
and suicide attempts, which have persisted throughout the case. Notably, Father and
Foster Mother had noticed marks on Mother from where she had been self-harming, and
there were reports that Mother had suicidal ideations as recently as the fall and winter of
2022.
{¶ 29} After an assessment in 2021, Mother was diagnosed with borderline
personality disorder ("BPD"), which is "a set of maladapt personality traits that create
difficulties in an individual's interpersonal relationships." Common symptoms of BPD
include frequent threats of harm, turbulent interpersonal relationships, impulsivity, and rapid
mood changes. Mother was also diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder by history,
cannabis use disorder moderate in early remission, unspecified depressive disorder by
history, intellectual disability mild, PTSD by history, and a "rule out" diagnosis for excessive
compulsive personality disorder and OCD.
{¶ 30} The most effective way to treat BPD is through a process called dialectical
behavioral therapy ("DBT"), which is an intensive combination of individual and group
therapies that typically lasts two years. Given her diagnoses, it was the psychology
assistant's clinical opinion that Mother should engage in individual therapy, as well as group
therapy, using the DBT methods. Despite these recommendations, Mother discontinued
DBT after three months, and had disengaged from therapy entirely by the time of the
permanent custody hearing.
- 13 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
{¶ 31} In early 2022, Mother's former therapist became concerned when Mother
asked for a diagnosis assessment update, which occurs when a client feels he or she has
been misdiagnosed. At that time, the therapist concluded Mother was not reporting
symptoms of BPD. A few months later Mother reported that she agreed with the BPD
diagnosis, but her boyfriend, Father, had instructed her to say that she did not have the
disorder in order to "get the baby back faster." At the hearing, Father denied that he
instructed Mother to dispute her diagnosis, but Mother later acknowledged that he had done
so. Additionally, the supervisor testified that Father encouraged Mother to misrepresent
her symptoms to her providers on several occasions.
{¶ 32} Mother tended to downplay her therapist's concerns and would respond that
everything was going smoothly or was fine, a pattern noticed by the caseworkers as well.
Towards the end of his sessions with Mother, the therapist felt Mother was giving push back
on the things he was attempting to address with her and that, due to her lack of response
to him, he could not progress any farther with Mother on an individual basis. As a result,
he suggested that group therapy would be the best treatment for her at that time. A few
months after this recommendation, Mother requested to discontinue therapy entirely, which
her therapist did not support. Nonetheless, Mother had ceased all therapy by the time of
the hearing, and believed she could fix her mental health problems with "sheer
determination." Mother had also stopped taking any medication for her mental health,
despite being prescribed several, for reasons like potential weight gain and a friend's
recommendation.
{¶ 33} Although Mother testified she was making strides in her mental health, Foster
Mother recently observed cutting marks on Mother's arms and Mother attempted to commit
suicide in February 2022. Father testified he was unaware that Mother had attempted
suicide in February 2022, as Mother had informed him that everything was fine at that time.
- 14 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
On a separate occasion in February 2022, Mother was placed on a 72-hour hold at the
Lindner Center due to statements to her caseworker that she would kill herself if the
caseworker did not "give the baby back." The Lindner Center recommended Mother to
complete in-patient services, but she did not do so.
{¶ 34} When discussing Mother's mental health, Father initially testified he was
unaware of Mother's existing issues, but later acknowledged he knew Mother had mental
health issues because of the trauma she suffered when she was a child. Father indicated
he did not like to ask Mother about her past traumas, nor did he ask what her therapy
sessions were about. Although Mother testified that she and Father discussed her mental
health concerns and therapy sessions, Father indicated to the caseworker that he did not
know much about Mother's mental health, aside from her mood changes, and that she was
on medication. According to Father, he learned the specifics of Mother's mental health
issues throughout the instant proceedings.
{¶ 35} Despite Mother's efforts, the record reflects many of Mother's former
therapist's concerns existed at the time of the permanent custody hearing. Most
importantly, Mother continued to have trouble with her interpersonal relationships, and the
denial of her existing mental health problems inhibited her from developing a normal parent-
child bond with Roger and from engaging with him in an appropriate way. Mother also has
difficulty reading Roger's cues and her providers are concerned she is not capable of
understanding Roger's developmental stage or needs. Given these concerns, Mother's
decision to address her mental health issues on her own, without the assistance of trained
professionals or medication, emphasizes her inability to understand the seriousness of her
diagnoses and their impact on her ability to parent. Father likewise fails to appreciate or
understand the severity of Mother's mental health, nor does he recognize its effect on her
ability to care for Roger in an appropriate manner. This is especially troubling considering
- 15 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
Mother's mental health was a primary reason for Roger's removal from the parents' care in
2020. Father's indifference to Mother's mental health is also concerning given the extent
of Mother's mental health history, her specific diagnoses, and the time she has spent either
hospitalized or in treatment.
{¶ 36} The record also reflects the Agency was concerned with Father's desire to
reunify with Roger independently. Specifically, the Agency believed Father lacked any
initiative throughout the case, and never showed a willingness to reunify with Roger
independently. To that point, the caseworker testified that after Mother's suicide attempt
and commitment to the Lindner Center in February 2022, the Agency informed Father of
the steps he would need to take in order to reunify with Roger. The first step was separating
himself from Mother. According to the caseworker, a translator was present during this
conversation and Father understood at that time that he needed to find housing separate
from Mother. As discussed above, Father made no progress in obtaining separate housing
by the time of the permanent custody hearing and had not otherwise separated from Mother.
{¶ 37} After carefully reviewing the record, and in light of all of the above, we find the
juvenile court's determination regarding the best interest of Roger is supported by clear and
convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although
there was testimony that Father interacted well with the child, could have provided for him,
and could have eventually reunified with him, Father did not take the necessary steps to do
so. Although he completed some case plan requirements, it is well established that the
completion of certain case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent
custody. In re Mraz, 12th Dist. Brown Nos. CA2002-05-011 and CA2002-07-014, 2002-
Ohio-7278, ¶ 13; In re S.U., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-07-047, 2014-Ohio-5166, ¶
35 ("case plan is merely a means to a goal and not a goal in itself"). Here, despite Father's
progress on his case plan, several serious concerns remained at the time of the permanent
- 16 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
custody hearing. Ultimately, the record reflects that Father is unable to care for Roger
without the assistance of Mother, and Mother does not understand how to properly care for
Roger due to her untreated and unmedicated mental illnesses.
{¶ 38} "A child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent
situation that fosters growth, stability, and security.'" In re D.E., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.
CA2018-03-035 and CA2018-04-038, 2018-Ohio-3341, ¶ 60, quoting In re Keaton, 4th Dist.
Ross Nos. 04CA2785 and 04CA2788, 2004-Ohio-6210, ¶ 61. In this case, the Agency has
been involved with Roger since his birth in 2020. Thus, at the time of the permanent custody
motion, Father had been given approximately two years to remedy the Agency's concerns.
During this time, Father took no initiative to rectify his situation, and instead ignored
Mother's mental illness and focused on making her appear "better" to her various providers.
This behavior highlights Father's codependency on Mother to parent and reunify with Roger.
As correctly found by the juvenile court, Roger needs a legally secure placement, and
Father has demonstrated that he cannot, or is unwilling to attempt to, provide such an
environment for Roger within a reasonable time.
{¶ 39} The juvenile court, just like this court on appeal, must act in a manner that
places Roger's best interest above all else. In re G.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-01-
003, 2019-Ohio-1586, ¶ 54. The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody to
the Agency does just that. See, e.g., In re A.J., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-08-063,
2019-Ohio-593 at ¶ 43 ("simply because [appellant] may have the ability to provide for [the
child] does not mean it would be in the child's best interest to be placed in [his] care"). This
is because, as the juvenile court noted, Roger has been out of the home for over two years
and is now thriving in a stable and secure environment with his foster family.
{¶ 40} In light of all of the foregoing, we conclude that it is in the best interest of the
child for permanent custody to be awarded to the Agency. As such, we find the juvenile
- 17 -
Warren CA2023-04-035
court’s decision to grant permanent custody of Roger to the Agency was supported by clear
and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 41} Accordingly, Father’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
- 18 -