[Cite as In re R.B., 2023-Ohio-3145.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN RE: :
R.B. : CASE NO. CA2023-03-032
: OPINION
9/7/2023
:
:
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 20-D000083
Clouse Law Firm Co., LPA, and Lauren L. Clouse, for Father.
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Dearie, Fischer & Martinson, LLC, and John A. Fischer, for appellant.
The Logsdon Law Office, LLC, and Brooke L. Logsdon, for CASA.
BYRNE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant ("Mother"), the mother of "Roger," appeals the decision of the
Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of
Warren CA2023-03-032
the child to Warren County Children Services ("the Agency").1 For the reasons outlined
below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Mother and Roger's father ("Father") are the biological parents of Roger, a
child born on December 14, 2020. Neither Mother nor Father are citizens of the United
States. Mother is a legal resident of the United States, but testimony established that Father
is "undocumented," meaning Father is in the United States illegally. Mother and Father did
not have valid driver's licenses during the relevant time period in this case. Despite this,
Father intended to teach Mother how to drive, though he had not done so during the instant
proceedings. At the time of Roger's birth, Mother and Father lived together at maternal
grandmother's home in Mason, Ohio.
{¶ 3} On December 18, 2020, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that Roger was
a dependent child. The complaint stated 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.
{¶ 4} The complaint further alleged that Mother had difficulty caring for Roger while
at the hospital. According to the Agency, Mother insisted on breastfeeding Roger and was
reluctant to let anyone help, despite experiencing complications in producing sufficient
breastmilk. As a result, 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
1. "Roger" is a pseudonym adopted in this opinion for purposes of privacy and readability. In re D.P., 12th
Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2022-08-043 and CA2022-08-044, 2022-Ohio-4553, ¶ 1, fn. 1.
-2-
Warren CA2023-03-032
supplement her breastmilk, and due to the lack of nutrition, Roger had lost one-half pound
since birth.
{¶ 5} The complaint also alleged that Mother was agitated with Roger at the hospital
and would scream at him when he cried; was rough while changing his diaper; and made
comments that she did not want him and he was annoying. The Agency stated that Mother
lacked any problem-solving skills to resolve her increasing anxiety, frustration, and
annoyance with Roger's needs.
{¶ 6} The complaint further claimed that Roger's father ("Father") lived with Mother
but 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.
{¶ 7} 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.
{¶ 8} On February 17, 2021, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing. The
magistrate found that Mother suffered from significant mental illness and was in therapy at
the time. Following the birth of Roger, Mother demonstrated concerning behavior toward
the baby, including becoming very frustrated with him despite assistance. Mother reported
she had no support or assistance at home, and the evidence presented at the hearing
indicated Mother was incapable of providing the most basic care for Roger upon their
release from the hospital. As such, the magistrate adjudicated Roger dependent and the
-3-
Warren CA2023-03-032
juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decision. After a dispositional hearing on March 17,
2021, the Agency was awarded temporary custody of Roger, and he continued his
placement in the foster home.
{¶ 9} The Agency prepared a case plan with reunification as the goal. The case
plan indicated the Agency wanted Mother 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. To address the
Agency's concerns, the case plan required Mother 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 Agency concerns for Father, but also detailed
concerns relating to his demanding work schedule, including working 12-hour shifts on six
to seven days per week, and his lack of engagement with Roger. The case plan required
Father to complete the same assessments as Mother and to submit to random drug
screens.
{¶ 10} 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
from Agape for Youth ("Agape"), a program that works with families through either
enhanced visitation or reunification services.
{¶ 11} On November 28, 2022, approximately one month following the final
extension of Mother and Father's visitation time, CASA moved to terminate Mother and
-4-
Warren CA2023-03-032
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.
{¶ 12} On March 21, 2023, the juvenile court issued a decision granting permanent
custody of Roger to the Agency. The court applied the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) two-part
permanent custody test. As for the first part of the two-part test, the juvenile court found
that a grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in Roger's best interest. As for the
second part of the two-part test, the juvenile court found that (1) Roger had been in the
temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period
and (2) that in the alternative, Roger could not be placed with either parent within a
reasonable time period or should not be placed with his parents.
II. Legal Analysis
{¶ 13} Mother now appeals the juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody
of Roger to the Agency, raising the following assignment of error for our review:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO
WARREN COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES.
{¶ 15} On appeal, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision granting permanent
-5-
Warren CA2023-03-032
custody of Roger to the Agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence and is
supported by insufficient evidence. Specifically, Mother contends the juvenile court erred
in concluding that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child.
A. Applicable Law and Standards of Review
{¶ 16} "Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the
care and custody of [her] child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been
met." In re M.G., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2022-11-010, 2023-Ohio-1316, ¶ 44; R.C.
2151.414(E). Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the 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 K.P., 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2021-11-016, 2022-
Ohio-1347, ¶ 17. First, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides that the juvenile court must find that
the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the "best interest" of the child. In re
M.H., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2021-08-047 thru CA2021-08-049, 2022-Ohio-48, ¶ 35.
Second, the juvenile court must find that one of the circumstances set forth in R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(a) to (e) apply. In re R.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2022-01-003 and
CA2022-01-004, 2022-Ohio-1705, ¶ 31. Those circumstances include, but are not limited
to: (1) the child is abandoned, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b); (2) the child is orphaned, R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(c); (3) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
children services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, R.C.
2151.414(B)(1)(d); and (4) none of the previous three circumstances applies, and the child
cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be
placed with the parents, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Only one of these circumstances need
apply to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test. In re C.S., 12th
-6-
Warren CA2023-03-032
Dist. Clinton No. CA2020-04-006, 2020-Ohio-4414, ¶ 16.
{¶ 17} "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 A.S., 12th Dist. Butler Nos.
CA2019-05-071 thru CA2019-05-073, 2019-Ohio-4127, ¶ 19. However, "[e]ven if there is
sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision, an appellate court may
nevertheless reverse a permanent custody judgment if it finds the judgment to be against
the manifest weight of the evidence." In re G.A., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-11-079,
2023-Ohio-643, ¶ 18, citing In re F.S., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and CA2020-
08-012, 2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 61. In determining whether a juvenile court's judgment 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. The presumption in weighing the evidence favors the finder of
fact, which we are especially mindful of in custody cases. In re R.K., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.
CA2021-03-027 and CA2021-03-028, 2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 15. Therefore, if the evidence is
susceptible to more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it the
interpretation that is consistent with the verdict and judgment. In re D.S., 12th Dist. Clinton
Nos. CA2021-10-030 and CA2021-10-031, 2022-Ohio-998, ¶ 63.
B. First Part of the Permanent Custody Test: Best Interest Analysis
{¶ 18} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) provides that in considering the best interest of a child in
a permanent custody hearing, a juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including,
-7-
Warren CA2023-03-032
but not limited to, the following:
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the
child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-
home providers, and any other person who may significantly
affect the child;
(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or
through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the
maturity of the child;
(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child
has been in the temporary custody of one or more public
children services agencies or private child placing agencies for
twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month
period * * *;
(d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement
and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a
grant of permanent custody to the agency;
(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this
section apply in relation to the parents and child.
A juvenile court may also consider any other factors it deems relevant to the child's best
interest. In re A.J., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-08-063, 2019-Ohio-593, ¶ 24.
{¶ 19} Based upon its consideration of the R.C. 2151.414 factors, the juvenile court
found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in Roger's best interest to grant
permanent custody to the Agency. In so doing, the juvenile court determined that Roger is
not bonded with Mother, but 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 also
detailed its concerns regarding Father, including his lack of knowledge regarding Mother's
mental health issues, as well as his reliance upon Mother for housing due to his
-8-
Warren CA2023-03-032
"undocumented" status and lack of support outside of the home. The juvenile court
described its concerns regarding Mother's living situation with maternal grandmother, as
well as the tumultuous history of their relationship and its impact on Roger. As a result, the
court concluded that the best chance for Roger was adoption and that awarding permanent
custody to the Agency was in Roger's best interest.
{¶ 20} On appeal, Mother argues the juvenile court's best interest finding is
unsupported by the record, as the testimony at the hearing established that Mother had
made substantial progress on her case plan and she had demonstrated dramatic
improvement in her life-coping and parenting skills. In light of this testimony, Mother claims
each of the best interest factors weigh against an award of permanent custody to the
Agency.
{¶ 21} Beginning with the interaction and interrelationships factor, R.C.
2151.414(D)(1)(a), Mother argues this factor weighs against an award of permanent
custody to the Agency because an Agape family support specialist, Jessica Hedlund,
testified that Roger's bond with his parents had improved by the time of the permanent
custody hearing. However, simply because a child is bonded with his parents and has
engaged in regular visitation with them does not render an award of permanent custody to
a children's services agency against the child's best interest. In re M.H., 12th Dist. Clermont
Nos. CA2021-08-050 thru CA2021-08-052, 2022-Ohio-49, ¶ 33-40. Moreover, in focusing
upon Hedlund's testimony that Mother's bond with Roger had improved in recent months,
Mother disregards the significant evidence indicative of an only minimal bond between
Mother and the child.
{¶ 22} For example, the psychology assistant who conducted Mother's psychological
assessment also conducted a bonding assessment between Mother and Roger in
September 2022. During the assessment, the psychology assistant noticed that Roger did
-9-
Warren CA2023-03-032
not appear to be securely attached to Mother and that he had difficulty separating from
Foster Mother. Roger did not acknowledge Mother upon her arrival at the Agency, was
initially indifferent to her presence, and did not make eye contact with her. The psychology
assistant concluded there were problems in the interactions between Mother and Roger
and that there were indications that the bond and attachment were not strong or nurturing.
While the psychology assistant testified that reunification between Mother and Roger was
not impossible, he recommended that it should be attempted slowly, as removing Roger
from adults that he is bonded with could result in developmental delays or reactive
attachment disorder.
{¶ 23} Testimony regarding Mother and Roger's bond was also provided by Candace
Greenwood, an employee of Help Me Grow. Greenwood testified that she became involved
with Mother during her pregnancy with Roger. Greenwood resumed weekly visits with the
family in mid-2022, after Roger was born, and continued until the permanent custody
hearing. The visits lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, and typically occurred when an
Agape employee was not at the home. As a part of her visits, Greenwood provided
parenting information to Mother as well as support for the reunification process. Greenwood
observed that, while Mother generally showed emotion towards Roger, there were days that
Mother was disengaged from him. Greenwood indicated she did not believe Mother
intentionally failed to engage with the child, but that frustration in her relationships with
Father and maternal grandmother influenced her behavior. Nonetheless, Greenwood
explained that Mother sometimes could not read Roger's cues or understand that she
needed to behave differently. A caseworker supervisor from the Agency similarly testified
that Mother is unable to read Roger's cues or understand his developmental stage and
reiterated the Agency's concerns with Mother's bond with Roger, as well as her general
inability to nurture him.
- 10 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
{¶ 24} Additionally, Foster Mother testified that throughout Roger's placement with
her, which began when Roger was two months old, she has observed his relationship with
Mother and other providers. According to Foster Mother, Roger's relationships have
blossomed with other caretakers like his teacher and therapists, but he displays more
hesitation with Mother. Roger's CASA echoed Foster Mother's testimony at the hearing,
and testified that with Mother, Roger is reserved, despondent, uncomfortable, and does not
like interacting with her, but with others, he is friendly, affectionate, and wants to play. When
Mother's unsupervised visitation with Roger was increased, Foster Mother and CASA
noticed negative changes in Roger's behavior.
{¶ 25} There was also testimony that Roger's relationship with Foster Mother is
different than his relationship with either Mother or Father. While with Foster Mother, Roger
runs, claps, talks gibberish, and plays with his foster brothers. Roger's CASA described
this behavior as noticeably different from his behavior during visits with Mother and Father,
where he is rigid and reserved. According to Foster Mother, Roger has difficulty separating
from her during visitation drop offs and is eager to return home with her afterwards. Roger
has lived with Foster Mother since he was two-months old, and Foster Mother plans to
adopt Roger if permanent custody is awarded to the Agency.
{¶ 26} When considering the above testimony, the juvenile court did not err in
concluding that Roger's bond with Mother weighs in favor of an award of permanent custody
to the Agency. Although we acknowledge Hedlund's testimony that Mother's bond with
Roger had improved in recent months, the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to
their testimony are primarily matters for the finder of fact. In re R.K., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 82374, 2003-Ohio-6333, ¶ 15. When considering the entirety of the evidence presented
at the hearing, it is clear the juvenile court gave more weight to the testimony of the
psychology assistant, the Help Me Grow worker, Roger's CASA, the caseworker supervisor,
- 11 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
and Foster Mother than the testimony from the Agape employee. As noted previously,
where evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, we are required to give it the
interpretation most favorable and consistent with the verdict and judgment. In re D.S., 2022-
Ohio-998 at ¶ 63. Accordingly, we conclude the juvenile court did not err in finding this
factor weighs in favor of awarding permanent custody to the Agency.
{¶ 27} With regard to the wishes-of-the-child factor, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), we also
reject Mother's claim that Roger's wishes weigh against awarding permanent custody to the
Agency. In determining Roger's wishes, the juvenile court relied upon CASA's report
recommending that permanent custody be awarded to the Agency. Mother does not dispute
that the juvenile court was permitted to rely upon CASA's report when determining Roger's
wishes, but instead argues that she and Father could provide a "secure, safe, and loving
environment," which is the environment Roger presumably wished to live in.
{¶ 28} Contrary to Mother's claims, the record reflects that the environment she could
provide for Roger at the time of the hearing was neither "secure" nor "safe." The testimony
at the hearing established that Mother and Father rely upon maternal grandmother for
housing. Mother and maternal grandmother have had an inconsistent relationship since
Mother was young, and Mother testified 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, that
maternal grandmother oftentimes wants Mother out of the home, and that Mother believes
maternal grandmother may have untreated mental health illnesses. Throughout the case,
multiple providers worked with Mother and Father to find alternative housing but were
ultimately unsuccessful in doing so.
{¶ 29} The record also reflects Mother and maternal grandmother were involved in
physical altercations throughout 2022. On one occasion, Mother contacted law
- 12 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
enforcement after maternal grandmother kicked in Mother's bedroom door and attacked
Mother with a broom. In addition to Mother, other witnesses testified that Mother did not
have a good relationship or history with maternal grandmother. Notably, the Agency
recommended family therapy to address some of these concerns, but maternal
grandmother refused to participate.
{¶ 30} Notwithstanding the concerning nature of their relationship, maternal
grandmother remains Mother's primary support system and Mother planned to utilize
maternal grandmother's assistance in caring for Roger if he was returned to Mother's care.
This is particularly concerning given Mother's acknowledgment to an Agape employee that
Roger should not be around maternal grandmother unsupervised. Moreover, despite
applying for approximately 30 apartments, neither Mother nor Father had obtained
independent housing prior to the hearing. In fact, Mother testified at the hearing that she
had no definitive plan for alternative housing. Although Mother and Father testified that
obtaining citizenship and driver licenses would alleviate their issues with obtaining housing
and transportation, neither party had initiated the citizenship process. Instead, Mother and
Father planned to reside with maternal grandmother and to rely upon her for childcare and
transportation when necessary. Given the tumultuous relationship between Mother and
maternal grandmother, and Mother's dependence on maternal grandmother to care for
Roger, it is evident that Mother cannot provide a safe and stable environment for Roger at
this time.
{¶ 31} Regarding the remaining best interest factors, Mother claims they also weigh
in her favor because she made substantial progress on the case plan and was nearing a
point where Roger could have been returned to her care. As an initial note, it is well settled
that "the key concern is not whether the parent has successfully completed the case plan,
but whether the parent has substantially remedied the concerns that caused the child's
- 13 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
removal from the parent's custody." In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003,
2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 24. "[A] parent's successful completion of the terms of a case plan is
not dispositive on the issue of reunification, as the case plan is simply a means to a goal,
but not the goal itself." In re A.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-143, 2016-Ohio-4919,
¶ 18. Nevertheless, the record reflects Mother neither satisfied her case plan objectives
nor substantially remedied the concerns that caused Roger's removal from her care.
{¶ 32} Regarding Mother's mental health, the caseworker supervisor and Agency
caseworker testified that Mother's mental health was a concern at the time of Roger's
removal from her care and remained a concern at the time of the permanent custody
hearing. At the hearing, evidence was presented that Mother has an extensive history of
mental health concerns. According to the psychology assistant who conducted Mother's
psychological assessment, Mother has significant past trauma, including a history of 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, Foster Mother testified she observed cut marks on Mother's arms at
various periods and there were reports that Mother had suicidal ideations as recently as the
fall and winter of 2022.
{¶ 33} 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
- 14 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
history, intellectual disability mild, PTSD by history, and a "rule out" diagnosis for excessive
compulsive personality disorder and OCD.
{¶ 34} Testimony established that 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. The psychology assistant
recommended Mother engage in DBT, and indicated that, due to Mother's intellectual
disabilities, the DBT process would take more time. 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.
{¶ 35} 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, Mother initially denied that
Father instructed her to dispute her diagnosis, but later acknowledged he had instructed
her to do so and further admitted to lying to her various providers, including her former
therapist.
{¶ 36} The therapist described Mother's treatment as "very on and off," as there
would be stretches of time where therapy was "going really great," but also times where it
was "really hard." 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
- 15 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
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.
{¶ 37} The therapist specifically noted Mother's "job hopping" and lack of support in
her personal life outside of her home as two topics where Mother attempted to justify her
behavior and provide excuses. 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." And though Mother was prescribed
several medications for her mental health, Mother had stopped taking those medications by
the time of the hearing. Mother explained that she stopped taking these medications
because she feared potential weight gain and because a friend had recommended that she
do so.
{¶ 38} Despite Mother's efforts, the record reflects many of her therapist's concerns
existed at the time of the permanent custody hearing, including a lack of support outside of
the home and trouble with her interpersonal relationships, as well as an inability to maintain
employment or stability for any extended period. Notably, the caseworker supervisor
testified that Mother had been employed at seven jobs since the beginning of the case, and
that Mother's instability in her employment was linked to her instability in her mental health.
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 severity
of her diagnoses or their impact on her behavior and on her ability to parent. It is also
consistent with her therapist's testimony that although there were times where Mother was
very open about her mental health, there were others where she was simply in denial.
{¶ 39} Although Mother testified she was making strides in her mental health, Foster
- 16 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
Mother recently observed cutting marks on Mother's arms and Mother attempted to commit
suicide in February 2022 and expressed suicidal ideations in late 2022. On a separate
occasion, 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. Accordingly, when considering Mother's efforts and progress in addressing her
various mental health diagnoses, we conclude Mother did not substantially remedy the
Agency's concerns regarding her mental health.
{¶ 40} Mother also failed to remedy the Agency's concerns regarding her ability to
properly care for Roger. At the time of the permanent custody hearing, the Agency
remained concerned that Mother was unable to understand and process Roger's needs at
various developmental stages. The caseworker supervisor testified that despite Mother
being offered every service possible, Mother simply cannot grasp what Roger needs or how
to meet those needs. The supervisor identified several examples of Mother's inability to
understand Roger's needs throughout the case, including failing to process the different
reasons Roger could be crying; giving Roger inappropriate foods for his age (for example,
she gave Roger steak before he had teeth); struggling to nurture Roger or adequately
respond when he was upset; and giving Roger—a toddler—deflated latex balloons to play
with while riding in the car.
{¶ 41} Greenwood from Help Me Grow expressed similar concerns with Mother's
ability to parent Roger. At the hearing, Greenwood testified that Mother has a lot of trauma
and scars from her past that continue to affect her, rendering this case one of the most
concerning cases with which Greenwood was involved. Greenwood explained that,
although Mother was working on herself and doing better, she was very "up and down" as
far as her mood was concerned. During her testimony, Greenwood noted several concerns
- 17 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
she had after observing Mother with Roger, including Mother's visible displays of frustration,
her lack of patience with the child, and her inability to respond appropriately when the child
was upset. Notably, many of these concerns were present at the time of Roger's removal
from Mother's care in 2020.
{¶ 42} The psychology assistant likewise testified that the results of Mother's
assessment indicated she was high risk in her attitude toward parent, child, and family roles.
According to the psychology assistant, this meant Mother was high risk in her ability to
understand the role of the child and parent during interactions, and her ability to place the
child's needs above her own. Due to the results of the assessment, the psychology
assistant recommended intensive parenting classes, which Mother completed.
Notwithstanding Mother's completion of the parenting classes, providers observed no
change in Mother for long periods of time. Mother continued to exhibit inappropriate
behavior for a parent, including upsetting Roger by purchasing him a new toy but then taking
it away, saying "mine." As a result of Mother's behavior, Roger became visibly upset and
required consoling by Foster Mother. Mother also downplays Roger's various medical
conditions and needs, despite advice and explanation from medical professionals.
{¶ 43} In order to demonstrate that she is capable of parenting Roger, Mother relies
on the testimony and written reports from Hedlund, the Agape employee, who testified that
she began supervising four hours of the parent's visitation time with Roger in August 2022.
Between August 2022 and December 2022, Hedlund did not observe any improvement in
Mother's parenting abilities; however, in late December 2022 or early January 2023,
Hedlund believed that Mother demonstrated a desire to care for Roger and seemed to be
- 18 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
more engaged with him.2
{¶ 44} Initially, Agape engaged in enhanced visitation services with the family, during
which a representative, like Hedlund, supervised visits and prepared a report for the
Agency. In general, Agape's enhanced visitation services continued for a designated
period, after which the family would transition to the reunification program if the appropriate
agency recommended more time with the child. In this case, the family transitioned to the
reunification program in January 2023, however, Hedlund explained this was due to a billing
issue, not because the parents had made sufficient progress to cease the enhanced
visitation supervision. Notwithstanding the reasoning behind their advancement to the
reunification program, Hedlund testified that Mother and Father had made "some progress"
by the time of the permanent custody hearing; that she was not critical of Mother or Father;
and that she did not have many concerns with their parenting.
{¶ 45} While Mother claims Hedlund's testimony establishes she has remedied any
concerns relating to her ability to care for Roger, we disagree. Despite Hedlund's testimony
that Mother had improved in recent months, she also explained that she is not trained to
say whether reunification between Mother and Roger was appropriate. Instead, it is the
Agency's role, not Agape's, to make that recommendation. To that point, CASA presented
evidence that the Agency was less concerned with Mother's ability to parent on a short-term
basis, such as the visitation supervised by Hedlund, than her ability to care for Roger long-
term. Specifically, an Agency caseworker testified that Mother had developed a routine that
she repeated at each visit; however, the Agency remained concerned with Mother's ability
2. As noted by Mother in her brief, the juvenile court misstated a portion of Hedlund's testimony when it found
that Mother had recently regressed in her engagement during visitation with Roger. Instead, Hedlund testified
that she saw a different Mother at that time than she did in August 2022. Notwithstanding the juvenile court's
misstatement, the court was permitted to assess Hedlund's testimony as a whole, during which she mentioned
improvements by Mother, as well as some concerning behavior. Moreover, based upon other testimony
regarding Mother's behavior during visitation, we find the juvenile court reasonably concluded that Mother has
ongoing problems.
- 19 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
to adjust that routine as Roger grows and develops. According to the Agency, Mother
struggles with any disruption to her routine, and does not understand how to redirect Roger
or get back on track. This is consistent with additional testimony presented at the hearing
that Mother would get frustrated when Roger cried; experienced trouble calming him down;
and needed to call Foster Mother to ask questions about Roger's behavior, daily care, and
routine.
{¶ 46} In light of the above testimony, and while Mother may have made some
progress in her parenting abilities, it is clear she has not remedied the Agency's concerns
regarding her ability to parent or care for Roger on a long-term basis. While there is a
possibility that Mother could learn to adapt, "[a] child's life is not an experiment that can be
left to chance." In re K.G., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2020-08-047 thru CA2020-08-049,
2021-Ohio-1182, ¶ 57. "'The law does not require the court to experiment with a child's
welfare to see if the child will suffer great detriment or harm.'" In re B.C., 12th Dist. Warren
Nos. CA2018-03-024 and CA2018-03-027, 2018-Ohio-2673, ¶ 30, quoting In re R.S.-G.,
4th Dist. Athens No. 15CA2, 2015-Ohio-4245, ¶ 53. "A child should not have to endure the
inevitable to its great detriment and harm in order to give the * * * parent an opportunity to
prove [her] suitability." In re P.S., 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA-11, 2016-Ohio-3489, ¶ 51.
{¶ 47} In this case, the Agency has been involved with Roger since his birth in 2020.
Thus, at the time of the permanent custody motion, Mother had been given approximately
two years to remedy the Agency's concerns. The fact that Mother may have somewhat
improved in her parenting abilities shortly before the permanent custody hearing is simply
too little, too late. "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. For most
- 20 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
of this case, Mother made no changes to her behavior, and failed to demonstrate she could
provide a safe and stable environment for the child. It is not in Roger's best interest to
gamble on the possibility that Mother may continue progressing and obtain stability in the
future. This is especially true where the child is now thriving in a stable and secure
environment with Foster Mother, and Mother continues to downplay the severity and impact
of her mental health diagnoses.
{¶ 48} Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the juvenile court did not
err in determining that an award of permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best
interest. There is more than sufficient credible evidence to support the juvenile court's
determination that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. As noted
above, the child's best interest is served by being placed in a permanent situation that
fosters growth, stability, and security. The record establishes that Mother could not provide
these things at the time of trial.
{¶ 49} We frequently see permanent custody appeals involving behavior that is, on
its face, far more shocking than some of Mother's behavior that led the juvenile court to
award permanent custody to the Agency in this case. We pause here to emphasize that
there are many parents in this state who live in poverty, who have a checkered employment
history, who have intellectual disabilities, who do not get along with relatives, who have
difficulty finding housing, who are in the United States illegally, who have mental health
problems, who disagree with a doctor's diagnosis or find prescribed medicine unhelpful,
who can at times be irritated by their children, or who fight with their spouses. These things,
either individually or collectively, do not necessarily mean that it is in the best interest of the
children of such parents to be placed in the permanent custody of an agency. In other
words, a parent who lives in poverty, who is diagnosed with mental health problems, who
has intellectual disabilities, or who falls into one of the other categories mentioned above
- 21 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
may be a bad parent, an average parent, or even an ideal parent. So our opinion today
should not be overinterpreted as holding that it was in Roger's best interest to be placed in
the Agency's custody merely because Mother faced the challenges described above.
Instead, our holding today affirms that the juvenile court's decision was not based on
insufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given the
specific facts of this case, and in particular the specific ways in which Mother has proven
incapable of providing a permanent situation for Roger that fosters growth, stability, and
security.
C. Second Part of the Permanent Custody Test
{¶ 50} Turning to the second part of the permanent custody test, the juvenile court
found by clear and convincing evidence that Roger had been in the temporary custody of
the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period at the time the Agency
filed its motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). The juvenile court also
found that "[i]n the event either parent alleges [Roger] has not been in the temporary
custody of" the Agency for 12 or more months of a 22 month period, then "the Court finds
pursuant to R.C. 2151414(B)(1)[(a)] * * * [that Roger] cannot be placed with Mother or
Father within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with them."
{¶ 51} Mother does not dispute that Roger has been in the temporary custody of the
Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period but claims the court's
"reasonable period of time" finding is unsupported 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. In re J.N.L.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-Ohio-
3865, ¶ 26. As such, because Mother does not challenge the juvenile court's "12 of 22"
finding, we need not review the issue further. In re J.G., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2023-
- 22 -
Warren CA2023-03-032
04-029, 2023-Ohio-2712, ¶ 16; In re G.A., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-11-079, 2023-
Ohio-643, ¶ 43. However, we note that the record unquestionably establishes that the "12
of 22" finding was met in this case because the child was removed from Mother's care in
December 2020, was adjudicated dependent in February 2021, and the Agency did not
move for permanent custody of the child until November 2022, nearly two years after the
child was placed in the Agency's temporary custody. Therefore, there is no question that
the second part of the permanent custody test was satisfied in this case.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 52} In light of the foregoing, we conclude the juvenile court did not err by
determining that it was in Roger's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Agency.
As such, we find the juvenile 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. Mother's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 53} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J. and PIPER, JJ., concur.
- 23 -