Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Clermont
FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 2012 JC 0432
Salyers, guardian ad litem
Law Firm, Scott Hoberg, for appellant
Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas
A. Horton, for appellee
1} Appellant, the biological mother of CM.
("Mother"), appeals a decision of the Clermont
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting
permanent custody of CM. to appellee, the Clermont County
Department of Job and Family Services ("CCDJFS").
For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
2} On January 9, 2012, CCDJFS filed a dependency
complaint and requested temporary custody of CM., who was
less than two years old. The complaint alleged that CCDJFS
received a report stating that Mother had overdosed on
heroin. Following a hearing, CM. was adjudicated a dependent
child. CM. remained in the custody of Mother, but was subject
to the protective supervision of CCDJFS.
3} Mother's case plan including housing, income,
mental health, drug treatment, and parenting education.
Mother made progress towards the completion of her case plan,
particularly with her completion of a substance abuse
treatment program. However, the record reflects that CCDJFS
continued to express concerns with respect to Mother's
maturity and ability to parent. Throughout the pendency of
these proceedings, C.M.'s father has failed to enter into
a case plan and has no involvement in this matter.
4} The ensuing years brought continued involvement
with Mother and CCDJFS. On November 8, 2012, CCDJFS was
granted temporary custody through an emergency order.
Following a hearing, CM. was again placed with Mother, again
subject to the protective supervision of CCDJFS.
5} CM. was again removed on June 10, 2013 and
temporary custody was granted to the agency on August 16,
2013. CCDJFS moved for permanent custody on August 22, 2014.
Following a hearing, CCDJFS was denied permanent custody of
CM. and Mother, again, was able to obtain protective
supervision of CM. on April 10, 2015.
6} CCDJFS moved for permanent custody a second time
and a trial was held on February 5, 2016. At the permanent
custody hearing, the state presented the testimonies of
several CCDJFS caseworkers, the guardian ad litem
("GAL"), C.M.'s foster father, as well as
Mother's counselor and other individuals assigned to her
case to assist with parenting and responsibility issues.
7} Mother testified in support of her case and also
called an independent homecare provider, her brother, and a
neighbor. In addition, Maternal Grandmother testified in
support of Mother and also in support of her own motion for
8} The GAL prepared a written report in which she
recommended permanent custody be granted to the agency. The
GAL noted that Mother and CM. are bonded, but expressed
serious concern with Mother's maturity and ability to
parent. In addition, the GAL testified that Maternal
Grandmother was not a suitable placement, as she had not
completed a home study and there were concerns that Mother
would continue to exert influence and "run the
show" with respect to CM. In addition, there were
concerns with Maternal Grandmother's stability in her
current living arrangement. While Maternal Grandmother
maintained an apartment, she did not have long-term plans at
that residence and there were concerns that she would return
to her home in Moscow, Ohio. At the time, Maternal
Grandmother's son and his family resided in the Moscow
home and had had been uncooperative with CCDJFS. In her
testimony, Maternal Grandmother admitted that her son and his
wife had a background that included "some things"
on "the unacceptable list."
9} After taking the matter under advisement, the
juvenile court magistrate granted permanent custody in favor
of CCDJFS. Mother then filed objections to the
magistrate's decision, which were overruled. Mother now
appeals the juvenile court's decision ...