In re L.S.

168 N.E.3d 149

IN RE L.S. a Minor Child

[Appeal by Lat.S., Mother]

No. 109995

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 25, 2021

Rick L. Ferrara, Cleveland, for appellant.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Appellant-mother Lat.S. ("Mother") appeals from the decision of the Juvenile Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas ("the juvenile court") terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of her daughter, L.S., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or "the agency"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶2} On February 24, 2020, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and permanent custody of L.S. (date of birth March 22, 2008) with the juvenile court. The complaint alleged:

1. The child was previously adjudicated dependent due to mother's incarceration and the child's significant mental health and behavioral issues. The child was initially committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS but was subsequently reunified with the mother in November, 2019, with protective supervision by CCDCFS. * * *

2. Mother's whereabouts have been unknown since February 18, 2020, and mother has failed to make an appropriate plan of care for the child.

3. Mother has a mental health condition which requires on-going treatment.

4. Alleged father John Doe has failed to establish paternity and has failed to support, visit, or communicate with the child since birth.¹

Reasonable efforts were made by Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services to prevent removal of the child from the home and removal is in the best interest of the child.

The child was removed by law enforcement on February 22, 2020, pursuant to § 2151.31(A)(6) of the Ohio Revised Code and Juv.R. 6(A)(3).

{¶3} The agency also filed a motion for predispositional temporary custody, alleging that L.S. was in immediate danger from her surroundings and that removal was necessary to prevent immediate or threatened physical or emotional harm. In support of the motion, CCDCFS submitted an affidavit from Ernese Williams, an extended service social worker at CCDCFS, who averred that L.S. had been present when Mother's girlfriend, who had been caring for L.S., overdosed on illegal drugs and subsequently died, and that Mother could not be found.

{¶4} On that same date, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Williams testified that 11-year-old L.S. "came into our Agency on early Saturday morning on a JR6 [a removal of a child by law enforcement] after being left with inappropriate caregivers," that Mother's whereabouts had been unknown for almost a week and that L.S. had no other relatives in Cleveland with whom she could be placed.

{¶5} After the hearing was concluded, the juvenile court granted CCDCFS’ motion for predispositional custody and committed L.S. to the emergency temporary care and custody of CCDCFS.

{¶6} In June 2020, CCDCFS filed a case plan that required Mother to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and psychological evaluation, successfully complete any recommended treatment and aftercare, submit to random drug screens, acquire parenting skills to help L.S. function better and maintain L.S.’s mental health.

{¶7} CCDCFS filed an amended complaint, and an adjudicatory hearing was held on August 18, 2020. At the hearing, Mother stipulated to the following allegations of the amended complaint:

1. The child has been previously adjudicated [d]ependent due to mother's incarceration and the child's significant mental health and behavioral issues. The child was initially committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS but was subsequently reunified with mother in November of 2019, with protective supervision by CCDCFS. * * *

2. Mother needs to ensure that the basic needs of the child are met and to make appropriate plans if she is unable to provide care for the child.

3. Mother has mental health concerns which requires on-going services.

4. There is a parent/teen conflict despite mother engaging in case plan services during the child's prior custody episode.

{¶8} The juvenile court adjudicated L.S. to be a neglected child.

{¶9} On August 20, 2020, Mother filed a "Motion for Legal Custody to Mother with Protective Supervision to CCDCFS Pursuant to R.C. § 2151.353(A)(1), (3) or — in the Alternative — for Temporary Custody to CCDCFS Pursuant to R.C. § 2151.353(A)(2)(a)" ("motion for legal custody"). Mother asserted that she "loves her daughter deeply," that she has "complied with case plan services and will continue to do so," that she has "stable income and stable, independent housing" and that she "wants to engage in counseling with her daughter, a desire CCDCFS has not yet facilitated." She argued that CCDCFS’ request for permanent custody was "premature," that, given her age, L.S. "may not fully grasp permanent custody" (e.g., Mother claimed that L.S. had informed the guardian ad litem that although she did not want to return to Mother's home, she wished to visit with Mother)² and that it was not in L.S.’s best interest to "sever her relationship" with Mother.

{¶10} On August 24, 2020, the case proceeded to a dispositional hearing. At the time of the hearing, L.S. was 12. Williams testified on behalf of CCDCFS at the hearing.

{¶11} Williams testified that she had been involved with the family since 2017. At that time, Mother was incarcerated for robbery and L.S. was in the care of her maternal grandmother. Williams indicated that because Mother had been "in and out" of prison, L.S. had been raised largely by her grandmother and had also spent some time with another relative in Columbus.

{¶12} Williams explained that in 2017, when L.S. was nine, L.S.’s grandmother was unable to continue to care for L.S. because L.S. "was having some behaviors that was a little bit too much for the grandmother" and "mental health issues" the grandmother was unable to address. As a result, L.S. was placed in the temporary custody of CCDCFS. According to Williams, at that time, L.S. was "running out of school, placing herself at risk, and grandma could not keep her safe."

{¶13} Williams testified that L.S. was then placed in series of foster care homes, i.e., "six foster homes in a month or a month and a half," and that she would run away from each, "walk[ing] out in the street with no shoes on, just putting herself at risk," until she was placed at Guidestone, a locked group home facility, where she remained for two years. Williams indicated that, at Guidestone, they were able to address "a lot of the issues" but that L.S. was "still having some issues there."

{¶14} Williams stated that Mother was engaged in services while in prison and had completed parenting classes and drug treatment before she was released. She stated that after Mother was released from prison, she continued to engage in services, specifically, mental health services, made an effort to engage in family counseling with L.S., and maintained sobriety.

{¶15} Williams testified that despite Mother's efforts, L.S., who was 10 or 11 at the time, often refused to participate in family counseling, was "continuously saying that she didn't want to engage in services" and said that "didn't want to go home to mom." Williams stated: "When asked why she didn't want to go home, she didn't have a solid reason as to why. She just would say she didn't know, she just don't want to go."

{¶16} Ultimately, in late 2019, CCDCFS filed a motion to terminate temporary custody. Williams stated that Mother had established stable housing, was actively engaged in mental health services, was maintaining her sobriety and was providing for L.S., "sending clothes, shoes, whatever was necessary to her daughter." Williams indicated that "[e]very now and then," Mother and L.S. would have weekend visits. She explained that visits were scheduled for every weekend and that there were no problems when L.S. went actually home for the weekend but that L.S. would just "pick and choose when she wanted to go" and would "consistently have issues with going to the visit with mom." Williams stated that Mother had done "everything she was supposed to do," that L.S. "wasn't giving * * * any real reason as to why she didn't go home" and that the agency felt that it was necessary for L.S. to go home "in order for them to rebuild their relationship." Williams stated that L.S. has an IEP for behavior but that she is smart and capable of learning.

{¶17} The juvenile court granted the motion to terminate temporary custody, and L.S. returned home to live with Mother in November 2019.

{¶18} Williams stated that L.S. was "trick[ed]" into going back home. According to Williams, L.S. was told that she was meeting Mother for lunch at Chipotle, Guidestone met Mother at the Chipotle "to do the transition just to make it easier" and Mother then took L.S. home. Williams said L.S. "was okay with going to have lunch, but she didn't want to go home."

{¶19} Williams testified that after some initial adjustment issues, including a couple of incidents where L.S. would leave the house because she was upset, "things were starting to simmer down," L.S. "had stabilized very well" and it was "good for a while." Several months later, however, just after the agency had filed a motion to terminate protective supervision,³ Mother left L.S. with a friend/roommate, N.C.,⁴ who was unable to reach Mother. After Mother had been gone for a couple of days, N.C. began calling Williams "trying to get in touch with [Mother]." Williams stated that they were unable to reach Mother.

{¶20} Williams testified that N.C. took L.S. to her own daughter's home where N.C. overdosed on heroin and died while L.S. was present. Responding police officers then...