[Cite as In re K.C.,
2013-Ohio-3403.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF:
CASE NO. 1-12-48
K.C.,
ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT CHILD.
OPINION
[YANICA WRIGHT – APPELLANT].
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court No. 2011 JG 28530
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 5, 2013
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant/Mother
Mariah M. Cunningham for Appellee, Allen Co. CSB
James A. Roeder, Guardian Ad Litem
Case No. 1-12-48
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Mother-appellant Yanica Wright (“Wright”) brings this appeal from
the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County, Juvenile Division
terminating her parental rights. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is
affirmed.
{¶2} This court initially notes that this case is a companion case to case
nos. 1-12-49, 1-12-50, and 1-12-51. In February of 2001, K.C. was born to
Wright and Daniel Wright.1 In December of 2006, K.C. was adjudicated an
abused child in case no. 2006-JG-23597. A sibling residing in the home at that
time was found to be a dependent child. Wright served a jail term for her abuse of
K.C. K.C. was then placed under protective supervision, which terminated by
operation of law on November 25, 2008.
{¶3} On April 29, 2010, K.C. was placed under the protective supervision
of Allen County Children Services (“the Agency”), along with his three siblings,
G.W., T.W., and M.W. He was removed from the home under an emergency
shelter care order on December 17, 2010. Temporary custody of K.C. was granted
to the Agency at that time. On March 21, 2011, a new emergency shelter care
order was signed and temporary custody of K.C. was continued with the Agency.2
1
Daniel Wright, although personally served on March 28, 2011, elected to not participate in this case and
never challenged the termination of his parental rights.
2
The new order was done because the prior case was being terminated by the two year deadline set forth by
statute.
-2-
Case No. 1-12-48
The trial court granted the shelter care request due to Wright’s failure to address
K.C.’s need for counseling, the medical and dental needs of the children, the
personal hygiene needs of her children and for denying the Agency access to her
home. On March 22, 2011, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that K.C. was a
dependent and neglected child. The Agency alleged in the complaint that Wright
had failed to insure that K.C. received the required counseling, that Wright failed
to comply with her own mental health service plan, and that Wright failed to
maintain a clean and safe environment for K.C. Also on that day, K.C. was moved
to a new foster home at the request of the foster parents due to his behavioral
issues. A case plan was filed on March 24, 2011. The case plan required Wright
to complete the following goals: 1) obtain a psychological assessment, 2) attend
counseling consistently, 3) take random drug screens and test negative for all illicit
drugs, 4) maintain the home in a clean and safe condition, 5) permit the Agency
personnel to check on the home conditions at random, unannounced times, and 6)
communicate with her caseworker. On March 25, 2011, the Guardian Ad Litem
(“the GAL”) filed a motion to suspend Wright’s visitation with the children. This
motion was based upon the fact that Wright became irrational and aggressive
during a visitation to the point that the police had to be called to escort her from
the building. The motion was granted by the trial court on April 1, 2011.
-3-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶4} An adjudicatory hearing on the March 22, 2011, complaint was held
on May 12, 2011. The magistrate determined that the previous action had begun
due to the poor home conditions including finding human feces in the heat
registers. The magistrate noted that K.C. had severe food hoarding issues as well
as behavioral issues that needed addressed. Wright had mental health needs that
also needed to be addressed. Wright did not follow the case plan and obtain the
necessary counseling for the two of them. Although Wright had been found in
contempt of court for her failure to follow the case plan, she still chose not to
comply and had to spend 30 days in jail for contempt of court. In addition,
Wright’s March 2011 drug screen was positive for marijuana. Wright had been
terminated from mental health services for noncompliance. Due to Wright’s
failure to allow the Agency to view the home and other failure to comply with the
case plan, the magistrate determined that K.C.’s environment was unsafe and
found him to be a dependent child. The dispositional hearing was held on May
20, 2011. Temporary custody of K.C. was granted to the Agency. The trial court
adopted the decisions of the magistrate concerning adjudication and disposition on
July 5, 2011.
{¶5} On August 12, 2011, the Agency had to change K.C.’s foster home a
second time due to the foster parents being unable to meet his needs. The Agency
attempted to obtain Wright’s consent to modify the case plan for K.C.’s new
-4-
Case No. 1-12-48
placement. However, on August 17, 2011, as the caseworker pulled up to her
home, Wright walked away before she could be addressed. On August 19, 2011,
the caseworker attempted to contact Wright again, but no one answered the door.
The caseworker left her card, but Wright did not contact her. Thus, the Agency
was forced to seek court approval of the change to K.C.’s placement.
{¶6} Wright, on August 18, 2011, filed a motion for in-home visitation with
K.C. and his siblings. The Agency opposed the motion on the grounds that Wright
was not complying with the case plan. A hearing on the motion for visitation and
approval of a modified case plan was held on October 13, 2011. The magistrate
noted that Wright had a positive drug test in August of 2011, but a negative one in
September of 2011. The magistrate also noted that K.C.’s behavior had improved,
but was still an issue since at that time, K.C. had been suspended from school for
punching a teacher. Based upon Wright’s unwillingness to follow the case plan
and address the issues, the magistrate denied her motion for in-home visitations.
The magistrate also approved the modified case plan. The trial court adopted the
magistrate’s decision on November 9, 2011.
{¶7} On October 6, 2011, the Agency filed a motion requesting that Wright
be held in contempt for not following the case plan by 1) failing to work with the
family aid, 2) failing to allow the Agency access to all rooms in her home for
inspection, 3) failing to have a source of income, 4) failing to take random drug
-5-
Case No. 1-12-48
screens when requested and failing the one she did take, and 5) failing to follow
the recommendations of her psychologist or attend counseling. A show cause
hearing was scheduled for February 29, 2012, regarding Wright’s failure to
comply with the court ordered case plan. At the hearing, Wright admitted
violating the case plan by refusing a drug test and by testing positive. The
magistrate decided that Wright was in contempt of court. The trial court adopted
the magistrate’s decision on April 16, 2012.
{¶8} On December 9, 2011, the GAL filed a motion to suspend visitation.
The motion was based upon K.C.’s negative reactions prior to and following his
visit with Wright on Tuesday. The GAL indicated in his affidavit that K.C.’s
worst days for behavior were Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. He indicated
that K.C. would even wet the bed on those days and that K.C. was very concerned
that his mother would learn that he had been in trouble at school. In addition, K.C.
had been suspended from school for attempting to choke a teacher. On December
8, 2011, K.C. had been admitted to St. Rita’s Medical Center for making suicidal
statements. During the visits, Wright usually did not interact with K.C. The trial
court granted a temporary order suspending visitation ex parte on December 14,
2011, with a full hearing scheduled for February 29, 2012. At the hearing, K.C.’s
teacher testified that since the visits were suspended, K.C.’s behavior had
dramatically improved. Previously K.C. had been bullying students, acting out,
-6-
Case No. 1-12-48
and refused to do his school work. His behavior had been violent at times. Since
the visits ceased, he had been completing his school work and had been helping
other students. The family aide testified that Wright usually ignored K.C. at the
visits and any interaction was not positive. K.C.’s only request upon learning that
the visits were ceased was if the court would give him permission to get his hair
cut now.3 The magistrate’s decision recommended suspending the visitation with
K.C. and further stated that K.C. should be allowed to get his hair cut, but left that
choice up to the foster parents. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision
on April 16, 2012.
{¶9} On February 13, 2012, the Agency filed a Motion for Permanent
Custody of K.C. The motion alleged that Wright had failed to comply with the
case plan to substantially remedy the conditions of the home and has repeatedly
withheld medical treatment and food from K.C. The parties stipulated to the
report of Dr. Thomas L. Hustak (“Hustak”), a forensic psychologist, regarding the
psychological evaluation of Wright. The evaluation was completed in April of
2011. It was filed with the court on June 26, 2012. Hustak’s report indicated that
Wright claimed that it was K.C.’s behavior that caused the Agency to become
involved with her family. She claims that the landlord called the Agency because
K.C. would hit his siblings, urinated on the carpets, left bowel movements in the
3
Wright testified that she does not allow her children to get their hair cut because she does not believe in it.
-7-
Case No. 1-12-48
vents of the house, and refused to brush his teeth. Report, 4. Wright minimized
her responsibility for the Agency’s involvement by claiming that her caseworkers
“had an attitude against me.” Report, 5. Wright’s idea for discipline involved
physically striking K.C. Id. The mental status examination indicated that Wright
has some difficulties with concentration. Report, 6. Her composite IQ was
determined to be 72, which was below average. Report, 7. Her verbal score of 68
was “quite low, placing her in the ‘lower extreme’ category suggesting that 98%
of the population scores higher than [Wright] and she has the verbal age of a 10
year old.”
Id. Hustak noted the following regarding Wright’s adaptive behavior.
The results of this assessment showed that [Wright’s]
independent functioning in most areas was adequate.
Exceptions included strong underarm odor and wearing clothes
that were not properly cleaned. She apparently is appropriately
mobile and has a telephone but she has no independent means of
transportation. Other areas of independent functioning are
adequate.
[Wright’s] physical development apparently shows no major
difficulties. Her economic activity shows that she apparently
does not use banking facilities but purchases her own clothing.
Her speech sometimes exhibits halting and irregular
interruptions but otherwise is reasonably developed. Social
language development is lacking. She doesn’t talk sensibly when
interacting with CSB workers and they find it difficult to reason
with her. Her self-direction is also lacking in that she needs
encouragement to complete tasks, has little ambition, and her
movement when observed by [the Agency] workers seems to be
sluggish and slow. She becomes easily discouraged, needs
encouragement to complete things that are assigned to her, and
unfortunately does not always maintain self-control over her
behavior. She doesn’t respond to others in a socially acceptable
-8-
Case No. 1-12-48
manner and demonstrates significant impairment in the area of
social behaviors. Specifically, when interacting with CSB she
has used threatening gestures, has thrown objects, exaggerates
stories of interaction with CSB workers, appears to manipulate
others to get them in trouble, and has difficulties following
instructions.
When she does not get her way, she becomes upset, does not pay
attention to instructions, hesitates for long periods before doing
the tasks, and frequently does the opposite of what is requested.
She resents those in authority, is disruptive, and tends to repeat
things when asked questions.
Report 8-9.
{¶10} Hustak administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory – 2 (“MMPI-2”) to Wright. The results of the MMPI-2 indicated that
Wright has problems with anyone who has power over her. Report, 10. Her
response to relationships is to become aloof and cold in an attempt to advance
herself at the expense of others. Report, 11. This profile on the MMPI-2 is
indicative of one with a severe personality disorder. Id. Wright’s disorder has
led to paranoid thinking.
Id. People with profiles like Wright are likely to have
angry outbursts that will be blamed on others.
Id. Wright also is suspicious of
other’s motives and believes that she would be fine if people were not plotting
against her. Report, 12. Wright’s profile also indicated a borderline score on the
schizophrenia scale.
Id. Hustak determined that the prognosis for Wright is poor
because from her perspective, “everything is caused by someone else other than
the things that she herself does or fails to do.”
Id. Although there was no
-9-
Case No. 1-12-48
indication of psychotic or antisocial behavior, Wright’s unusual thinking does
interfere with her social interactions. Report, 13.
{¶11} Due to the indications of personality disorder issues, Hustak
administered the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III (“MCMI-III”) to assess
Wright’s functioning. Report, 14. The MCMI-III indicated that Wright has traits
of a compulsive personality disorder. Id. This is exhibited through perfectionism
in her decision making and completion of tasks. However, due to her limited
intellectual functioning, she is not capable of achieving perfectionism in her
choices. Report, 15. “[I]n some ways, one could conclude that she is not very
good at embracing her desire to be compulsive.”
Id. Wright views the world as
rigid and becomes upset by her own indecisiveness.
Id. To repress her thoughts
of inadequacy, Wright creates positive thoughts of herself even if they are
contradicted by the evidence.
Id. The positive aspects of the MCMI-III were that
there was nothing to suggest that Wright suffered from anxiety, alcohol
dependence, post-traumatic stress, borderline thinking, schizophrenia, depression,
or a delusional disorder. Report, 16.
{¶12} In his conclusion, Hustak determined that a likely diagnosis for
Wright would be “Personality Disorder NOS which takes into account the fact that
she possesses traits and symptoms of the three personality types noted above in
various combinations to account for her problematic behavior.” Report, 17.
-10-
Case No. 1-12-48
Unfortunately, this personality combination makes it very
difficult to have [Wright] address problems when she is
convinced that she does not have those problems and/or that the
problems she sustains are caused by other people. When
questioned about how these situations transpired with her
children in regard to the concerns expressed by [the Agency],
[Wright’s] explanations were quite poor and offered little
substance for understanding why things have gotten so out of
control. …
…
While it is true that no scientific predictions can be made with
any degree of absolute certainty about the future, one does need
to evaluate risks for problems as they arise. At the time of her
evaluation, [Wright] had significant limitations that would
appear to place her children at risk. If she could follow all of the
guidelines listed above, it would still be difficult to conclude that
all of those risks would be eliminated unless clear evidence could
be presented to professionals that a systematic and safe
treatment plan with supervision, cleanliness, and safety could be
adequately provided by [Wright] in her home environment.
Frankly, the probability of this happening would be considered
fairly low because her cognitive limitations are static (not
changeable) whereas the personality configurations may be more
dynamic (subject to change depending upon her willingness to
do so).
Report, 17, 20.
{¶13} On July 24, 2012, the parties stipulated that a transcript of Jennifer
Cunningham’s (“Cunningham”) testimony from the February 29, 2012, hearing
would be admitted without objection. Cunningham had been K.C.’s teacher since
January 2011, at the alternative school he attended. She testified that when K.C.
first was placed in the school after poor behavior at Lima City Schools, he would
-11-
Case No. 1-12-48
just leave the classroom or the building. Ex. 7, 2. He would also hit, punch,
and/or kick people. Id. at 2. Eventually K.C. settled into the school and his
behavior improved. Id. at 3. Before visits ceased in December of 2011, the
faculty had a difficult time getting K.C. to even enter the school building without
arguments. Id. at 5. K.C. would yell at the teachers, run around the building, push
people, and/or kick people. Id. This behavior was repeated on Tuesday and
Wednesday. Id. at 5-6. By Thursday, K.C. had settled into a normal routine. Id.
6. K.C. told Cunningham on approximately three occasions that Wright had either
not appeared for visits or that she had said something at the visit to make him
angry. Id. At the end of December, K.C. was suspended for 10 days for
assaulting a staff member and a police officer. Id. at 7. Since his return to school
in January, K.C.’s behavior was dramatically different, with no discipline for
approximately two months. Id. Cunningham described K.C. as being sociable,
reasonable and helpful since he returned to school in January of 2012. Id. at 8.
Cunningham also testified that K.C. told her he was angry that Wright would
ignore him at the visits. Id. at 9. During the timeframe that K.C. was having visits
with Wright, he would not do his school work and he would attempt to pick fights
with the other students. Id. at 10.
{¶14} The GAL filed his report on July 24, 2012. The GAL noted that he
had reviewed the Agency’s file on multiple occasions, reviewed the court records,
-12-
Case No. 1-12-48
reviewed Wright’s Facebook page, reviewed Wright’s psychological evaluation,
spoken with the care providers and had multiple visits with K.C. GAL Report, 1-
2. The GAL noted that although K.C. continued to have some behavioral issues,
he has improved. Id. at 2. He noted that K.C. does not like changes to his routine.
Id. Once the visits with Wright were terminated, K.C.’s behavior showed marked
improvement. Id. The GAL indicated that he had spoken to K.C. and that the
child indicated that he did not want to return to Wright. Id. Instead, K.C.
indicated that he wished to remain with his current foster parent. Id. Thus, the
GAL recommended that Wright’s parental rights be terminated and permanent
custody be granted to the Agency. Id. at 4.
{¶15} On July 31, 2012, the parties stipulated to the admission of the
testimony of Ashley Mertz (“Mertz”) from the February 29, 2012, hearing. Mertz
was the foster mother of K.C.’s siblings. She testified that she observed K.C. at
the visits between the siblings. Ex. 8, 6. She also testified that at the visits K.C.
speaks with her and is really pleasant. Id. at 7. She has not observed any
inappropriate behavior between the children. Id.
{¶16} The hearing on the Motion for Permanent Custody was held from
August 1-3, 2012. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the
admission of Exhibit 2, the deposition of Erica Croft (“Croft”) which was
completed on June 28, 2012. Croft was K.C.’s kindergarten teacher. At the
-13-
Case No. 1-12-48
beginning of kindergarten, K.C. was developmentally delayed in his speech and
fine motor skills. Ex. 2, 8. The school tried to enroll K.C. in speech and
occupational therapy to address those issues, but Wright refused. Id. at 9. Wright
refused to sign an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) so that K.C. could
receive assistance. Id. at 10. Wright considered the services to be a “special ed”
class and refused to allow K.C. to be placed in one. Id. at 12. Croft attempted
numerous times to explain to Wright that this was not a “special ed” class, but just
support services. Id. Wright did not change her position. Id. As a result, K.C.
did not progress well academically. Id. at 13. In addition, he had behavioral
issues that were not addressed by Wright.
Q. Can you tell me about some of those behavioral issues?
A. He did not get along well with the other kids, didn’t have
any friends in the class, he would be physical with them, he
would be – he would yell at them kind of thing. One time, he
took off all of his clothes and ran out of the building, just kind of
bizarre behaviors. He ate a urinal cake. I mean, just very odd
behaviors. The other children found him to be very odd.
Q. Did you discuss these behavioral concerns with Ms.
Wright?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was her response when you would discuss the
concerns with her?
A. A lot of the times she would blame us, and tell us we
didn’t know what she was – we were talking about, and we
didn’t understand her child. She would write long, rambling
-14-
Case No. 1-12-48
letters, accusing us of picking on [K.C.], or not understanding
her and what her life is, so ….
Q. Was she helpful to you in letting [K.C.] know these
behaviors were not appropriate?
A. No. No.
Id. at 13-14. Wright also was not good about watching K.C.’s personal hygiene.
Q. Was there any concern with [K.C.’s] hygiene?
A. Yes.
Q. In what way?
A. The other children and I noticed that [K.C.] did have a
smell on him all the time. He would either smell of urine or just
– it would be just like a dirty, dirty smell. And our school nurse
at the time, we had a shower, so she would sometimes clean him
up and get him in a clean change of clothes when it just got
unbearable in the room, where the other kids couldn’t function
because they were, I can’t stand to sit next to him. And so that
just made it even more difficult for him to make friends and to
become a part of the class. And his hair was also, a lot of the
times it would be this big poof on the top of his head that would
just have all kinds of things in it. And –
Q. What types of things?
A. Well, it would – he had – they kind of looked like pieces of
foam, a lot of the time was in there, and then there would be
food in there, and it was just kind of – just part of it would be
poofy, part of it would be matted. He just had a very odd
appearance.
…
Q. Did you have discussions with Ms. Wright about the
concerns with the cleanliness of –
-15-
Case No. 1-12-48
A. Yes.
Q. [K.C.’s] clothes? And what did she tell you?
A. She told us that it was none of our business.
Q. Did you have discussions with her about the concern of the
odor that he had?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did she tell you?
A. It was none of our business.
Q. … With respect to those conversations, was there
improvement in his hygiene or clothing after you had them.
A. No. It think it was almost in defiance, it got worse, that she
let him – because sometimes it would be braided, and then she’d
really let the hair go, after we tried to discuss it with her.
Id. at 15-19.
{¶17} Croft testified that when they had meetings with Wright and her
social worker, she was polite to her social worker, but hostile to the school faculty.
Id. at 24. While in her class, K.C. would eat everything he was given and would
try to take additional food from the cafeteria. Id. at 26. K.C. would even attempt
to take half-eaten food from the trash can. Id. Concerned that he was hungry and
there was a lack of food in the home, the school sent a backpack of food home
with him. Id. In response, Wright sent a note telling them not to feed him or send
a backpack of food with him again, that she did not need help. Id. Throughout the
-16-
Case No. 1-12-48
school year, she saw no improvement in K.C.’s performance or in Wright’s
willingness to work with K.C. Id. at 31.
{¶18} The first live witness was Judith Lester (“Lester”), who is a licensed
social worker. Lester started working with K.C. and Wright in January of 2007.
Tr. 14. K.C. was referred to help improve his behavior and also to help Wright
learn more positive parenting practices. Tr. 16. K.C. at the time was behaving
atypical for his age. Tr. 19. He would often get out of his seat and was known to
shout out inappropriate sexual statements in his kindergarten class. Tr. 19. Lester
testified that K.C. was frequently teased due to his personal hygiene. Tr. 19. She
observed K.C. in the classroom and was part of the intervention team developed
by the school to help K.C. Tr. 19-20. Lester testified that she discussed K.C.’s
lack of cleanliness during home visits with Wright. Tr. 20. Wright denied that
there was a problem and insisted that K.C. and his clothes were always clean
despite all the evidence to the contrary. Tr. 20. Despite numerous meetings with
Wright, she was frequently angry and out of control, so no real progress was
made. Tr. 23. Lester only worked with K.C. and Wright for two months because
Wright was not cooperative. Tr. 25. Out of the ten home visits scheduled, Wright
only was home and willing to work with Lester for five of the visits. Tr. 25.
Wright did not wish to participate in services and only wanted the counselors to
work with K.C. Tr. 25. Lester provided Wright with instruction on how to use
-17-
Case No. 1-12-48
anger management techniques for both Wright and K.C., but Wright just insisted
they did not work. Tr. 28-29. Rather than continuing to work on the anger issues,
Wright just quit trying. Tr. 30.
{¶19} Lester also testified as to the condition of the home. On January 24,
2007, Lester visited the home and smelled the odor of something rotting
throughout the home. Tr. 30. On February 8, 2007, there was a new puppy in the
home and no one had cleaned up the dog feces from the living room floor. Tr. 31.
Wright did then try to pick up some of the feces while Lester was at the home. Tr.
31. The smell was so strong that it was noticeable outside of the home. Tr. 42.
{¶20} Kelly Huffman (“Huffman”) testified from her work with the family
as a therapist. Huffman has worked with K.C. for approximately three years
through her employment with SAFY Behavioral Health. Tr. 46. Before that she
worked with him through her employment at Family Resource Center and through
the school system. Tr. 46. She worked with Wright while doing family
counseling for K.C. Tr. 47. She has counseled him while he was in Wright’s
custody and after he was placed in the custody of the Agency. Tr. 49-50.
Huffman testified that K.C.’s initial treatment plan addressed his aggressive
behaviors in the school and in the home as well as his food issues. Tr. 51. To be
successful, Huffman needed Wright to participate in the counseling so that the
-18-
Case No. 1-12-48
behavioral issues are addressed consistently. Tr. 51. Huffman testified that
Wright was very angry and frustrated with K.C. and his behavior. Tr. 52.
{¶21} Huffman testified that K.C.’s issues with stealing and hoarding food
were troubling. Tr. 54. These types of issues usually arise when there has been
neglect or in situations where food is frequently lacking. Tr. 55. Eventually, K.C.
told Huffman in sessions that Wright would discipline him by locking him in his
room and not letting him leave for any reason, including to use the restroom or to
have food. Tr. 55. For treatment, Huffman recommended to Wright that K.C.
have a “food box” available at all times with healthy snacks so that he would not
worry about having no food. Tr. 56. Wright did not feel it would work, so she did
not try it. Tr. 56.
{¶22} Huffman testified that the interactions between Wright and K.C. at
the sessions indicated some distance in their relationship. Tr. 56. Wright was
frequently angry and frustrated and K.C. was fairly quiet around his mother. Tr.
56. Some techniques were tried that did have a positive effect and the relationship
improved while they attended over summer break. Tr. 57. However, once school
began again, Wright became frustrated and the relationship deteriorated. Tr. 58.
{¶23} Over time, Huffman has been able to modify K.C.’s treatment plan.
Tr. 58. They are still working on his defiant and aggressive behavior, but it is
improving. Tr. 58. Once K.C. entered into foster care, he was able to resolve his
-19-
Case No. 1-12-48
food issues, so that goal has been completed. Tr. 59. While he resided with
Wright, there was no progress on the food issues. Tr. 59.
{¶24} Huffman tried to teach Wright how to model anger management
techniques so that K.C. would learn them. Tr. 61. Wright did learn some skills
and demonstrated that she could use them. Tr. 62. However, the higher Wright’s
frustration level, the less likely she was to use the techniques. Tr. 62. Her ability
to use the anger management techniques was inconsistent over time and she
eventually reverted back to her old methods of handling stress and frustration. Tr.
63.
{¶25} Over the years, K.C. has made improvements. Tr. 63. He still has
outbursts, but he is able to self-calm. Tr. 63. He is no longer destructive and no
longer runs away when he is angry. Tr. 64. He has made the majority of his
improvement in the six or seven months prior to the hearing. Tr. 65. Huffman
testified that she would like to see K.C. mainstreamed back into regular classes
rather than continuing at the alternative school, but that doing so will require him
to continue with therapy to address the additional stress such a change will bring.
Tr. 66. Huffman testified that K.C. has a great deal of anger towards his mother
concerning how she has treated him. Tr. 67. When visits were first stopped, he
was fearful that something had happened to her. Tr. 67. After several months,
K.C. told Huffman that he does not want to return to Wright, that he wishes to
-20-
Case No. 1-12-48
remain with his foster parent and to be adopted. Tr. 67. K.C. would like a
relationship with his mother, but not until he is an adult. Tr. 68. In the six months
prior to the hearing, which was after visitations with Wright were suspended,
K.C.’s behavior had stabilized. Tr. 88. Huffman testified that it is very important
that K.C.’s caretaker actively participate in the counseling for the counseling to
have an impact. Tr. 68. Wright’s participation with counseling was inconsistent
and depended on her frustration levels and was not good for K.C. Tr. 69.
{¶26} Huffman testified that over the years she had been working with
K.C., his hygiene was an ongoing issue that kept reoccurring. Tr. 71-74. Huffman
spoke with Wright about her role in teaching K.C. good hygiene. Tr. 74. There
was some improvement, but the issues of poor hygiene always returned. Tr. 74.
Medical tests were completed to rule out a medical condition that might be
causing the lack of urinary control, but K.C. was determined to be generally
healthy. Tr. 75. After K.C. was removed from the home and placed in foster care,
his hygiene greatly improved. Tr. 77. He now showers and brushes his teeth on a
regular basis and no longer comes to appointments smelling of urine. Tr. 77. K.C.
is starting to take pride in his appearance which is helping. Tr. 77.
{¶27} Huffman also provided counseling services to Wright at the request
of the Agency. Tr. 77-78. Her goal was to improve her methods of
communicating with people and to learn to manage her anger in an appropriate
-21-
Case No. 1-12-48
manner. Tr. 78. Wright actively participated in counseling from April to October
of 2010. Tr. 79. Then Wright had to terminate services due to losing her medical
insurance. Tr. 79. Once the insurance issues were resolved, Wright returned to
counseling from January 11, 2011 until services were terminated in September of
2011. Tr. 80. The counseling was terminated because Wright missed too many
appointments and Huffman referred her to Coleman Behavioral Health. Tr. 81.
Huffman testified that Wright did make progress in learning to control her anger
and implementing the skills she had been taught. Tr. 83. However, Wright has a
harder time implementing the skills when there are multiple stressors on her. Tr.
84. The relationship between Huffman and Wright was destroyed when Huffman
reported to the Agency that K.C. had missed a counseling appointment. Tr. 86.
{¶28} When questioned about Wright having custody of K.C., Huffman
stated that she had concerns. Tr. 89.
A. I had concern about [K.C.’s] behavior and the amount of
anger and frustration that occurred with his mom and him.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because she was very angry with him a great deal of the
time, very frustrated with his behavior, very frustrated with the
fact that he wasn’t making progress. It seemed the more
prolonged that happened, the more the anger increased; and it
kind of over, overtook their relationship in a sense. Their
interactions, at least I only had them in my office, were
predominantly negative. So, yes, that’s of concern for both of
them
-22-
Case No. 1-12-48
Q. You stated that since [K.C.] has been removed from the
custody of his mother, he’s told you certain things that happened
while he was in her care, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did those concern you with respect to him being in her
care?
A. Yes, it would be of concern unless she modified her
parenting and changed the way she disciplined or corrected him.
Q. Through the experience that you had with her, did you see
her able to consistently make those changes that you were
suggesting to her?
A. Not consistently. I did see changes, I did see improvements,
I did see positive interaction between she (sic) and [K.C.]. So, I
mean, I’ve seen it, it just didn’t maintain.
Q. Do you believe that there are any further services that
SAFY could have offered to Ms. Wright to participate and to
reduce the actions that lead to your concern for [K.C.] being
with her?
A. We had offered pretty much every service that we have
available to them. We had also offered mother respite services
to kind of decrease some of the stress and tension when it was
becoming overwhelming just to give them a break, give her a
break so that she can concentrate on some of the other kids, give
him a break, kind of give everybody a little bit of relief.
Mother was very hesitant, which I can understand as far as –
but we had talked about you’ll meet the respite providers, you,
you know, can be involved in interviewing them, talking with
them. She was very hesitant to take on respite. She said that
[K.C.] didn’t really want to go and that he was afraid to go to
respite, and so respite services never happened. Whether or not
that may have helped to reduce some of the stress and tension
between the two of them and at home, I don’t know. But that’s
-23-
Case No. 1-12-48
the only other service that we could have possibly offered that
may have assisted.
Tr. 89-92.
{¶29} The next witness presented by the Agency was Kelly Smith
(“Smith”), who was the family aide assigned to Wright by the Agency. Smith’s
job is to help the parents accomplish their case plan goals. Tr. 115. Smith worked
with Wright from December 2006 until June 2007. Tr. 117. Smith attempted to
help Wright secure employment, learn parenting skills, and follow through with
counseling for K.C. and Wright. Tr. 119. Wright did complete the Parent Project
Junior Class. Tr. 122. During her time with the family, Smith was concerned
about Wright’s interactions with K.C. because she never saw any affection
between them. Tr. 123. Although Wright would apply the parenting techniques
she was taught in the short-term, she did not use them over the long-term. Tr. 126.
{¶30} Smith would meet with Wright sometimes in the home, but usually
Wright was short tempered and uncooperative at those times. Tr. 126. K.C.
would usually be in his bedroom and when Smith would ask why, Wright would
tell her he was in trouble and it was none of Smith’s business. Tr. 126. Wright
did not think she needed assistance with her parenting. Tr. 127.
{¶31} Smith testified that Wright had court ordered counseling sessions for
K.C. and Wright. Tr. 130. Smith helped Wright to calendar her appointments.
Tr. 130. In addition, Smith offered to provide transportation to and from the
-24-
Case No. 1-12-48
counseling appointments. Tr. 130. Wright still continued to be inconsistent in her
attendance. Tr. 130. When questioned about counseling, Wright frequently lied
about scheduling appointments, having rides, and even claiming to have attended
sessions that she did not attend. Tr. 131.
{¶32} Smith also attempted to help Wright seek employment. Tr. 131.
Smith gave Wright tips on job searching, provided transportation to potential
employment places, helped Wright complete applications and even provided a
voucher for Wright to purchase clothes for an interview. Tr. 132. After a month,
Wright declined the services claiming that she could get a job, but it was not her
priority at that time. Tr. 132. The family was allegedly being supported by
Wright’s Met check of less than $100 a month and the money Wright made by
selling candy bars. Tr. 133. At Christmas time, Smith offered to help Wright
provide Christmas for the children. Tr. 134. Wright agreed to fill out the
application for her youngest child, but did not wish to add K.C.’s name because
she did not want him to have anything. Tr. 135. Wright claimed that he did not
deserve anything, though she eventually agreed that he could have some
educational toys.4 Tr. 135. When the gifts were presented to the family, Wright
was angry that K.C. was given toys. Tr. 135. Wright then told Smith that she had
put all the toys in the basement because K.C. did not deserve them. Tr. 136.
4
This court notes that at that time, K.C. would have been five years old.
-25-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶33} Smith testified that she frequently was in the home. Tr. 136. She
was concerned about the conditions in the home. Tr. 136.
The odor in the home was very overwhelming. It was a strong
urine and feces smell. The carpet, you couldn’t even tell like
what, the carpet was so matted down with stains and different
things on the carpet. There was a bad problem with
cockroaches. There was a little bit of clutter, the few times that I
saw the kitchen, dirty dishes, clutter, garbage overflowing.
Tr. 136-37. When Smith addressed the issue of the home with Wright, she was
told it was none of her business. Tr. 137. Eventually, Wright moved from the
home on Hope Street to a different one on Catalpa. Tr. 139. When Wright first
moved into the new home, it was nice. Tr. 141. The Agency provided Wright
with new mattresses for K.C. to replace the soiled one. Tr. 141. They also
provided her with a refrigerator, stove, table, pots, and pans. Tr. 141. K.C.’s
bedroom was nicely set up with the new mattresses and bedding. Tr. 142. The
house on Catalpa remained in good condition for less than a month. Tr. 141.
Within that time, the cockroaches and the odor returned. Tr. 142. After that,
Wright was uncooperative at the home visits and would not allow Smith to look at
the other rooms, including the children’s bedrooms. Tr. 142. Eventually, Wright
would deny Smith access to the home and would not even let her see K.C. Tr.
143. This behavior continued despite Smith’s reminder to Wright that she was
there due to a court order. Tr. 143.
-26-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶34} Smith testified that Wright could be cooperative and open. Tr. 143.
However, any time Smith tried to approach her about a concern, Wright would
shut down because she did not want to hear about it. Tr. 144. The Agency
attempted to help with the housing issue by providing cleaning supplies. Tr. 145.
Smith personally volunteered to help her clean the home. Tr. 145. Smith made
chore lists to help Wright learn what needed to be done and gave Wright tips on
how to keep the house clean. Tr. 145. Wright was not receptive and declined the
offer of help with the cleaning. Tr. 146. At times, the house would be cleaner, but
the condition would not be maintained. Tr. 146.
{¶35} As to the personal hygiene of K.C., Wright was just as inconsistent.
Tr. 147. K.C.’s clothing was frequently dirty and smelled of urine and feces. Tr.
147. To help with the situation, the Agency provided Wright with a washer and
dryer so that she could clean K.C.’s clothing. Tr. 147. That did not help as
Wright still did not wash his clothing. Tr. 148. Smith volunteered to come to the
house before school and help make sure K.C. was clean and dressed appropriately.
Tr. 149. Wright allowed her to do so for four days, but was not happy and
constantly yelled at K.C. from where she sat on the couch while Smith was there
helping him. Tr. 150-51. On one occasion Wright helped by grabbing a dirty rag
from the floor and using it to wipe his face. Tr. 151. After four days, Wright
made it clear she did not want Smith there anymore. Tr. 152. For those four days,
-27-
Case No. 1-12-48
there were no problems with K.C.’s appearance at school. Tr. 152. When Smith
was no longer helping, the reports concerning his appearance and hygiene
returned. Tr. 153.
{¶36} Eventually, Smith’s services as a family aide to Wright were
terminated for noncompliance by Wright. Tr. 154. Smith testified that although
she tried on numerous occasions to speak with Wright concerning the issues,
Wright did not recognize there were problems. Tr. 154. Smith further testified
that in her opinion, there was nothing more the Agency could have done to help
Wright due to Wright’s lack of compliance. Tr. 155.
{¶37} Christin Winter (“Winter”) testified that she is a family aide for the
Agency who had been working with Wright from May 2009 until July 2012. Tr.
168. At the beginning, Wright was living in a home on Woodward Avenue. Tr.
197. Winter was originally assigned to work with Wright on maintaining a safe
and appropriate home. Tr. 168. Over time, her goals expanded to include helping
Wright to find employment and teaching her about child developmental levels so
that Wright’s expectations would be reasonable. Tr. 170. At the beginning,
Wright was cooperative with her, but she became less so as time passed. Tr. 170-
71. Winter testified that if she gave Wright a task, such as cleaning out the
refrigerator before the next visit, Wright would agree to do it, but never did. Tr.
171. Eventually, Winter had to bring another party with her on home visits for
-28-
Case No. 1-12-48
safety reasons. Tr. 171. When the caseworker would go with Winter, Wright was
not receptive to anything the caseworker said. Tr. 174. Winter testified that
Wright would tell the caseworker she was not allowed to speak, would ask her to
leave, or would insist that the caseworker only speak to Winter and that Winter
relay the information. Tr. 174. Wright would frequently ask Winter questions that
only the caseworker could answer, but would refuse to speak to the caseworker
when told that Wright would have to call her. Tr. 175. Wright even refused to
give them a contact phone number. Tr. 177. The few times Winter would be
given a number, Wright would tell her not to give it to the caseworker. Tr. 177.
{¶38} Winter was assigned to work with Wright on parenting techniques
because of the Agency’s concerns regarding appropriate discipline techniques. Tr.
178. Concerns were raised because on one occasion, Winter arrived at a visit to
see a child in timeout and the children would remain there for the entire 45 minute
visit. Tr. 178. When Winter mentioned to Wright that it was excessive, Wright
responded that the child had been bad and would sit there until she told them they
could get up. Tr. 179. Although Wright had taken several parenting classes, there
has been no improvement in her parenting skills. Tr. 180. Wright could repeat
what she was taught, but did not implement it in the home. Tr. 181. On most
visits, Wright would either have K.C. in or would immediately send K.C. to his
bedroom for the entire visit. Tr. 181. The result is that majority of the visits
-29-
Case No. 1-12-48
occurred without Winter ever seeing the children, even if the visits lasted for an
hour and a half. Tr. 181-82. When questioned, Wright would say K.C. had been
bad and that she had sent him to his room. Tr. 182.
{¶39} Winter had concerns regarding the conditions in the home. Tr. 182.
There was spoiled, moldy food in the refrigerator, cockroaches throughout the
home, and cords lying all around the floor presenting safety hazards. Tr. 182, 200.
When Winter raised these issues with Wright, she would either roll her eyes and
ignore Winter, or would say she would fix it, but never did. Tr. 183, 200. On
several occasions, Winter found human feces in K.C. and G.W.’s bedroom. Tr.
197. In 2010, Wright started becoming less cooperative. Tr. 183. She eventually
refused to let Winter or the caseworker into the house for an unannounced visit.
Tr. 184, 200. If they went for an announced visit, they were asked to leave when
they tried to address an issue that Wright did not want to discuss. Tr. 184.
Eventually, Wright moved to a different home on Kenilworth. Tr. 201. Wright
had refused to give them the new address, but Wright’s mother gave it to the
caseworker. Tr. 201. As before, the initial visits showed the new home to be in
good order, but conditions deteriorated. Tr. 202. On the day K.C. was removed
from the home, the conditions were deplorable. Tr. 205.
There were – there was food laying around, there were food
wrappers, papers, there were several cockroaches that were
crawling over my shoes and my supervisor’s shoes while we were
-30-
Case No. 1-12-48
standing in there. There was an odor about the home, garbage,
urine.
Tr. 205.
{¶40} Winter continued to work with Wright after K.C. was removed from
her custody. Tr. 184. During the visits, Wright did not interact with K.C. very
often. Tr. 190. Winter attempted to teach Wright how to talk to K.C. and pay
attention to him. Tr. 191. Wright would try to do so, but then one of the younger
children would want attention and she would go back to them. Tr. 191. K.C.
spent most of the visits sitting by himself, sleeping, playing with the younger
children, or talking to Winter. Tr. 193. Visits were stopped by court order after
safety concerns for the staff due to Wright’s behavior were raised. Tr. 195.
Winter testified that she has seen some of the sibling visits. Tr. 195. Without
Wright present, the children all interact more and the atmosphere was more
positive. Tr. 195-96.
{¶41} When questioned about her work with Wright, Winter testified that
she usually only works with a family for up to a year rather than the three years
she had worked with Wright. Tr. 213. Winter testified that for the majority of the
three years, Wright had not been cooperative. Tr. 213.
A. [Wright] would not allow me to do unannounced visits, and
that was part of the agreement that we had from the very
beginning; she would not take the suggestions that I had given
her; she wouldn’t take things seriously when I would tell her
-31-
Case No. 1-12-48
that she needed to do something or needed to take care of
something.
Q. Do you believe that prior to the children being removed
from Ms. Wright’s custody, there’s anything further the agency
could have done to maintain them in her home?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. She had been offered everything that we could possibly
offer her: Transportation, help parenting, connecting with
different resources in the community. There was nothing else
that we could have offered her at that time.
Q. Did you, as a family aide, have concern about the children
remaining in her care?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. The ongoing concerns with home conditions, the way that
she addressed the school when they would have concerns, her
interaction with agency workers.
Tr. 214. Counsel for the Agency also asked Winter if there was anything more the
Agency could do to assist in reunification.
A. No, she was given all the same opportunities that she had
before the children were removed. We tried some of the
same services again.
Q. When you say you tried some of the same services again,
what –
A. Counseling, offered her transportation wherever she
needed to go for case plan services. I stayed on as the family
-32-
Case No. 1-12-48
aide, even though everything that I was going to address had
already been addressed at some point.
Q. And did you again address those issues?
A. I did.
Q. Did you see an improvement?
A. No.
Tr. 215-16.
{¶42} The next witness for the Agency was the GAL. He testified that he
had been working with the family from 2006. Tr. 240. During his tenure, Wright
had lived in multiple homes and they all eventually became deplorable. Tr. 242.
For the first month or so after the family moved, the new home would be
appropriate, but the conditions rapidly deteriorated and began to smell strongly of
urine. Tr. 241-42. If the GAL came in the back door, the kitchen conditions were
cluttered with the trash can overflowing, piles of dirty dishes in the sink, and
empty liquor bottles laying around. Tr. 243. Throughout the Agency’s
involvement with the family, the conditions of the homes were an ongoing
concern that was repeatedly addressed with Wright. Tr. 244. The homes were
infested with cockroaches. Tr. 245. Wright was frequently uncooperative in
allowing the GAL access to the home. Tr. 247. The last time Wright allowed the
GAL into her home was May 19, 2011. Tr. 248. Other visits were attempted, but
Wright would not permit them. Tr. 249. When Wright would allow the GAL into
-33-
Case No. 1-12-48
the home, she would limit his access to certain rooms, specifically her bedroom
which she kept padlocked shut. Tr. 253.
{¶43} The GAL was an active participant in the meetings with the school
regarding K.C. Tr. 254. During the meetings, Wright was adversarial and would
not admit that there was a problem. Tr. 254. This adversarial nature concerned
the GAL and made him insist on her receiving a psychological evaluation. Tr.
259-60. Although Wright was cooperative in the beginning, she has become
uncooperative with the GAL and the Agency over the last few years. Tr. 262-63.
When it was suggested that K.C. be medicated for ADHD, Wright was resistant
and was inconsistent in giving him his medication. Tr. 277-78.
{¶44} Karen Martin (“Martin”) was the caseworker supervisor for the
Agency. Tr. 328. Martin testified that generally family aide services are usually
given to families for six to twelve months. Tr. 329. Martin was the one who
agreed to give Wright extended services for three years. Tr. 329-30. The reason
Martin gave for the extended services was that Wright was not cooperative and
had failed to make progress. Tr. 330. According to Martin, the home conditions
and the hygiene of the children remained poor and Wright failed to obtain
employment, making it necessary for the family aide to continue her involvement.
Tr. 330.
-34-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶45} Although Martin does not usually do home visits as part of her job,
she did in this case to help facilitate communication with Wright on three separate
occasions. Tr. 331. In November of 2010, Martin visited the home to discuss the
contempt citation concerning the home conditions and K.C.’s medication. Tr. 332.
The home was acceptable and Wright had filled the medication, but there were
more pills in the bottle than there should have been. Tr. 332. This fact indicated
that Wright was not giving K.C. his medication consistently. Tr. 333. Wright
admitted to Martin that she did not always give K.C. his medication because she
did not believe it worked. Tr. 333. Martin testified that although the Agency was
sending a cab to pick Wright up and take her to her counseling sessions, Wright
still was not attending. Tr. 334. Martin also addressed the need for Wright to take
K.C. to the dentist on a consistent basis. Tr. 336.
{¶46} Martin’s second home visit was on December 17, 2010, which was
the day they removed the children from the home. Tr. 337. On that day, the home
conditions were of significant concern. Tr. 337.
The toilet in the bathroom was, appeared to be clogged and was
overflowing with urine, feces, used toilet tissue. There were a
large number of cockroaches present in the home. There was
clutter, dirty dishes, dirty bottles, dirty silverware all in the
living room, a number of papers strewn about, overwhelming
smell of urine. Carpet powder had been sprinkled in the boys’
room to, I believe, try and alleviate some of the odor. There
were no sheets on the bed. Large number of cockroaches,
including some crawling on myself and other people that were in
the room.
-35-
Case No. 1-12-48
Tr. 337-38. At that time, K.C. appeared dirty, needed bathed, had matted hair, and
dirty clothes. Tr. 340-41.
{¶47} The third and final home visit by Martin occurred on June 4, 2012.
Tr. 342. The home conditions were better. Tr. 342. Wright indicated that it was
easier to keep the home better without the kids living there. Tr. 342. However,
there were still dirty dishes in the kitchen, spilled food in the refrigerator, live
roaches on the refrigerator, dead roaches in the dog’s food dish. Tr. 342.
{¶48} As part of her job, Martin was involved with the case reviews. Tr.
344. Martin testified that Wright would come to the meetings, but was
uncooperative. Tr. 345. At the meetings, Wright would not answer direct
questions and would not make eye contact with any Agency personnel. Tr. 345.
When reviewing the case, Wright would frequently shake her head and roll her
eyes. Tr. 345. During the last year, Wright would insist that her attorney repeat
the Agency questions before she would answer them. Tr. 345. Wright would
sometimes cooperate, but on other occasions would state that she does not want to
be told what to do because she knows how to parent her children. Tr. 347.
{¶49} Martin testified that the Agency had made numerous attempts to
assist Wright. Tr. 348.
[The Agency] provided food vouchers, vouchers to buy cleaning
products, transportation to appointments, we’ve assisted her
-36-
Case No. 1-12-48
with the purchase of appliances for the home, payment of
utilities, rent, et cetera. Quite a bit of assistance, I believe.
Tr. 348-49. Martin also testified that she agreed with the decision to remove K.C.
from the home in December of 2010. Tr. 349. The decision was made because
Wright was still in contempt of court concerning the home conditions. Tr. 349.
The home conditions were still unacceptable and K.C. was still not getting his
medication. Tr. 349. Martin testified that the Agency had done everything it
could to prevent the removal of K.C. from the home. Tr. 350.
In this particular case, I feel that the [Agency] had gone above
and beyond standard level of reasonable efforts to attempt to
maintain the children in the home with their mother.
Tr. 350. Although the Agency took numerous steps and provided multiple
services, they were unsuccessful. Tr. 351. After K.C. was removed from the
home, Wright’s level of compliance with the case plan did not improve. Tr. 352-
53. Martin concluded after reviewing everything that in the three and a half years
that the agency had been involved with Wright in this case, Wright has not
substantially complied with the case plan and has not demonstrated the ability to
safely parent K.C. in her home. Tr. 356.
{¶50} The next witness provided by the Agency was Michelle Miller
(“Miller”), who was the caseworker for K.C.’s case since April of 2009. Tr. 382.
That case was terminated by operation of law at the end of the two year period and
the Agency immediately filed a new case to continue its involvement. Tr. 383.
-37-
Case No. 1-12-48
The children were removed from Wright’s home on December 17, 2010, and have
not been returned to Wright’s custody since then. Tr. 384. Since she began her
involvement in 2009, the case plans have been similar in goals. Tr. 392.
Whenever Miller would attempt to address her concerns with Wright, Wright
would respond that she would try, but she was doing her best. Tr. 399. Although
Wright would make improvements at various times, she did not maintain the
improvements. Tr. 399. On multiple occasions, Wright would not allow her
access to the house or the children. Tr. 401-02.
{¶51} As for parenting skills, Miller testified that Wright had completed a
parenting class. Tr. 406. Miller testified that Wright’s parenting improved for a
while, but it was not sustained. Tr. 407. Miller had concerns about how Wright
disciplined K.C. Tr. 407. On one occasion, Wright made K.C. sit at attention for
a minimum of 30 minutes, but Miller did not know how long K.C. had been forced
to sit like that prior to or after her visit. Tr. 407-08. In Miller’s opinion, the length
of time was inappropriate for a time out. Tr. 408. When Miller attempted to
address the issue with Wright, Wright just would say that she did not parent in the
same style as Miller. Tr. 408. Miller was concerned specifically about Wright’s
parenting of K.C. Wright did not follow through with the portion of the case plan
requiring her to take K.C. to counseling even though the Agency provided the
transportation. Tr. 410-11. In addition, Wright was convinced that K.C. belonged
-38-
Case No. 1-12-48
in the Juvenile Detention Center and repeatedly wanted to place him there. Tr.
412.
{¶52} Wright was also required to have a source of income to provide for
the basic needs of the family. Tr. 421. Miller testified that Wright had not
obtained employment, but received some income from “doing hair”, babysitting,
and selling candy and cakes. Tr. 422. Most of Wright’s bills are paid by her
mother. Tr. 422.
{¶53} The case plan also required Wright to attend counseling. Tr. 423.
For a period of time, Wright was attending. Tr. 424. The counseling stopped
when Wright lost her medical coverage. Tr. 424. Miller testified that Wright lost
her coverage because she refused to cooperate with Child Support Enforcement by
providing information about the possible fathers of the children, so they suspended
her medical privileges. Tr. 424-25. Once Wright returned to counseling, she was
limited to ten sessions. Tr. 426. However, Miller testified that the Agency
notified Wright that if she completed the ten sessions, the Agency would pay for
additional sessions that were needed. Tr. 426. Wright did not complete the
required ten sessions. Tr. 426. Wright, at the time of the final hearing, was in
counseling and was attending her sessions regularly. Tr. 439. Wright was
working on her anger management. Tr. 440. However, she was not consistently
applying what she had learned. Tr. 440.
-39-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶54} Miller testified that the relationship between Wright and herself
became adversarial. At one point, Wright refused to allow Miller in the home
unless Wright’s attorney was present. Tr. 430. The meetings were unproductive
because Wright would only speak to her attorney and would have no direct
communication with Miller. Tr. 431. Wright became completely uncooperative
and refused to discuss the case plan with Miller or anyone else. Tr. 432.
{¶55} Due to issues with drug usage, Wright was ordered to comply with
drug screens. Tr. 433. Miller requested that Wright have 19 drug screens. Tr.
434. Wright only complied and took 16 drug screens. Tr. 434. Of those, three
tests were positive for marijuana. Tr. 435. The case plan was then amended to
require a drug and alcohol assessment, which Wright completed. Tr. 437. Wright
then completed the Drug and Alcohol Awareness Class. Tr. 437. However, the
third positive test was after Wright completed the class. Tr. 438.
{¶56} Once K.C. was removed from the home, Wright was granted one
visitation a week for two hours each time. Tr. 448. Miller testified that Wright
missed her visits while in jail for contempt of court for failing to comply with the
court ordered case plan. Tr. 448. Upon her release, Wright did not contact the
Agency to arrange for visits for two or three weeks. Tr. 448. Afterwards, Wright
rarely missed a visit. Tr. 448.
{¶57} Miller testified as to the services offered by the Agency as follows.
-40-
Case No. 1-12-48
The [Agency] has offered [Wright] more services than I have
ever offered any other client. We have tried multiple things.
We’ve tried Respite, she refused to do Respite, trying to give her
a break. I’ve tried to work with her for support systems to set
up to try to give her a break. I’ve tried multiple things, multiple
service providers, switched service providers for her. You know,
nothing worked.
Tr. 450. When Miller questioned Wright about possible permanent placements for
the children, Wright refused to discuss the issue with Miller. Tr. 451. K.C. had
been placed in his foster home for over a year. Tr. 452. In that time, K.C. had
integrated into the home and has bonded with the family. Tr. 452. K.C.’s
behaviors have dramatically improved. Tr. 453. That home has been identified as
a potential adoptive home for K.C. Tr. 453. K.C. indicated to Miller that he did
not wish to return to return to Wright’s home. Tr. 455.
{¶58} In opposition to the case presented by the Agency, Wright presented
the testimony of four witnesses, including herself. The first witness to testify was
Barbara Walton (“Walton”), a community health worker who helped Wright after
her pregnancy in 2010. Walton testified that she attempted to meet with Wright at
least twice a month. Tr. 516. She testified that before coming to the home, she
did not call and give advance notice. Tr. 516. Walton testified that during the
visits, she did see some roaches, but did not see clutter. Tr. 519. She did not
notice the smell of urine or feces in the home. Tr. 520. Wright was very
cooperative with Walton and did not hesitate to show her the home. Tr. 521.
-41-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶59} Wright’s second witness was Darlena Stewart (“Stewart”), a friend
of the family. Stewart testified that Wright fed the children. Tr. 557. She also
testified that Wright had issues with K.C. because of K.C.’s behavior. Tr. 556.
Stewart admitted that at times, she could smell urine in Wright’s home, but denied
ever smelling feces. Tr. 558. Stewart also admitted to seeing roaches in the home.
Tr. 565. Stewart testified that Wright sought medical attention for the children
when it was needed. Tr. 564. In addition, Stewart testified that she went with
Wright to a couple of visits. Tr. 568. Wright acted appropriately with the
children. Tr. 569. The discipline Stewart observed Wright use was mainly yelling
at the children. Tr. 570.
{¶60} Sandy Wright (“Sandy”) is Wright’s mother and testified on
Wright’s behalf. Sandy testified that Wright always kept her home clean. Tr. 608.
She also testified that she never saw any cockroaches or noticed any smell of urine
in the home. Tr. 608-09. Sandy indicated that her daughter disciplines the
children by putting them in time out for approximately five minutes. Tr. 620-21.
{¶61} Wright herself testified on her behalf. Wright testified that when the
Agency suggested counseling for K.C., she agreed that he needed it. Tr. 652. She
testified that the family aide bought her cleaning supplies but did not actually do
anything. Tr. 654. Wright claimed that she tried to follow the suggestions of the
family aide. Tr. 654. The relationship between Wright and the Agency soured
-42-
Case No. 1-12-48
when Miller became her caseworker. Tr. 655. Wright felt like Miller wanted her
to do everything Miller’s way and would not let her make any parenting decisions
for herself. Tr. 655. Wright was concerned because she believed that some of
Miller’s instructions contradicted what she had been taught in parenting class. Tr.
656. Miller also was not helping her with dealing with K.C.’s behavioral issues at
the school and at home, specifically his hitting people and stealing. Tr. 657-58.
Wright also denied that she had ever withheld food from K.C. Tr. 658.
{¶62} Concerning the issues with K.C. at school, Wright testified that the
school was upset because K.C. would hit the other children and his teachers. Tr.
658. She testified that the principal told her she needed to either spank K.C. or put
him in time out. Tr. 662. She admitted that there were times she got upset during
a school meeting, so would walk out of the meeting to handle her anger. Tr. 662.
{¶63} When questioned about the home, Wright testified that the family
aide did give her suggestions for cleaning, which she took. Tr. 664. Wright
claimed that most of the time, her house was clean. Tr. 664. She admitted that
when Miller became her caseworker, she developed “an attitude” when Miller
would try to instruct her on what to do. Tr. 666. Rather than getting too angry,
Wright would instead ask Miller to leave. Tr. 666. Wright testified that when she
met her current counselor, things improved and she learned how to control her
temper. Tr. 667-68. Throughout her testimony, Wright indicated that all of the
-43-
Case No. 1-12-48
issues were the result of her poor relationship with the Agency personnel and that
she had worked on that issue and could now work with them better. Tr. 767.
{¶64} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court was unable to
conclude the case due to some transcripts which had been stipulated to by the
parties that had yet to be filed.5 As a result, the trial court delayed the closing
arguments until a later date. Closing arguments were scheduled for October 11,
2012. However, on October 12, 2012, the parties all waived closing arguments
and the case was submitted to the trial court. The trial court entered its judgment
entry terminating Wright’s parental rights to K.C. on October 19, 2012. Wright
appeals from this judgment and raises the following assignments of error.
First Assignment of Error
The awarding of permanent custody by the trial court below was
not based upon clear and convincing evidence and therefore
improper.
Second Assignment of Error
The reliance of the trial court upon corporal punishment of a
child by a parent that took place prior to the filing of a
complaint and was, in fact, the basis of a prior complaint for
abuse that was terminated and the children returned to the
mother is misplaced and violates the rights of a parent to
reasonable physical discipline of a child.
5
The transcripts were subsequently filed and considered by the trial court in reaching its judgment.
-44-
Case No. 1-12-48
Third Assignment of Error
The State of Ohio through [the Agency] failed to make
reasonable efforts to provide services to the family here and to
avoid the permanent removal of the children from the home.
{¶65} In the first assignment of error, Wright alleges that the findings of
the trial court were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The right to
raise one’s own child is a basic and essential civil right. In re Murray, 52 Ohio
St.3d 155, (1990). “Parents have a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care,
custody, and management of their children.” In re Leveck, 3d Dist. No. 5-02-52,
5-02-53, 5-02-54,
2003-Ohio-1269, ¶6. These rights may be terminated,
however, under appropriate circumstances and when all due process safeguards
have been followed.
Id. When considering a motion to terminate parental rights,
the trial court must comply with the statutory requirements set forth in R.C.
2151.414. These requirements include in pertinent part as follows.
(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the
court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the
court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of
this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the
best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child
to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and
that any of the following apply:
(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in the
temporary custody of one or more public children services
agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more
months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or has not
been in the temporary custody of one or more public children
services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or
-45-
Case No. 1-12-48
more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period if, as
described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised
Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an
equivalent agency in another state, and the child cannot be
placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time
or should not be placed with the child’s parents.
…
(2) With respect to a motion made pursuant to [R.C.
2151.413(D)(1)], the court shall grant permanent custody of the
child to the movant if the court determines in accordance with
division (E) of this section that the child cannot be placed with
one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not
be placed with either parent and determines in accordance with
division (D) of this section that permanent custody is in the
child’s best interest.
(C) In making the determination required by this section …, a
court shall not consider the effect the granting of permanent
custody to the agency would have upon any parent of the child.
A written report of the guardian ad litem of the child shall be
submitted to the court prior to or at the time of the hearing held
pursuant to division (A) of this section … but shall not be
submitted under oath.
…
(D)(1) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing
held pursuant to division (A) of this section …, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including, 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-ofhome providers, and any other person who may significantly
affect the child;
-46-
Case No. 1-12-48
(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
services 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.
…
(E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of
this section … whether a child cannot be placed with either
parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be
placed with the parents, the court shall consider all relevant
evidence. If the court determines by clear and convincing
evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this
section … that one or more of the following exist as to each of
the child’s parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child
cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or
should not be placed with either parent:
(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s
home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent
efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the
problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the
home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to
substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be
placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the
parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court
shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric,
psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and
material resources that were made available to the parents for
-47-
Case No. 1-12-48
the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to
resume and maintain parental duties.
…
(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward
the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate
with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an
unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the
child;
R.C. 2151.414.
{¶66} At the time the Agency filed the motion for permanent custody, K.C.
had not been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than one year.
Thus, the trial court was required to determine whether there were sufficient
factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) to support the conclusion by clear and convincing
evidence that K.C. could not and should not be placed with Wright within a
reasonable period of time. The trial court determined that Wright had not shown
that she could keep the house clean for a sustained period of time. This occurred
despite the fact that the agency had been working with her for many years and had
made many attempts to help her. There was a great deal of testimony by multiple
witnesses that although Wright would start out with a clean house, within a
month, it would be back to substandard conditions with roaches, clutter, and an
overwhelming stench of urine coming from it. While Wright had custody of
K.C., he frequently went to school dirty and smelling of urine and feces. The
Agency worked with Wright for several years before removing K.C. and
-48-
Case No. 1-12-48
continued to work with her afterward. Thus, there was clear and convincing
evidence as to the first factor under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).
{¶67} In addition, there was substantial evidence that Wright lacked
commitment to provide an adequate home for K.C. Wright frequently would not
work with the Agency workers or with the school employees to try and help K.C.
When the workers would offer assistance, she would decline it. When the
caseworkers wanted to view the home, she refused. Even when Wright allowed
the workers into the home, she refused to give them access to all the rooms. At
times, she even refused the workers access to the children. She also admitted that
she did not always give K.C. his medicine for ADHD because she did not believe
it helped. When it came to counseling, Wright would decide to discontinue her
therapy if she believed the therapist was reporting to the Agency. Over the
multiple years she worked on her case plan, she did not make much progress and
most of the progress she did make disappeared over time. Given this evidence,
the trial court could conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Wright
lacked the commitment to providing an adequate home as set forth in R.C.
2151.414(E)(4).
{¶68} Having found factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) present, the trial court
was required to enter a finding that K.C. cannot be placed with Wright within a
reasonable time. The trial court then had to consider the factors under R.C.
-49-
Case No. 1-12-48
2151.414(D) to determine if the termination of parental rights was in the best
interest of K.C. The trial court specifically stated that it had considered the
factors. A review of the record shows that the foster parents were continuing to
allow K.C. to have a relationship with his siblings and that K.C. had adjusted well
to being a part of the foster family. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). K.C., through the
GAL and through the testimony of the caseworker, indicated that he did not want
to return to his mother. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b). The trial court also considered
the length of time K.C. was in the temporary custody of the Agency and his need
for a permanent placement. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c, d). In addition, the foster
mother has expressed interest in adopting K.C., which would help to grant a
permanency that K.C. needed and wanted. That was the outcome that K.C.
wanted.
{¶69} Upon a review of the lengthy record, there was more than sufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions by clear and convincing evidence
that K.C. could not be returned to Wright within a reasonable period of time.
There was also more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
conclusions by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of Wright’s
parental rights was in the best interest of K.C. Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating the parental rights of Wright and the first assignment of error is
overruled.
-50-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶70} Wright claims in the second assignment of error that the trial court
erred by relying upon the prior claim for excessive physical discipline. A review
of the record shows that there is no basis for this assignment of error. Although
the trial court mentioned the prior claim while discussing the history of the case, it
was not one of the reasons cited by the trial court for the termination of parental
rights. The trial court cited to the deplorable home conditions as well as the
children’s personal hygiene, Wright’s resistance to working with the school, her
resistance to counseling, her refusal to cooperate with the Agency workers, and
her refusal to work with the GAL. Oct. 19, 2012, J.E., 5-7. The trial court also
pointed to how K.C.’s behavioral issues and hygiene have improved since he has
been out of the home. Id. at 8. The trial court pointed to the long history this
family has with the Agency and how Wright has made little sustained progress
over the many years the Agency has worked with her. Id. at 7-8. Specifically, the
trial court noted that the psychological evaluation showed that Wright had a low
IQ and a poor prognosis for changing her behavior due to her paranoid thinking.
Id. at 8-9. At no point did the trial court rely upon Wright’s conviction for
physically abusing K.C. during the earlier case. Thus, the trial court did not err.
The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶71} Finally, Wright argues that the trial court erred by finding that the
Agency had made reasonable efforts to provide services to the family to avoid the
-51-
Case No. 1-12-48
removal of the children. The evidence does not support Wright’s claim. The
record indicates that the Agency did everything it could to assist Wright. The
Agency allowed Wright to continue to try and reach the same goals set forth in
the case plan since 2009. During that time, Wright was provided with a family
aid to try and help her learn to be a better parent, to learn to clean the house, and
to assist with finding employment. The family aid went above and beyond the
expectations by volunteering to help Wright clean her house and by coming to the
home every morning to help insure that K.C. was clean and wearing clean clothes
before he left for school each day. The Agency helped Wright by providing
cleaning supplies, furniture, and appliances so that Wright could provide an
adequate home for K.C. The Agency also provided transportation so that Wright
and K.C. could each attend their counseling sessions. Finally, the Agency worked
with Wright and the schools to address K.C.’s behavioral issues. The problem
was not with what the Agency offered, it was Wright’s refusal to make use of
what was offered. Based upon the testimony before it, the trial court could very
reasonably conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the Agency did
everything it could to prevent the removal of K.C. from the home and to attempt
to return K.C. to the home. The third assignment of error is overruled.
-52-
Case No. 1-12-48
{¶72} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the
particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allen County, Juvenile Division is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur.
/jlr
-53-
