COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 73260, 73261, 73262, 73263 IN THE MATTER OF: BESSIE POLING (73260), DANIEL POLING (73261), LORETTA POLING (73262), JOURNAL ENTRY TIMOTHY POLING (73263), Plaintiff-appellee AND OPINION vs. DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 5, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeals from Juvenile Court Division of Common Pleas Court, Case Nos. 9591703, 9591704, 9591705, 9591706 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES ROBERT A. DIXON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 1280 West 3rd Street, Suite 100 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MICHELLE A. MYERS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JOAN LISSNER 2 Berea Commons, #208 Berea, Ohio 44017 LYNN STEWART Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services 3955 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- KARPINSKI, J.: Cathy Poling appeals in these consolidated appeals from orders of the Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights and granting permanent custody of their four children, Bessie, Daniel, Loretta and Timothy, to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services ( CCDCFS ). The Polings' contact with CCDCFS began most recently in October 1994, when CCDCFS learned that the family was living in inadequate housing without heat or running water. CCDCFS developed a case plan, which required random drug tests and parenting education. The children remained with their parents. However, the parents did not comply with their case plan and, in June 1995, three of the children were removed from their parents' custody by Cleveland police officers, who found them living in their condemned house.1 When CCDCFS filed a complaint on June 8, 1995, alleging that the children were neglected, the court granted emergency custody. Following a hearing on August 9, 1995, the juvenile court found the four children to be dependent and granted temporary custody to CCDCFS. The children were placed in foster care. The reunification plan required the parents to remain drug free, attend parenting and domestic violence classes, refrain from illegal activity, and obtain safe, secure, and stable housing. Although 1 The Polings had five children. Two were not at the house when the police took the three youngest children into custody. These appeals do not involve the oldest child. -3- they completed parenting class, additional classes were required, but they failed to attend. Moreover, they tested positive for drugs and refused to indicate where they were living. On December 9, 1996, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. The motion was supported by an affidavit which alleged, inter alia: 1) That the child(ren) is/are not abandoned or orphaned and cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time as follows: a) The parents have failed to remedy the conditions that caused the removal of the children from the home. b) Parents have not complete [sic] a drug and alcohol assessment and are continually observed intoxicated. c) Though parents did attend a parenting class they failed to participate in the class and to benefit from the classes. d) Though parents visit children monthly their visits are supervised in that their visits are inappropriate and place the children at harm. e) Parents have not otherwise provided for the care and support of the children. The affidavit concluded by explaining that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children and that CCDCFS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. There were recurring problems during and after supervised visits. Cathy directed the children to pull knives on other foster children and act up while in foster care so that they would be returned to her. The juvenile court found grounds to terminate visitation in February, 1997. The motion for permanent custody was scheduled for hearing and -4- continued several times.2 presented testimony from five witnesses, including three social workers, a supervising home therapist, and an assistant county Social workers Dana Hokr, Jennifer Kessinger, anAt the permanent Rhonda Callahan testified at length about the Polings' failure to comply with the terms of their case plan. They had not maintained a stable residence, and both parents tested positive for drugs, which prevented them from attending parenting programs. Three of the children had been sexually abused by one of their father's friends. Although Dan denied any knowledge of this abuse, Assistant Prosecutor Debra Naiman testified that one of his children told her that he had informed Dan of such abuse, but that Dan continued to allow access by the abuser to the children after the allegations had been made. The prosecutor also testified that Dan, who had been using an alias, had recently been convicted of receiving stolen property under his false name. Callahan testified that the children were doing better after the chaotic parental visits terminated in February 1997. The parents called them by telephone only a couple of times thereafter and never wrote letters. The children asked to see only their siblings. Joan Lissner, guardian ad litem for the children, filed a report which recommended that it was in the best interest of the 2 Although joint counsel was originally appointed for both parents of the children, Cathy and Dan Poling, separate counsel was ultimately appointed for Dan, who had a criminal action pending against him. Dan Poling did not file a notice of appeal from the termination of his parental rights and is not a party to these appeals. -5- children to be placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS. In an attempt to show they provided stable housing, the Polings offered the testimony of Cathy Poling's mother, Nancy Lee, who stated the Poling family lived with her around the time of April 1995. Following the hearing, the juvenile court journalized its judgment which provided in pertinent part as follows: THE COURT HEARD EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION THEREOF, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTION HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. REASONABLE EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF SAID CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOME. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CONTINUED RESIDENCE OF THE CHILDREN IN THEIR HOME WILL BE CONTRARY TO THEIR BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE PARENTS HAVE FAILED TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOME. Cathy timely appeals, raising the following sole assignment of error: THE LOWER COURT ERRED AND DENIED THE APPELLANTS [SIC] DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN ON LESS THAN CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. This assignment lacks merit. Cathy Poling argues there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to terminate her parental rights. She also argues that the juvenile court's findings were not sufficiently detailed to support its judgment. We disagree. It is well established that permanent custody may not be awarded to a county department of human services unless the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that at least -6- one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists. In Re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95, syllabus. The record in the case at bar reveals evidence of several statutory factors, but the juvenile court expressly relied upon subsection (1). R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) specifically applies when the parents fail continuously and repeatedly for a period of six months or more to substantiallyremedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home. The record in the case at bar supports the finding of the juvenile court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing their children to be placed outside the home. The record contains evidence that the parents failed to satisfy the terms of their first case plan. They did not maintain stable, adequate housing. Although Cathy Poling's mother stated the Polings lived with her early in 1995, three children were found living in a different home, which lacked water and heat and had been condemned. There was evidence, moreover, of friction among the extended family. After the children were placed with CCDCFS, the parents maintained at least six different residences within a fourteen-month period and ceased reporting their address. Despite referrals to area hospitals, the parents did not complete drug assessment and treatment programs. This failure made it difficult for them to complete parenting classes. Although they completed one class, further classes were necessary before reunification could occur. Subsequent drug tests revealed that each parent tested positive for drugs. Neither parent attended any -7- additional parenting classes. In short, the record showed the parents had not made substantial progress, nor had they made any recent progress, of any kind, toward reunification under their case plan. The children, who had been in foster care for approximately two years, required more stable and permanent living arrangements. Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -8- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Juvenile Court Division of the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, P.J., and TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .