Swank v. Swank

R.C. 2151.414/permanent custody best interest of the child manifest weight. The trial court's determination that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children was proper. The trial court considered factors under R.C. 2151.414 for abandonment, lack of action, best interest of the children and custodial history. The trial court's judgment of permanent custody to CCDCFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error fails where the record supports that the trial court's determination was in the best interest of the children.

This case involves a post-divorce action, in which the father filed a petition for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother failed to pay her portion of the child's medical expenses pursuant to the permanent parenting plan. The Trial Court denied the father's request that the mother be held in contempt but awarded the father a judgment for the mother's portion of the child's medical expenses. The Trial Court declined to award attorney's fees to the father and ordered that the mother be permitted to make installment payments to the father. We vacate the Trial Court's order permitting the installment payments as being premature. We further modify the judgment against Mother to $38,759.11 upon our determination that the amount paid by the father to Mountain Management and Denials Management was only $1,781.76. We affirm the Trial Court's judgment in all other aspects.

The respondent father appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, P. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Department of Children and Families had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with P, that he was unable or unwilling to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation, and that it was in P's best interest to terminate his parental rights. Held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that the respondent father failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, he could assume a responsible position in the life of P: a. The father could not prevail on his challenge to the trial court's determinations with respect to his drug use: the father admitted to having smoked marijuana daily through the early stages of the department's involvement, and he was discharged from a clinic to which he was referred due to lack of engagement; moreover, the court did not improp- erly place the burden to provide drug testing on the father, rather, the court simply found that the father reported that he had stopped daily marijuana use but had submitted to only one toxicology screen, and the court did not indicate that it had inferred that the father was hiding drug use because he had taken only one drug test; furthermore, it was within the purview of the court to question the father's sincerity given his recent engagement in services in anticipation of litigation, despite the fact that he had had two years to participate in such services, and to conclude that the father's efforts were ''too little too late.'' b. The father could not prevail on his claim that the record did not support a finding that he had unresolved mental health issues that served as a barrier to reunification;