In re A.W., 195 Ohio App. 3d 379

Mother’s first child F.M. was adjudicated abused and dependent after prior injuries; no perpetrator identified.
A.W. was born March 15, 2010, and CSB removed her from the hospital two days after birth based on risk due to F.M.’s history.
CSB sought temporary custody and adjudication of dependency for A.W.
Trial court ultimately found A.W. dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D) rather than 2151.04(C).
Mother challenges the dependency finding under 2151.04(D) as not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Court reverses, holding CSB failed to prove 2151.04(D)(1) and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.W. is dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D)	CSB proves sibling-based risk; D(1) satisfied	Evidence insufficient to show a household member committed an act against F.M.	Yes; not proven; dependency under D(1) not established; remanded

In re M.H., 9th Dist. No. 09CA0028 (2009-Ohio-6911) (weights/must be clear and convincing for dependency determinations; standard of review)
In re E.R., 2006-Ohio-4816 (2006 WL 2661046) (affirms scope of D(1) when siblings involved)
In re P.G., 2008-Ohio-4015 (2008 WL 3199474) (statutory interpretation of 2151.04(D) guidance)
In re S.M., 2007-Ohio-2297 (2007 WL 1394634) (reiterates application of D(1) when prior abuse details show ongoing danger)
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (2006-Ohio-954) (plain-language statutory interpretation rule)