In re G.G., 2022 Ohio 1654

Background:

G.G., born January 13, 2020; CSB filed initial complaints concerning G.G. and three older siblings earlier in 2020; those complaints were dismissed after an adjudicatory hearing in August 2020.
CSB filed new complaints on August 10, 2020 (and an amended complaint Aug. 11), alleging dependency/abuse based on events from January–August 2020, including newly disclosed July/August events.
At adjudication the magistrate dismissed the abuse charge for G.G. but found the child dependent; after disposition G.G. was placed in the temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB).
Mother filed objections arguing, inter alia, that res judicata barred re-litigation and that the adjudication/disposition were against the manifest weight of the evidence; the juvenile court overruled her objections and entered judgment; Mother appealed.
Evidence at the adjudicatory/dispositional hearings: Mother had untreated substance abuse (positive opiate screens; intoxicated at a Summa assessment; recommendations for inpatient detox), probation noncompliance and outstanding warrants, missed infant medical appointments, and limited engagement with offered services; Father lacked stable housing and had criminal/instability concerns.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court on all three assignments of error, upholding the dependency finding and temporary custody award to CSB.

Issues:

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CSB’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court failed to consider all timely objections to the magistrate’s decision	Juvenile court did not address Mother’s res judicata objection and therefore must remand	Trial court’s order overruling Mother’s filed objections and its substantive rulings show it addressed and implicitly rejected the objections	Overruled — court sufficiently ruled on objections (explicit order overruling and implicit rejection)
Whether res judicata barred CSB from filing the August 10, 2020 complaint	The new complaint impermissibly relitigated claims already dismissed on the merits in the prior case	The new complaint asserted events and allegations that were not litigated in the prior case (evidence of later events was excluded previously)	Overruled — res judicata did not bar the new complaint; later-occurring allegations were not previously adjudicated
Whether adjudication of dependency was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Mother: evidence did not clearly and convincingly show dependency	CSB: evidence (substance abuse, positive drug screens, intoxication, missed medical care, unstable father) established dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C)	Overruled — adjudication was not against manifest weight; clear and convincing evidence supported dependency
Whether placement of G.G. in CSB temporary custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Mother: temporary custody was not in child’s best interest	CSB: temporary custody was in child’s best interest given parents’ instability, substance abuse, warrants, and lack of verified services	Overruled — disposition awarding temporary custody to CSB was not against manifest weight; best-interest factors supported placement

Key Cases Cited

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (explains res judicata bars subsequent actions arising from same transaction or occurrence)
Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322 (2015) (discusses claim preclusion and that a final judgment bars claims that were or might have been litigated)
In re Hunt, 46 Ohio St.2d 378 (1976) (adjudication must be based on evidence adduced at adjudicatory hearing)
In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (defines the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (articulates the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (sets forth manifest-weight review and presumption of correctness for factfinder)
Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299 (1877) (establishes the best-interest-of-the-child principle as controlling in custody decisions)