In re G.T.
2022 Ohio 1406
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- R.M. (Mother) was arrested after an altercation with the child’s grandmother on June 20, 2021; CCDCFS obtained emergency custody of G.T. (born 6/1/2018) and placed him with Grandmother.
- CCDCFS filed a complaint (June 23, 2021) alleging neglect and dependency based on Mother’s unresolved mental‑health concerns (threats to kill herself and the child), unstable housing, lack of income, and unknown/absent father.
- Mother denied some allegations, stipulated to probable cause for temporary removal (with G.T. to remain with Grandmother), and later disputed the agency’s proof; the magistrate removed an allegation that Mother brandished a knife but otherwise adjudicated G.T. neglected and dependent.
- The court ordered a case plan (mental‑health assessment, housing, income) and predispositional/temporary custody to CCDCFS; Mother objected to the magistrate’s adjudication and appealed after the juvenile court affirmed.
- Mother challenged the sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence for neglect and dependency and argued the agency witness (caseworker Lakes) misrepresented her title (“social worker”), potentially affecting credibility/perjury issues.
- The appellate court reviewed the record for clear and convincing evidence and deference to trial‑court credibility findings and affirmed the juvenile court’s adjudications and temporary custody order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication of neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: agency relied on unemployment, non‑permanent housing, and an unsupported mental‑health allegation; she had a friend willing to house them and could obtain assistance | CCDCFS: at the complaint date Mother had threatened suicide/homicide, was jailed after domestic violence, refused the agency safety plan, lacked stable housing and income | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported neglect (threats, refusal of safety plan, housing/financial instability); credibility calls deferred to trial court |
| Whether adjudication of dependency was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: no diagnosed mental illness or homelessness; friend’s home was available; no statutory basis for dependency | CCDCFS: same underlying facts (inadequate parental care, mental‑health concerns, domestic violence, unstable housing) support dependency under R.C. 2151.04(A),(B),(C) | Affirmed — record supports dependency under (A),(B),(C) by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Lakes’s misstatement (calling herself a “social worker”) required reversal | Mother: mislabeling may be criminal/use as basis for perjury and undermines Lakes’s credibility; court limited further inquiry | CCDCFS: misstatement was a one‑time error, immaterial to outcome; court permitted credibility questioning | Affirmed — misstatement immaterial; court properly limited probing about alleged criminal liability; appellate court defers to trial‑court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (definition of the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (discussion of the clear‑and‑convincing proof measure)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (deference to trial‑court credibility determinations in custody matters)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial judge best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- In re Riddle, 79 Ohio St.3d 259 (distinguishing neglect and dependency; fault required for neglect)
- In re Burrell, 58 Ohio St.2d 37 (parental conduct relevance to dependency inquiry)
- State v. Jacobozzi, 6 Ohio St.3d 86 (materiality element of perjury)