In re J.G.
2013 Ohio 417
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- J.G., born August 2, 2000, was adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary CSB custody in Wayne County.
- Father, though not the only party, is the only parent appealing; Step-mother and her daughter participate in proceedings.
- J.G. previously resided with paternal grandmother in custody; after grandmother’s death, J.G. went to Father and Step-mother, with Step-mother having sole legal custody due to Father’s medical issues.
- CSB had an ongoing voluntary case plan due to domestic violence between Father and Step-mother; CSB later filed an involuntary dependency case after escalated incidents, including suicide threats.
- Father recorded Step-mother’s suicide attempt; caseworker learned of the video; weekend incidents led to removal and CSB filing a dependency petition.
- Judge Wiest presided after Judge Leisy retired and Judge Wiles disclosed a conflict; temporary appointment allowed under Sup.R. 3(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Wiest had subject matter jurisdiction | Wiest lacked jurisdiction due to transfer; case moved divisions improperly | Wiest was properly assigned under temporary assignment rules | Wiest properly presided; jurisdiction valid |
| Whether the evidence supports dependency under RC 2151.04(C) | CSB proved detrimental environment from ongoing domestic violence and suicide threats | Father argues no proof of detriment from environment itself | Evidence supports dependency; environment deemed detrimental |
| Whether the trial court erred by admitting caseworker testimony on non-testifying reports at dispositional hearing | CSB testimony about reports was properly admitted hearsay exception and relevant to best interests | Unauthorized admission of third-party reports and failure to inspect documents | No reversible error; dispositional hearing allows wide evidence; testimony upheld |
| Whether the trial court erred by allowing the caseworker to read notes and consult documents at dispositional hearing | Notes and documents properly admitted and essential to inform best interests | Defendant was not given opportunity to inspect documents | Harmless/insufficient basis for reversal; upheld |
| Whether the trial court erred by requiring Father to undergo substance abuse assessment/treatment as part of the case plan | Case-plan requirements are within court discretion and proper | Court lacked jurisdiction to address this interlocutory aspect | Court lacked jurisdiction to review this aspect; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.J., 111 Ohio St.3d 205 (2006-Ohio-5484) (temporary assignment doesn't void subject matter jurisdiction)
- In re P.T., 9th Dist. No. 24207, 2008-Ohio-4690 (2008-Ohio-4690) (jurisdiction and standard for dependency proceedings)
- In re B.M., 2012-Ohio-4093 (2012-Ohio-4093) (appeal scope and final judgments in dependency cases)
- In re D.V., 2009-Ohio-2924 (2009-Ohio-2924) (necessity of explicit findings under RC 2151.419(B)(1))
- In re E.T., 2005-Ohio-6087 (2005-Ohio-6087) (appellate review of dependency findings)
- In re Pieper Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 319 (1993) (language on treatment of reasonable efforts findings)