In re S.L.
56 N.E.3d 1026
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Union County Juv. Ct. adjudicated S.L. (child of Erica Skaggs) as an abused child under R.C. 2151.031(A) and both S.L. and A.L. as dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C)/(D); Agency had filed complaints Jan 7, 2015 after reports of sexual abuse and domestic violence.
- Court issued emergency/temporary orders restricting Joel (stepfather) from contact; temporary custody later placed S.L. with biological father Scott and A.L. with Erica, with Agency protective supervision.
- At adjudicatory hearings (Mar 16 & 18, 2015) the court relied on testimony from a Child Advocacy Center social worker (Westgate), an Agency intake investigator, and a recording of an earlier ex parte protection-order hearing.
- Erica appealed, arguing (inter alia) the court failed to make required written findings for dependency (R.C. 2151.28(L)), misapplied R.C. 2151.04(D) by relying on a simultaneous adjudication, improperly admitted hearsay (Evid.R. 803(4)), and that abuse finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed the abuse adjudication for S.L., reversed the dependency findings (in part) for failure to comply with R.C. 2151.28(L), reversed A.L.’s dependency under R.C. 2151.04(D) for insufficient evidence, and remanded for proper written findings where required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Skaggs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the juvenile court comply with R.C. 2151.28(L) by making written findings to support dependency adjudications? | Agency relied on hearing record; court’s brief recital was sufficient. | Trial court failed to make the written "findings of fact and conclusions of law" (including specific danger and family problems) required by the statute. | Court: Judgment entries lacked required written findings; reversed dependency adjudications under R.C. 2151.04(C)/(D) and remanded for compliance with R.C. 2151.28(L). |
| Can R.C. 2151.04(D) support a dependency adjudication when the sibling’s adjudication occurred simultaneously (not prior to the complaint)? | Agency: juvenile system may proceed to protect children; simultaneous adjudications should be allowed. | Skaggs: statutory date-of-complaint timing requires the sibling’s adjudication predate the complaint. | Court: R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) unambiguous—past tense “was the basis for an adjudication” requires a prior adjudication before the complaint; A.L.’s R.C. 2151.04(D) adjudication reversed for insufficient evidence. |
| Was testimony from the Child Advocacy Center social worker admissible under Evid.R. 803(4) (statements for medical diagnosis/treatment)? | Agency: Westgate’s testimony qualified under Evid.R. 803(4) because statements were made as part of medical/mental-health assessment and relayed to medical team. | Skaggs: statements to a social worker are investigatory, not for diagnosis/treatment; hearsay inadmissible. | Court: Westgate acted as a health advocate and her testimony fell within Evid.R. 803(4); admission not an abuse of discretion. |
| Was the adjudication that S.L. was an abused child against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Agency: testimony (including Westgate) supported findings of sexual contact constituting abuse. | Skaggs: trial relied on improper hearsay and an isolated incident was insufficient for clear-and-convincing proof. | Court: Even excluding challenged evidence, competent, credible evidence supported the abuse adjudication for S.L.; manifest-weight challenge overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (Ohio 1992) (Evid.R. 803(4) permits child victim’s statements identifying perpetrator if made for diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 2007) (analysis of reliability factors for child statements under Evid.R. 803(4))
- In re B.E., 102 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio 2004) (juvenile court’s duty to make and preserve a record under Juv.R. 37)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (presumption of correctness for factfinder’s findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)