In re D.V.
* * * * *
Salvatore C. Molaro, Jr., for appellant.
Dianne L. Keeler, for appellee.
* * * * *
HANDWORK, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, W.V., appeals a decision of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting custody of his daughter, D.V., to his sister and her husband. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} The record in this case reveals that the minor child, D.V., was removed from her (unmarried) parents shortly after her birth in September 2006. The removal
{¶ 3} On December 18, 2006, the magistrate found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child was a dependent child. The magistrate ordered protective supervision by the agency and allowed the child to return to the custody of the parents. On January 17, 2007, the trial judge adopted the decision of the magistrate and, further, specifically ordered that the mother‘s contact with the child was to be supervised.
{¶ 4} On July 2, 2007, the agency once again removed the child through an ex parte order, this time following a domestic violence incident involving the child‘s parents and paternal grandparents. On July 3, 2007, the agency filed a “motion to change disposition and for shelter care hearing.” In this motion, the agency alleged that the child had been present during two incidents of domestic violence, that the police had been called in the second incident, and that observable physical injuries had been inflicted. The trial court granted the motion, awarding temporary custody of the child to the agency for placement in shelter care.
{¶ 6} I. “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE MAGISTRATE‘S RULING THAT REASONABLE EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE MINOR CHILD FROM THE APPELLANT/FATHER.”
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} In the instant case, the magistrate‘s January 4, 2008 decision contains a box that is checked, indicating that reasonable efforts were made by the agency to prevent the need for removal of the child from her home. On a line beneath this box, the magistrate wrote: “mental health services; counseling; diagnostic assessment.” Nowhere is there any indication as to which parent these services applied, or is there any explanation as to why those services did not prevent the removal of the child from the child‘s home or enable the child to return safely home.
{¶ 9} Later entries by the trial judge provide no additional information. For instance, the trial judge, in her June 20, 2008 judgment entry, simply stated that she found that “reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for removal.” Similarly, in her June 23, 2008 judgment entry, the trial judge stated only, “Removal of the child(ren) is unavoidable under circumstances despite reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal. Reasonable efforts included: mental health services, counseling, diagnostic assessment.”
{¶ 11} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed and remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.