IN THE MATTER OF: L.K.
CASE NO. CA2014-06-145
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
3/23/2015
[Cite as In re L.K., 2015-Ohio-1091.]
S. POWELL, J.
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2013-0331
John Treleven, 810 Sycamore Street, 2nd Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for appellant
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
O P I N I O N
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, H.L. (Mother), appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of her daughter, L.K., to the child‘s paternal relatives, L.F. and J.F. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Mother, who has a history of substance abuse and diagnosed mental illness, gave birth to L.K. on September 27, 2008. Thereafter, on March 4, 2013, when L.K. was just
{¶ 3} On June 4, 2014, the Butler County Department of Job and Family Services, Children Services Division (BCCS), filed a complaint with the juvenile court alleging L.K. was a dependent child pursuant to
On 6/4/2013, BCCS received a referral alleging the dependency of [L.K.]. The referral reported that [Mother] was kicked out of the Rural Wom[e]n‘s Recovery Program in Athens, Ohio due to her aggressive and intimidating behaviors. [Mother] was to be in the program for 90-120 days as this was court ordered through Butler County Probation. After [Mother] was released from the program, Butler County Probation was notified and violated [Mother] on a violation of probation for not completing treatment. [Mother] was picked up by Athens County Sheriff and transported to their jail where she will remain until Butler County generates her extradition order, which will most likely occur on 6/5/2013 or 6/6/2013, at which point she will be placed at the Butler County Jail.
{¶ 4} After receiving BCCS‘s complaint of dependency, a juvenile court magistrate placed L.K. in the temporary custody of BCCS and ordered an expedited home study of L.K.‘s paternal relatives. The magistrate then adjudicated L.K. a dependent child. It is undisputed that although the child‘s father appeared at the hearing, Mother did not. BCCS then filed an amended complaint, which stated, in pertinent part, that both the child‘s mother and father “felt it is in [L.K.‘s] best interest to be placed with [L.F. and J.F.],” and that the child‘s paternal relatives “are willing and able to care for [L.K.].” After their home study was approved, and once they became licensed foster parents, the magistrate held a dispositional
{¶ 5} Just as the prior adjudication hearing, Mother did not attend the dispositional hearing, nor any of the juvenile court‘s numerous review hearings. Nevertheless, Mother filed an objection to the magistrate‘s decision alleging “[m]y case workers for BCCS set up transportation for myself to be brought to the hearing and they failed to show.” As a result, Mother requested the juvenile court to “set another court date and allow me opportunity to show my progress.” Finding no merit to Mother‘s claim, the juvenile court overruled Mother‘s objection, affirming and adopting the magistrate‘s decision in its entirety.
{¶ 6} Mother now appeals from the juvenile court‘s decision awarding legal custody of L.K. to the child‘s paternal relatives, raising two assignments of error for review.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDICATING L.K. DEPENDENT, AS BUTLER COUNTY WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER L.K. WAS A DEPENDENT CHILD.
{¶ 9} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues Butler County was not the proper venue to adjudicate L.K. a dependent child. We disagree.
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
[A]ny person having knowledge of a child who appears to * * * be a juvenile traffic offender or to be an unruly, abused, neglected, or dependent child may file a sworn complaint with respect to that child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement or in which the violation, unruliness, abuse, neglect, or dependency allegedly occurred.
Similarly, Juv.R. 10(A) provides:
Any person having knowledge of a child who appears to be a juvenile traffic offender, delinquent, unruly, neglected, dependent, or abused may file a complaint with respect to the child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement, or in which the traffic offense, delinquency, unruliness, neglect, dependency, or abuse
occurred.
{¶ 11} Therefore, under both
{¶ 12} Mother argues Butler County was not the proper venue to adjudicate L.K. a dependent child because she “lived in Athens County at the time of commencement of this action” and “[a]ll the allegations similarly occurred in Athens County.” However, it is undisputed that the only reason Mother was in Athens County was to comply with community control sanctions requiring her to attend and complete the Rural Women‘s Recovery Program. We find this falls well short of a “residence or legal settlement” as those terms are used in
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
{¶ 15} In her second assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of
{¶ 16} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(ii) requires an objection to a magistrate‘s decision be “specific” and “state with particularity all grounds for objection.” The failure to file specific objections is treated the same as the failure to file any objections. In re D.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-01-018, 2009-Ohio-2805, ¶ 29. If a party has not objected to a factual finding or legal conclusion in accordance with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b), “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court‘s addition of any factual finding or legal conclusion[.]” Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv). However, even then, “unless the appellant argues a ‘claim of plain error,’ the appellant has waived the claimed errors not objected to below.” In re K.R.P., 197 Ohio App.3d 1993, 2011-Ohio-6114, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 17} Here, although Mother did file an objection to the magistrate‘s decision, she did not raise any issue in regards to the magistrate‘s alleged failure to comply with the requirements of
claim of plain error in her appellate brief).
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.