In re M.R.
{¶1} Mother-Appellant, Kimberly P. (“Kimberly” or “Mother“), and Father-Appellant, David R. (“David” or “Father“), appeal the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County, Juvenile Division, adjudicating their daughter, M.R., dependent and granting temporary custody to the Defiance County Department of Job and Family Services (“the Agency“). On appeal, the Mother and Father contend that the trial court erred by adjudicating M.R. dependent, and that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the complaint due to its untimely filing. Based upon the following, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} A review of the record shows that on August 17, 2010, the Ohio Reformatory for Women (“ORW“) sent a fax to the Agency reporting that prison inmate, Kimberly, had applied to participate in the ABC Nursery program as she was pregnant and her expected due date was October 20, 2010.1 State‘s Exhibit 1. The fax requested the Agency to report to the ORW whether Kimberly had any prior involvement with the Agency regarding abuse or neglect on her behalf. Id. The ORW also requested the Agency to complete home studies of alternative placements in the event Kimberly did not qualify for the ABC Nursery Program. Id. Included in the fax was a list of these alternative placements. State‘s Exhibit 3. The alternative placements listed were David and Jane Stull, Kimberly‘s
{¶3} On October 13, 2010, Kimberly gave birth to M.R. On the same day, the Agency filed an emergency ex parte order requesting emergency temporary custody of M.R., which the trial court granted. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court ordered that M.R. be placed in the emergency custody of the Agency. On October 20, 2010, the Agency filed a complaint, alleging that M.R. is a dependent child as defined in
{¶5} Deb testified that she is a foster parent and the mother of David by adoption. Deb stated that she was aware that Kimberly was in prison and was pregnant. She also testified that previously she had told David and Kimberly that she would take custody of the child. However, Deb testified that she wrote two letters to Kimberly, one in September and one in October, 2010, telling Kimberly she would not take the child due to problems she was having with David and Kimberly. Photocopies of the letters, reflecting such testimony, were admitted into evidence. Deb testified that she is now willing to take M.R. and has told the Agency the same, but that prior to M.R.‘s birth, she was not sure if she would have taken M.R.
{¶6} Neither the Mother nor the Father presented evidence.
{¶7} The judgment entry filed May 31, 2011 adjudicated M.R. a dependent child on October 13, 2010, as the Mother was incarcerated, and at the time of birth the child‘s father was putative. The judgment entry also included, “[t]he [c]ourt
{¶8} On June 28, 2011, a dispositional hearing was held. Through the judgment entry filed July 8, 2011, the trial court stated that the parties agreed that it was in the best interests of M.R. to be placed in the temporary custody of the Agency, and accordingly, ordered temporary custody to remain with the Agency. Docket No. 42. It is from this judgment that the parties filed their notices of appeal, asserting the following assignments of error for review.3
Assignments of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FINDING THE CHILD DEPENDENT, WHEN AGENCY DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS IN
OHIO REVISED CODE 2151.419 ANDOHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 5101:2-42-60 [.]
Assignments of Error No. II
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE REQUIRMENTS
R.C. 2151.31 ANDR.C. 2151.27 [.]
{¶9} In the first assignments of error, the Appellants challenge the adjudication of dependency arguing that the Agency did not meet its burden in establishing that it used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child as required by
{¶10} The appropriate standard of review for cases involving an adjudication of dependency is clear and convincing evidence.
{¶11}
[A]t any hearing held pursuant to
section 2151.28 . . . of the Revised Code at which the court removes a child from thechild‘s home or continues the removal of a child from the child‘s home, the court shall determine whether the public children services agency or private child placing agency that filed the complaint in the case, removed the child from home, has custody of the child, or will be given custody of the child has made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the child‘s home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child from the child‘s home, or to make it possible for the child to return safely home. The agency shall have the burden of proving that it has made those reasonable efforts.
{¶12}
A court that is required to make a determination as described in division (A)(1) or (2) of this section shall issue written findings of fact setting forth the reasons supporting its determination. If the court makes a written determination under division (A)(1) of this section, it shall briefly describe in the findings of fact the relevant services provided by the agency to the family of the child, and why those services did not prevent the removal of the child from the child‘s home or enable the child to return safely home.
{¶13}
Upon notification by the correctional facility that postnatal services will be needed, the [public children services agency] in the county in which the woman was a resident at the time of incarceration . . . shall . . . [c]onduct a home assessment of the proposed relative or non-relative caregiver recommended by the incarcerated woman . . . and provide a copy of the findings and recommendation to the correctional facility.
{¶14} Initially, we note that Appellants’ assignments of error challenge solely the dependency adjudication which occurred one month before the temporary custody disposition. The adjudication hearing and the resulting
{¶15} In the case sub judice, we question the propriety of applying
{¶16} Nonetheless, if we were to assume that
{¶17} The efforts undertaken by the Agency were as follows: the Agency approved the Mother for the ABC Program after looking into her prior involvement with the Agency, and reported the same to the ORW; the Agency looked into the Father and discovered that he was under investigation for allegations of rape and was therefore not a suitable placement; and, the Agency contacted the maternal grandmother who refused to take M.R. The Agency however, did not conduct a home assessment of or contact the paternal grandmother due to a misunderstanding of the Administrative Code. Contrary to
{¶18} Further, assuming that
{¶19} As the trial court‘s judgment of dependency is supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm its judgment. Accordingly, we overrule the Appellants’ first assignments of error.
Assignments of Error No. II
{¶20} The Appellants contend that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the complaint as it was untimely filed according to
{¶21} “‘In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.‘” Ordean v. Ordean, 3d Dist. No. 17-06-15, 2007-Ohio-3979, ¶14, quoting
{¶22} When a trial court issues an ex parte order of emergency custody of an alleged dependent child, a complaint must be filed “with respect to the child before the end of the next day after the day on which the child was taken into custody.”
{¶23}
{¶24} In the instant case, the hearing on the ex parte motion for temporary custody was held on October 14, 2010, and temporary custody was granted. Foster parents took M.R. home from the hospital that same day. The complaint
{¶25} The Appellants urge this Court to undertake a plain error analysis, arguing that it was plain error for the trial court not to dismiss the complaint as untimely. Despite the late filing, the adjudicatory hearing was not held until seven months later, at the behest of Mother as she was then out of prison. This Court is unable to arrive at the conclusion urged by Appellants, as the untimely filing in no way seriously affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process or challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.
{¶26} Accordingly, we overrule the Mother‘s and Father‘s second assignments of error.
{¶27} Having found no error prejudicial to the Appellants’ herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.