IN RE: R.L.
C.A. No. 28387
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
June 14, 2017
[Cite as In re R.L., 2017-Ohio-4271.]
STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DN 16-04-0313
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{1} Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her child R.L. a dependent child. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} Mother is the biological mother of R.L. (d.o.b. 5/23/12).1 She and the child lived in a home with eight or nine other people for a year or so. Mother was not on the lease. Before the incident giving rise to the allegations in this case, R.L. was being cared for by a friend of Mother for 5-6 weeks. The child was then delivered to Mother‘s nephew‘s (“Nephew“) home for a few days. On April 21, 2016, Mother appeared at Nephew‘s home and demanded return of the child. Because of Mother‘s demeanor, behavior, attire, and other conditions, Nephew refused to release the child out of concern for his safety.
{4} After an adjudicatory hearing, the magistrate adjudicated the child dependent pursuant to
{5} Mother filed timely objections to the magistrate‘s decision, arguing that CSB failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support an adjudication of dependency. CSB responded in opposition, but it did not challenge the magistrate‘s dismissal of its claim that the child was dependent pursuant to
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT‘S JUDGMENT FINDING THE MINOR CHILD DEPENDENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{6} Mother argues that the juvenile court‘s finding that R.L. was dependent on April 22, 2016, is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees.
{7} As a preliminary matter, although Mother did not raise the issue that the juvenile court failed to comply with
{8} In determining whether the juvenile court‘s adjudication of dependency is against the manifest weight of the evidence,
this court [reviews] the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [adjudication] must be reversed[.]
{9} An adjudication of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which requires “evidence that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” In re A.W. at ¶ 9; see also
{10}
{11} Mother argues that CSB must prove that the child was dependent as of the date alleged in the complaint, rather than as of the date of the adjudicatory hearing. Mother is correct that this Court has not yet taken a definitive stance on the issue. In In re D.B., 9th Dist. Medina Nos. 03CA0015-M, 03CA0018-M, 2003-Ohio-4526, this Court concluded that a father had failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court erred by relying on evidence of events that occurred after the date the agency filed its complaint. Id. at ¶ 19. However, in that case, the child had been removed immediately after birth, prior to having ever resided in the parents’ home, on the basis of
{12} In In re J.A., a mother challenged the juvenile court‘s purported refusal to consider whether her children were dependent at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. This Court “[a]ssum[ed] without deciding that the evidence of [the mother‘s] actions after the date of the complaint was admissible,” and found the mother‘s argument not well taken, because the juvenile court had in fact considered such evidence. Id. at ¶ 11. In that case, too, the children were alleged to be dependent pursuant to
{13} A concurring opinion in that case relied on the plain language of
{14} The evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing demonstrated the following. In November 2015, Nephew sublet a house he had been renting on West Exchange Street, in Akron, Ohio, to his mother (Mother‘s sister) and another woman named Cat. At least nine people, including Mother, were living throughout the house, including in the unfinished basement and attic. After December 2015, no one paid the rent due for the house. Because there were several young children living in the house, Nephew continued paying for the utilities until March 2016, when all utilities were turned off. Around that time, Mother executed a document purporting to give emergency temporary custody of R.L. to her sister, who passed the child to a family friend. R.L. resided with that family friend for approximately five weeks before Mother‘s sister took him to Nephew‘s home around April 19. The child arrived with one change of clothes, and no plan for how long he would be staying with Nephew. At that time, based on his relationship with his former landlord, Nephew was aware that eviction proceedings had been initiated on the West Exchange Street house.
{15} On April 21, 2016, Mother arrived at Nephew‘s house. It was a chilly, rainy day, and Mother arrived wearing no jacket or shoes. She demanded possession of R.L., but because she was behaving in an erratic and hysterical manner, Nephew refused. When Nephew asked Mother where she planned to take R.L., who also had no jacket, Mother could not articulate any plan except to “tak[e] off walking with him.” Nephew testified that he believed that the child would not be safe with Mother, given that she had no place to take him and it had been raining all day.
{17} The CSB caseworker arrived on the scene, but Mother had left. The caseworker informed Mother‘s relatives who had gathered at Nephew‘s home that the agency would hold a team decision meeting regarding the child the following day. Mother‘s sister texted that information to Mother, who appeared for the meeting. During the team decision meeting on April 22, 2016, Mother informed the caseworker that she was being evicted that same day. Although Mother further stated that she had some friends and places to go, she did not indicate that she had made any definitive plans or that R.L. would be able to accompany her to any of those homes. The only friend specifically identified by Mother as a possible placement was at the team decision meeting. CSB ran a background check on her and determined that her home would not be an appropriate placement for the child, because the friend was disqualified due to a prior vehicular manslaughter charge. In addition, the agency determined that it was not appropriate for the child to live in a home with Mother‘s sister because of an incident involving recent drug use by Mother and her sister. Accordingly, as Mother‘s sister had begun living with Nephew (her son), the agency found Nephew‘s home to be unsuitable. Mother was not able to articulate any other options where she and the child would be able to reside as of April 22.
{18} Mother‘s boyfriend testified that he was living with Mother at the West Exchange Street house and that they were being evicted on May 3, 2016. He testified that he and Mother
{19} Mother‘s cousin also testified on Mother‘s behalf. She believed that Mother was never homeless, but she based her belief on occasional visits with Mother at the West Exchange Street house, none of which occurred on April 21 or 22.
{20} A large portion of Mother‘s argument focuses on the lack of evidence to establish that Mother was homeless because there was no evidence of any forcible entry and detainer action or writ of restitution relating to the address from which Mother was being evicted. Mother has provided no legal support, and this Court has found none, for the proposition that homelessness must be premised on a showing that official legal proceedings must have occurred to have formally evicted a tenant-parent. Accordingly, this Court rejects Mother‘s argument that she could not have been homeless on the date alleged in the complaint, only because there was no evidence that the landlord had filed a forcible entry and detainer action and obtained a writ of restitution relating to the West Exchange Street home.
{21} Based on this Court‘s review of the record and juvenile court‘s finding of facts and conclusions of law, we conclude that this is not the exceptional case in which the adjudication of R.L. as a dependent child pursuant to
III.
{22} Mother‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, J. CONCURS.
CARR, J. CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
{23} I concur in judgment only. I agree that the child is dependent, but I believe that the issue in this case was the child‘s condition or environment which warranted the State‘s assumption of his guardianship in the interests of the child. See
{24} I further agree that, when the child was taken into custody pursuant to
DENISE E. FERGUSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
KANDEE ROBINSON, Attorney at Law for Appellee.
LINDA SELL, Guardian ad Litem.