IN THE MATTER OF: T.B., JR., et al.
CASE NO. CA2014-09-019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY
6/29/2015
[Cite as In re T.B., 2015-Ohio-2580.]
M. POWELL, J.
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 14AND0329
Melissa S. Upthegrove, 254 East Court Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for appellant
Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, John M. Scott, Jr., 110 East Court Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for appellee
Susan R. Wollscheid, P.O. Box 841, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for S.B.
Jennifer J. Hitt, 63 North Main Street, Suite B, London, Ohio 43140, for T.B., Sr.
O P I N I O N
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mother, appeals the juvenile court‘s decision adjudicating her children as dependent and neglected children. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Mother is the biological mother of B.B., R.B., K.B., Z.B., and T.B. Husband is
{¶ 3} On May 2, 2014, T.B. was hospitalized with non-accidental injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. T.B. sustained those injuries while in Boyfriend‘s care. Boyfriend later admitted to handling T.B. roughly. At the hospital, T.B. was diagnosed with multiple brain bleeds at various stages in the healing process and a retinal hemorrhage.
{¶ 4} On May 8, 2014, the Fayette County Department of Job and Family Services (FCDJFS) filed a complaint alleging that T.B. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child and moved for temporary custody. The juvenile court granted FCDJFS‘s request for temporary custody and ordered that Boyfriend have no contact with T.B. The other children were placed with relatives by agreement.
{¶ 5} Subsequently, the relatives housing the remaining children contacted FCDJFS and informed them that they were no longer able to continue care for the children. Therefore, on May 29, 2014, FCDJFS filed separate complaints alleging that B.B., R.B., K.B., and Z.B. were neglected and dependent children based upon allegations of domestic violence in the home. In addition, the complaint recounted the initial complaint in which T.B. was removed from the house based on Boyfriend‘s abuse. The juvenile court granted temporary custody to FCDJFS and the children were placed in foster care.
{¶ 6} As part of its order, the juvenile court adopted a case plan, which provided that Mother was to have mental health counseling, attend parenting classes, and engage in a drug and alcohol assessment. Mother began mental health counseling and attended
{¶ 7} Boyfriend was subsequently charged with various criminal offenses related to his abuse of T.B. and an arrest warrant was issued. Police arrested Boyfriend at Mother‘s home while Mother was exercising an unsupervised visitation with the children at the residence, despite the no-contact order. Two of the children reported that Mother was attempting to hide Boyfriend from the police.
{¶ 8} On August 12, 2014, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing and on August 26, 2014 entered an order finding that T.B. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child. In addition, the juvenile court found that the remaining children, B.B., R.B., K.B., and Z.B., were neglected and dependent children. Mother now appeals the decision of the juvenile court, raising one assignment of error for review.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO THE AGENCY BASED UPON FINDINGS OF NEGLECT AND DEPENDENCY.
{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court erred by adjudicating B.B., R.B., K.B., and Z.B. as dependent and neglected children.2
{¶ 12} A trial court‘s adjudication of a child as abused, neglected, or dependent must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
{¶ 13} In the present case, the juvenile court found that the children were neglected children pursuant to
R.C. 2151.03(A)(2)
{¶ 14}
{¶ 15} Based upon a thorough review of the record, we find the juvenile court did not err in finding that the children were neglected. At the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court heard testimony that described concerns with Mother‘s ability to ensure the safety of the children. FCDJFS caseworker, Brenda Harris, testified about the investigation related to T.B.‘s nonaccidental injuries caused by Boyfriend. Harris explained that T.B. exhibited multiple brain bleeds and retinal hemorrhaging consistent with shaken baby syndrome. During the course of her investigation, Harris stated that Boyfriend offered different accounts of his involvement in the child‘s injuries, but ultimately acknowledged that he “may have put T.B. down too hard.”
{¶ 16} In addition, another FCDJFS caseworker, Margo Robinson, testified that the agency had concerns about Mother and Boyfriend. Robinson explained that the three oldest
{¶ 17} Despite the evidence concerning the danger Boyfriend‘s violence presents to the children, the record reflects that Mother continues to expose them to that danger by continuing to have contact with Boyfriend. Furthermore, Mother refuses to believe that Boyfriend caused the nonaccidental injuries to T.B. despite the evidence to the contrary. In fact, as noted above, Mother was allowed to have unsupervised visitation with her children upon the premise that Boyfriend no longer lived with her and would not be present during the visit. Mother assured caseworkers that Boyfriend would not be present. However, after the visit, the children reported that Boyfriend was present at Mother‘s home during their visit. Boyfriend was later arrested on a felony warrant while hiding from police in Mother‘s home. Immediately prior to his arrest, Mother sought to protect Boyfriend from arrest by denying his presence in the home.
{¶ 18} Although Harris and Robinson stated that they did not have concerns about the condition of Mother‘s home while Boyfriend was not present, both stated that they were concerned about ongoing domestic violence and the ability of Mother to protect the children from Boyfriend. See, e.g., In re A.C., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1025, 2010-Ohio-4933, ¶ 48-51 (juvenile court noting, among other things, concerns regarding ongoing domestic violence and its effect upon of the children under
R.C. 2151.04
{¶ 19} Next, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in finding that B.B., R.B., K.B., and Z.B. are dependent children.
(A) Who is homeless or destitute or without adequate parental care, through no fault of the child‘s parents, guardian, or custodian;
(B) Who lacks adequate parental care by reason of the mental or physical condition of the child‘s parents, guardian, or custodian;
(C) Whose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child‘s guardianship;
(D) To whom both of the following apply:
(1) The child is residing in a household in which a parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication that a sibling of the child or any other child who resides in the household is an abused, neglected, or dependent child.
(2) Because of the circumstances surrounding the abuse, neglect, or dependency of the sibling or other child and the other conditions in the household of the child, the child is in danger of being abused or neglected by that parent, guardian, custodian, or member of the household.
{¶ 20} “The determination that a child is dependent requires no showing of fault on the parent‘s part.” In re S.W., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-12-008, 2012-Ohio-3199, ¶ 12. Rather, the focus is on the child‘s condition or environment, and whether the child was without adequate care or support. In re W.C.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-02-057, 2015-Ohio-54, ¶ 14. However, a court may consider a parent‘s conduct insofar as it forms part of the child‘s environment. In re S.J.J., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-02-021, 2006-Ohio-6354, ¶ 12. “A parent‘s conduct is significant if it has an adverse impact on the child sufficient to warrant intervention.” In re S.W., at ¶ 12.
{¶ 21} After review, we find sufficient, credible evidence supports the juvenile court‘s determination that B.B., R.B., K.B., and Z.B. are dependent children. As noted above, the record reflects that Boyfriend has physically abused T.B., K.B., and Mother. Despite the ongoing threat of violence, Mother has allowed Boyfriend to remain in her home, and had even taken efforts to hide Boyfriend in her house while he was evading police. Furthermore, the record reflects that Mother continues to visit Boyfriend in jail and fails to understand the continued risk of physical violence he presents to the children. The testimony is sufficient to support a finding that the children are dependent children based on Mother‘s failure to provide adequate parental care. As such, the juvenile court did not err in finding that the children were dependent children as defined by statute. Accordingly, Mother‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.