IN RE: T.C. E.C.
C.A. Nos. 18AP0021, 18AP0022
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
October 29, 2018
[Cite as In re T.C., 2018-Ohio-4369.]
SCHAFER, Presiding Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE Nos. 2018 JUV-C 00006, 2018 JUV-C 00007
Dated: October 29, 2018
SCHAFER, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her children dependent, and/or neglected, and/or abused. This Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.
I.
{¶2} Mother is the biological Mother of T.C. (d.o.b. 4/15/05) and E.C. (d.o.b. 8/24/07). Although he was properly served, the father of the children did not participate in the proceedings below and is not a party to this appeal.
{¶3} On December 11, 2017, when she was only 12 years old, T.C. and a friend were forcibly directed at gunpoint by a stranger to the basement of T.C.‘s home, where the two girls were raped. Mother took T.C. to the Wayne County Children‘s Advocacy Center (“CAC“) for a forensic interview and medical exam. Based on the trauma sustained by the entire family as a
{¶4} On January 2, 2018, a police officer joined an agency caseworker at Mother‘s home to try to discuss a safety plan for T.C. and E.C., who had been staying with a family friend. After several minutes of pounding on the door to the home where Mother lived, a man opened the foyer door and said he would wake Mother. Several minutes later, Mother appeared. Despite repeated efforts, the caseworker and police officer were unable to communicate with Mother to develop a safety plan for the children because of Mother‘s belligerent behavior. Ultimately, Mother returned to her upstairs apartment and slammed the door. Because the family friend who had the children could no longer care for them, the police officer took T.C. and E.C. into custody pursuant to
{¶5} The next day, CSB filed complaints in the Wayne County Juvenile Court, alleging that T.C. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child; and that E.C. was a neglected and dependent child. After a shelter care hearing, the court issued an emergency order of temporary custody to the agency. The juvenile court further appointed a guardian ad litem, as well as a separate attorney for the children. CSB filed a proposed case plan.
{¶6} After a two-day adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found T.C. to be an abused, neglected, and dependent child. It found E.C. to be a dependent child. The court further dismissed some allegations of neglect and dependency regarding the children. After a later
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT‘S JUDGMENT FINDING THE CHILDREN TO BE ABUSED, NEGLECTED AND/OR DEPENDENT CHILDREN WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
{¶7} Mother argues that the juvenile court‘s findings that T.C. is an abused, neglected, and dependent child; and that E.C. is a dependent child are against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court agrees regarding the challenge to the findings that T.C. and E.C. are dependent children, but disagrees regarding the challenge to the findings that T.C. is an abused and neglected child.
{¶8} As a preliminary matter, we note that Mother incorporates an additional argument in her brief. Specifically, she argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to make any written findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to its dependency orders, as required by
{¶9}
If the court, at an adjudicatory hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section upon a complaint alleging that a child is an abused, neglected, dependent, delinquent, or unruly child or a juvenile traffic offender, determines that the child is a dependent child, the court shall incorporate that determination into written findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter those findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record of the case. The court shall include in those findings of fact and conclusions of law specific findings as to the existence of any
danger to the child and any underlying family problems that are the basis for the court‘s determination that the child is a dependent child.
{¶10} This Court has sua sponte recognized the juvenile court‘s compliance with the mandates of
{¶11} Broad, general statements of fact, which might be adequate in a complaint alleging a child to be a dependent child, do not meet the specificity requirements of
{¶12} In In re S.L., supra, the juvenile court‘s judgment entry supported its adjudication as follows:
Thereupon, the court proceeded to hear testimony as to the facts and circumstances of this matter. Upon evidence presented, the Court FINDS by clear and convincing evidence that [S.L.] is an abused child pursuant to
R.C. 2151.031(A) and a dependent child pursuant toR.C. 2151.04(C) ; and [A.L.] is a dependent child pursuant toR.C. 2151.04(C) and (D).
Id. at ¶ 8. The Third District concluded that “this recitation fails to satisfy the requirement of
{¶13} In this case, the juvenile court recited the names of the eight witnesses who testified at the adjudicatory hearing. The court then wrote:
Based on the evidence and testimony presented, and considering the circumstances present at the time of removal and on the date of the filing of the complaint, the Court finds that T.C. is an abused, neglected, and dependent child. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, and considering the circumstances present at the time of removal and on the date of the filing of the complaint, the Court finds that E.C. is a dependent child.
Manifest weight
{¶15} Juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint. See
{¶16} This Court reviews as follows:
In determining whether the juvenile court‘s adjudication [ ] 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[.]
In re R.L., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28387, 2017-Ohio-4271, ¶ 8, quoting In re C.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26178, 2012-Ohio-2884, ¶ 5, quoting In re A.W., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25601, 195 Ohio App.3d 379, 2011-Ohio-4490, ¶ 8.
{¶17} Mother challenges the findings that T.C. is abused pursuant to
Abuse
{¶18}
{¶19} The clear and convincing evidence in this case established that a stranger forced T.C. and her friend at gunpoint into the basement of T.C.‘s home and raped both girls. The forensic interviewer from CAC testified that T.C.‘s and her friend‘s narratives were consistent.
Neglect
{¶20}
{¶21} The clear and convincing evidence in this case established that Mother agreed to bring T.C. for a follow up appointment with the pediatrician at CAC a couple days after the child‘s initial evaluation to address the child‘s complaints about anal pain and issues regarding sexually transmitted infections. The man who raped T.C. had admitted to having chlamydia, so timely follow up for the child was an important health matter. Nevertheless, Mother failed to bring T.C. for a follow up appointment. The pediatrician did not see T.C. again until sometime in January 2018, when a CSB caseworker took the child for an examination after removal from Mother‘s care.
{¶22} After the sexual assault of T.C., a CSB caseworker visited Mother at home to discuss case management services to help the family deal with the trauma. The caseworker
{¶23} Based on a review of the evidence, this is not the exceptional case where the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in adjudicating T.C. a neglected child. The physical and emotional trauma sustained by a 12-year old rape victim reasonably warranted ongoing medical and mental health services. Mother appeared to recognize the need for follow up services and agreed to facilitate them. Nevertheless, the clear and convincing evidence established that Mother failed to ensure that T.C. received medical care to address her physical pain and possible sexually transmitted infection, and trauma-based counseling services to address mental health issues.
Dependency
{¶24} This Court previously determined that the juvenile court erred by failing to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the allegations of the children‘s dependency as required by
{¶25} For the foregoing reasons, the juvenile court‘s judgment adjudicating T.C. an abused and neglected child, being supported by clear and convincing evidence, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court, however, erred by failing to comply with the requirements of
III.
{¶26} Mother‘s assignment of error is overruled as to the adjudication of T.C. as an abused and neglected child. The assignment of error is sustained as to the adjudications of T.C. and E.C. as dependent children. The judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
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 Wayne, 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
Costs taxed equally to both parties.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MARY G. WARLOP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and ANDREA D. UHLER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
RENEE JACKWOOD, Attorney at Law, for the children.
KAREN WIEST, Guardian ad Litem.