IN RE: T.W., A MINOR CHILD-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 16-11-12
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY
June 25, 2012
[Cite as In re T.W., 2012-Ohio-2843.]
Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. D2111042 Judgment Affirmed
Amanda J. Powell for Appellant
Jonathan K. Miller and Douglas D. Rowland for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant T.W. appeals the October 17, 2011 judgment of the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, sentencing T.W. to non-reporting probation upon being adjudicated an Unruly Child in violation of
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. T.W. was a fourth-grade student at a middle school in Upper Sandusky. Between September 1, 2010 аnd early May 2011, the school was having difficulty with T.W. as T.W. would routinely leave class without permission, would refuse to do work assigned to him while in class, and would make comments to school staff that could be considered threats. As a result, in early May of 2011, T.W. was placed in a classroom for students who had been labeled “emotionally disturbed.” Despite the change, T.W.’s behavior did not improve.
{¶3} On May 25, 2011, Jim Wheeler, the Principal for the middle school, filеd a complaint against T.W. alleging that T.W. was an Unruly Child in violation of
{¶4} On August 25, 2011, an adjudicatory hearing was held to determine whether T.W. was an “unruly child.” At the hearing, the State called Principal Wheeler as its first witness. Principal Wheeler testified that T.W. would routinely leave class without permission. Principal Wheeler also testified that on one occasion T.W. threatened to run away and on another occasion T.W. had made comments thаt could be construed as threats.1 Principal Wheeler testified that at least once “he spent his entire day dealing with T.W.’s behavior and the disruptions they caused.” (Doc. 28). Further, Principal Wheeler testified that T.W. “would not аccept any disciplinary measure unlike any other student even those with the same behavioral issues as [T.W.].” (Doc. 28).
{¶5} After Principal Wheeler was cross-examined, the State called Suzanne Getz, a Teacher’s Aide for the “emotionally disturbed” class. Getz testified to her interaction with T.W. and the difficulties she encountered. Next, the State called Patrolman Joseph Ruse. Ruse testified to the “four to five” times he was called tо the middle school for incidents related to T.W. (Aug. 25, 2011 Tr. at 50). The State then rested its case.
{¶6} Although T.W.’s counsel did cross-examine all of the State’s witnesses, T.W. did not testify, T.W. did not call any witnesses, and T.W. did not enter any exhibits into evidence. Hоwever, at the close of testimony, T.W.’s
{¶7} On September 1, 2011, the court filed its Judgment Entry finding that Principal Wheeler satisfied the definition of “teacher” in
{¶8} On October 17, 2011, a dispositional hearing was held. At the hearing T.W.’s attorney stated that T.W. had been diagnosed with ADHD and was being medicated for that disorder.3 T.W.’s attorney stated that T.W. had been attending a new school, had been behaving, and had received an interim grade report with all
{¶9} Ultimately the court placed T.W. on nonreporting probation, ordered T.W. to continue at his new school and ordered T.W. to continue seeing his doctor, Dr. Spare. This disposition was memorialized in a judgment entry on the same day as the dispositional hearing, October 17, 2011.
{¶10} It is frоm this judgment that T.W. appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE WYANDOT COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED [T.W.]’S REQUESTS TO DISMISS THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, R.C. 2151.01, AND JUVENILE RULES 1(B), 9(A), AND 29(F)(2)(d).
{¶11} In his assignment of error, T.W. argues that the trial court erred by not dismissing the complaint against him. Specifically, T.W. contends that pursuant to the Juvenilе Rules of Procedure, the complaint against T.W. should have been dismissed because dismissal was in T.W.’s and the community’s best interests.
{¶12} ”
{¶13} In this case T.W. was found guilty of being an Unruly Child in violation of
{¶14} Both at the close of T.W.’s adjudication hearing and before the trial court’s final disposition at the dispositional hearing, T.W.’s attorney made a
{¶15} On appeal, T.W. argues thаt the trial court should have dismissed the complaint against him. In support of his argument, T.W. claims that he was doing better in his new school and that he had not shown any behavioral problems since being diagnosed with, and medicatеd for, ADHD. T.W. also cites several provisions of the Juvenile Rules of procedure, which, as he claims, mandate a dismissal. The relevant excerpts of the Juvenile Rules cited by T.W. are provided below.
Juv.R. 1
* * *
(B) Construction
These rules shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following purposes:
(1) to effect the just determination of every juvenile court proceeding by ensuring the parties a fair hearing and thе recognition and enforcement of their constitutional and other legal rights;
(2) to secure simplicity and uniformity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay;
(3) to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and to protect the welfare of the community; and
* * *
Juv.R. 9
(A) Court action to be avoided
In all appropriate cases formal court action should be avoided and other community resources utilized to ameliorate situations brought to the attention of the court.
* * *
Juv.R. 29
(F) Procedure upon determination of the issues
Upon the determination of the issues, the court shall do one of the following:
(1) If the allegations of the complaint, indictment, or information wеre not proven, dismiss the complaint;
(2) If the allegations of the complaint, indictment, or information are admitted or proven, do any one of the following, unless precluded by statute:
(a) Enter an adjudication аnd proceed forthwith to disposition;
(b) Enter an adjudication and continue the matter for disposition for not more than six months and may make appropriate temporary orders;
(c) Postpone entry of adjudication for not more than six months;
(d) Dismiss the complaint if dismissal is in the best interest of the child and the community.
{¶16} According to T.W., pursuant to the rules above, the trial court was required to dismiss the complaint. However,
{¶17} Although the court did not specifically hold that it was in T.W. and the community’s best interest to enter a disposition аnd place T.W. on nonreporting probation, it is implicit within the trial court’s findings as the court chose not to dismiss the case. Moreover, the trial court’s decision not to dismiss is supported by the testimony at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court had heard the “credible” testimony of Principal Wheeler who described incidents that formed the basis of finding T.W. unruly.
{¶18} Furthermore, while T.W. argues that between the adjudication hearing and the dispositional hеaring T.W.’s behavior had improved, T.W. had not been at his new school for very long. T.W.’s argument that the case should be dismissed is ultimately unsupported as T.W. cannot point to anything in the record illustrating how it is in his, or the community’s, best interest that the case be
{¶19} At best, T.W. argues that an alternative disposition could have been appropriate in this case. As it is well within the discretion of the court to determine whether a complaint should be dismissed, there is evidence to support the decision made by the trial court, and the trial court is in a better position to determine what is in the best interests of T.W., we do not find an abuse of discretion in this case.
{¶20} For the foregoing reasons, T.W.’s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and ROGERS, J.J., concur.
/jlr