[Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: L.L. : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : : Case No. 23CA0011 : : : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 20233010
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 28, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Mother: For Appellee Coshocton DJFS:
JETTA MENCER FREDERICK A. SEALOVER P.O. Box 1115 725 Pine Street Columbus, OH 43216 Coshocton, OH 43812 [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals from the April 3, 2023 Judgment Entry of the
Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding minor child L.L. to
be a dependent child. Appellee is the Coshocton County Department of Job and Family
Services (“Agency”).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} This case arose on February 13, 2023, when John Doe (D.O.B. 1/25/2023)
was only a few weeks old. John Doe is the son of Mother and Father.1 Mother has
several other biological children including Jane Doe, who was age 15 at the time of these
events.2
{¶3} Caseworker is the ongoing supervising caseworker assigned to Mother’s
children who testified at the adjudication hearing. She has over ten years of experience
in child welfare with the Agency, in addition to 2 years as a Head Start home visitor and
5 years as a drug and alcohol counselor for adults and juveniles. Caseworker is not
licensed in mental health but has dealt with many dual-diagnosis (substance abuse and
mental health) patients in her career. The primary function of her current position is
making judgments about whether the Agency should file complaints or reunite families,
and whether parents and children should have contact with each other. Caseworker
testified that based upon her training and experience, she is able to determine whether a
1 Parties at the adjudicatory hearing included Presumed Father by marriage and Alleged Father, neither of whom are parties to the instant appeal. 2 Mother’s total number of biological children is not evident in this record. The instant case involves the newborn John Doe; also mentioned are Jane Doe, age 15, and another infant in a high chair who will be referred to as James Doe. It is also not evident from the record which of John Doe’s siblings are the subject of other pending action(s) by the Agency which are the source of the argument between Mother and Jane Doe. [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
child lacks proper care due to the mental condition of a parent, and she used this training
and experience to guide her actions in the instant case.
{¶4} On February 13, 2023, Caseworker received a call that Mother and Jane
Doe had an argument. Caseworker left her office immediately and met Jane at a friend’s
house a few blocks away.
{¶5} Upon Caseworker’s arrival, Jane was in the living room, upset and crying,
not interacting with anyone. Caseworker identified herself, told Jane why she was there,
and initiated a conversation. Jane said she argued with Mother in the car because Mother
blamed her for the potential removal of her siblings by the Agency. Jane said she was
kicked out of the car and walked to the friend’s house. Caseworker explained that the
Agency’s involvement was not Jane’s fault. Caseworker asked Jane how things were
going at home and Jane became tearful again.
{¶6} Caseworker left Jane at the friend’s house and attempted to contact Mother
to discuss Jane’s allegations, make arrangements for Jane, and assess the other siblings
including John Doe. Caseworker was unable to reach Mother for three hours; in the
meantime, Caseworker visited the home twice, called Mother and left a voice mail, asked
law enforcement to help locate Mother, and drove by the residence to look for Mother’s
van.
{¶7} Eventually law enforcement contacted Caseworker with information that
Mother was pulled over with her children in the van, minus Jane. Caseworker asked law
enforcement to follow Mother home so she could meet with her to address the Agency’s
concerns. [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
{¶8} When Caseworker arrived at the residence, Mother had just pulled in with
the children in the van. Mother carried John Doe into the residence and permitted
Caseworker to come inside. Inside the home, three children were present; two were John
Doe and James Doe, who was seated in a high chair and described as “fussy.”
{¶9} Caseworker spoke to Mother and reviewed her conversation with Jane.
Mother blamed Jane for the Agency’s involvement with the family and Caseworker asked
Mother to address what role Mother played in the Agency’s concerns. Mother’s demeanor
was upset and tearful.
{¶10} Caseworker testified that based upon Mother’s emotional state, she was
concerned about her ability to care for a child as young as John Doe; in her opinion,
Mother’s mental condition and distress created an inappropriate environment for a
newborn. Caseworker attempted to formulate a safety plan with Mother and filed the
instant dependency complaint because Mother would not agree to a proposed safety
plan.
{¶11} When asked for the basis of the complaint, Caseworker testified Mother’s
emotional ups and downs unduly stressed the children; Mother would not agree to a
safety plan; and Mother admitted concern for her own emotional well-being. Caseworker
noted additional concerns on cross-examination. Mother did not know where Jane Doe
was or make any attempt to locate her after the heated argument in the vehicle.
Caseworker learned that although Mother agreed to a temporary safety plan of Great-
Grandmother spending the night at the residence to relieve pressure on Mother, Great-
Grandmother did not remain at the residence. The family had a court hearing the next
day regarding custody of the other children (not including John Doe). [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
{¶12} The trial court found John Doe to be a dependent child, ruling from the
bench at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court stated the following in pertinent part:
Okay. The matter is before the Court for determination. The
grounds alleged in the complaint as a dependent child identify two,
lack of proper care and support by the reason of mental and physical
condition of a parent, guardian, or custodian. Subpart C was
condition or environment as such to warrant the State in the interest
of the child in assuming this guardianship. Clearly, as argued by
[Mother’s counsel], the evidence is fairly thin in terms of what goes
on in this particular incident. And, under subpart B, the Court would
struggle to make a finding. But subpart C is such a broad and it’s
been interpreted that way (sic), condition or environment such as to
warrant the State in the interest of a child in assuming a
guardianship. And, frankly, the bigger picture and the larger issue at
stake that was occurring at the time—and February 14th is when this
gets weighed—at the time, is of a mother struggling because of a lot
of other circumstances in her life, meaning other kids, other court
hearings, significant issues, long-term involvement with the agency
leading up to those, and dispositive motions that would lead to a level
of finality that would be difficult for any parent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: L.L. : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : : Case No. 23CA0011 : : : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 20233010
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 28, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Mother: For Appellee Coshocton DJFS:
JETTA MENCER FREDERICK A. SEALOVER P.O. Box 1115 725 Pine Street Columbus, OH 43216 Coshocton, OH 43812 [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Mother appeals from the April 3, 2023 Judgment Entry of the
Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding minor child L.L. to
be a dependent child. Appellee is the Coshocton County Department of Job and Family
Services (“Agency”).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} This case arose on February 13, 2023, when John Doe (D.O.B. 1/25/2023)
was only a few weeks old. John Doe is the son of Mother and Father.1 Mother has
several other biological children including Jane Doe, who was age 15 at the time of these
events.2
{¶3} Caseworker is the ongoing supervising caseworker assigned to Mother’s
children who testified at the adjudication hearing. She has over ten years of experience
in child welfare with the Agency, in addition to 2 years as a Head Start home visitor and
5 years as a drug and alcohol counselor for adults and juveniles. Caseworker is not
licensed in mental health but has dealt with many dual-diagnosis (substance abuse and
mental health) patients in her career. The primary function of her current position is
making judgments about whether the Agency should file complaints or reunite families,
and whether parents and children should have contact with each other. Caseworker
testified that based upon her training and experience, she is able to determine whether a
1 Parties at the adjudicatory hearing included Presumed Father by marriage and Alleged Father, neither of whom are parties to the instant appeal. 2 Mother’s total number of biological children is not evident in this record. The instant case involves the newborn John Doe; also mentioned are Jane Doe, age 15, and another infant in a high chair who will be referred to as James Doe. It is also not evident from the record which of John Doe’s siblings are the subject of other pending action(s) by the Agency which are the source of the argument between Mother and Jane Doe. [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
child lacks proper care due to the mental condition of a parent, and she used this training
and experience to guide her actions in the instant case.
{¶4} On February 13, 2023, Caseworker received a call that Mother and Jane
Doe had an argument. Caseworker left her office immediately and met Jane at a friend’s
house a few blocks away.
{¶5} Upon Caseworker’s arrival, Jane was in the living room, upset and crying,
not interacting with anyone. Caseworker identified herself, told Jane why she was there,
and initiated a conversation. Jane said she argued with Mother in the car because Mother
blamed her for the potential removal of her siblings by the Agency. Jane said she was
kicked out of the car and walked to the friend’s house. Caseworker explained that the
Agency’s involvement was not Jane’s fault. Caseworker asked Jane how things were
going at home and Jane became tearful again.
{¶6} Caseworker left Jane at the friend’s house and attempted to contact Mother
to discuss Jane’s allegations, make arrangements for Jane, and assess the other siblings
including John Doe. Caseworker was unable to reach Mother for three hours; in the
meantime, Caseworker visited the home twice, called Mother and left a voice mail, asked
law enforcement to help locate Mother, and drove by the residence to look for Mother’s
van.
{¶7} Eventually law enforcement contacted Caseworker with information that
Mother was pulled over with her children in the van, minus Jane. Caseworker asked law
enforcement to follow Mother home so she could meet with her to address the Agency’s
concerns. [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
{¶8} When Caseworker arrived at the residence, Mother had just pulled in with
the children in the van. Mother carried John Doe into the residence and permitted
Caseworker to come inside. Inside the home, three children were present; two were John
Doe and James Doe, who was seated in a high chair and described as “fussy.”
{¶9} Caseworker spoke to Mother and reviewed her conversation with Jane.
Mother blamed Jane for the Agency’s involvement with the family and Caseworker asked
Mother to address what role Mother played in the Agency’s concerns. Mother’s demeanor
was upset and tearful.
{¶10} Caseworker testified that based upon Mother’s emotional state, she was
concerned about her ability to care for a child as young as John Doe; in her opinion,
Mother’s mental condition and distress created an inappropriate environment for a
newborn. Caseworker attempted to formulate a safety plan with Mother and filed the
instant dependency complaint because Mother would not agree to a proposed safety
plan.
{¶11} When asked for the basis of the complaint, Caseworker testified Mother’s
emotional ups and downs unduly stressed the children; Mother would not agree to a
safety plan; and Mother admitted concern for her own emotional well-being. Caseworker
noted additional concerns on cross-examination. Mother did not know where Jane Doe
was or make any attempt to locate her after the heated argument in the vehicle.
Caseworker learned that although Mother agreed to a temporary safety plan of Great-
Grandmother spending the night at the residence to relieve pressure on Mother, Great-
Grandmother did not remain at the residence. The family had a court hearing the next
day regarding custody of the other children (not including John Doe). [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
{¶12} The trial court found John Doe to be a dependent child, ruling from the
bench at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court stated the following in pertinent part:
Okay. The matter is before the Court for determination. The
grounds alleged in the complaint as a dependent child identify two,
lack of proper care and support by the reason of mental and physical
condition of a parent, guardian, or custodian. Subpart C was
condition or environment as such to warrant the State in the interest
of the child in assuming this guardianship. Clearly, as argued by
[Mother’s counsel], the evidence is fairly thin in terms of what goes
on in this particular incident. And, under subpart B, the Court would
struggle to make a finding. But subpart C is such a broad and it’s
been interpreted that way (sic), condition or environment such as to
warrant the State in the interest of a child in assuming a
guardianship. And, frankly, the bigger picture and the larger issue at
stake that was occurring at the time—and February 14th is when this
gets weighed—at the time, is of a mother struggling because of a lot
of other circumstances in her life, meaning other kids, other court
hearings, significant issues, long-term involvement with the agency
leading up to those, and dispositive motions that would lead to a level
of finality that would be difficult for any parent. So, obviously, a
parent struggling with that and, in this particular situation, a blow-up
with a child who is 15, which I would grant you happens with 15-year-
olds, but, frankly, it seems like the bigger or the full story here is the [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
child who is kicked out of the van and not provided for and not
followed up on for hours and a difficult time trying to track down a
mother. So, it certainly seems as if there’s more evidence here than
maybe what is being argued, but I’m not faulting counsel. I’m just
pointing out that there is some record here to support a condition or
environment in the interest of the State in assuming the child’s
guardianship. The Court’s going to find a dependency on that basis.
* * * *.
T. 28-30.
{¶13} The trial court journalized its decision in a judgment entry dated April 3,
2023.
{¶14} Mother now appeals from the trial court’s entry of April 3, 2023.
{¶15} Mother raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶16} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING L.L. TO BE A DEPENDENT
CHILD PURSUANT TO R.C. 2151.04(C).”
ANALYSIS
{¶17} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court’s finding of
dependency is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree.
{¶18} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C), a dependent child is one “[w]hose condition
or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming
the child's guardianship[.]” A finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C) does not require
parental or custodial fault. The focus is on the child's condition and whether the child is a [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
victim, regardless whom the responsible party is. In re R.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26836,
2013-Ohio-5728, ¶ 19. “The conduct of the parent is relevant only insofar as it forms a
part of the child's environment and it is significant only if it has a detrimental impact on
[him].” In re A.C., C.C., and C.S., 9th Dist. Wayne Nos. 03CA0053, 03CA0054, and
03CA0055, 2004-Ohio-3248, ¶ 14.
{¶19} Generally speaking, courts apply R.C. 2151.04(C) broadly to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of children. In re L.H., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-09-106,
CA2018-09-109, CA2018-09-110, and CA2018-09-111, 2019-Ohio-2383, ¶ 41. “A finding
of dependency under R.C. 2151.04 must be grounded on whether the children are
receiving proper care and support; the focus is on the condition of the children.” In re
A.B.C., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011 CA 00073, 2011-Ohio-6570, ¶ 15. As such, a
dependency finding “requires no showing of fault, but focuses exclusively on the child's
situation * * *.” In re Riddle, 79 Ohio St.3d 259, 262, 680 N.E.2d 1227 (1997). And
although the focus of the trial court's analysis is on the child's present condition or
environment, “ ‘the law does not require the court to experiment with the child's welfare
to see if * * * [the child] will suffer great detriment or harm.’ ” (Brackets sic.) In re A.B.C.,
supra at ¶ 75, quoting In re Burchfield, 51 Ohio App.3d 148, 156, 555 N.E.2d 325 (4th
Dist.1988).
{¶20} “The state bears the burden of proof of establishing that a child is abused,
neglected, or dependent.” Matter of: L.H., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-09-106, 2019-
Ohio-2383, ¶ 20. “The Ohio Supreme Court has defined ‘clear and convincing evidence’
as ‘[t]he measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.’ ” Matter of J.B., 5th [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
Dist. Stark Nos. 2022CA00086, 2022CA00087, 2022CA00088, 2022-Ohio-3895, ¶ 22,
quoting In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986). A trial
court's adjudication of a child as dependent must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. R.C. 2151.35(A)(1); Juv.R. 29(E)(4). Proof by clear and convincing evidence
requires that the evidence “ ‘produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ” In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio
St.3d 361, 368, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985), quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120
N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. Clear and convincing evidence is a
higher degree of proof than preponderance of the evidence, but a lower degree than
beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Alexander C., 164 Ohio App.3d 540, 2005-Ohio-6134,
843 N.E.2d 211, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.).
{¶21} When an appellate court reviews a trial court's adjudication to determine
whether the judgment is supported by clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing court
must determine whether the trial court had before it evidence sufficient to satisfy the
requisite degree of proof. Id. at ¶ 7. That is, we conduct a manifest-weight review to
determine whether the agency sustained its burden of producing clear and convincing
evidence of dependency as defined by R.C. 2151.04. In re C.T., 6th Dist. Sandusky No.
S-18-005, 2018-Ohio-3823, ¶ 53. An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's
adjudication where competent and credible evidence supports the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In re Alexander C., supra at ¶ 7.
{¶22} In the instant case, the Agency presented evidence that the family was in
turmoil after Mother and Jane Doe argued in the van; Jane exited the vehicle in some
fashion and Mother did not know her whereabouts or look for her. The subject of this [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
dependency action, though, is John Doe, the newborn who remained in the van with
Mother and was then brought inside the house.
{¶23} When Caseworker made contact with Mother, emotions were still running
high, to the extent that Mother told Caseworker she was concerned for her own mental
state (T. 18) but did not know where her daughter was or attempt to locate her (T. 24). In
the Caseworker’s training and experience, Mother’s mental condition and emotional
distress did not create an appropriate environment for a weeks-old child. T. 18. The family
had a hearing regarding custody of Mother’s other children the next day and Caseworker
deemed this to be a high-stress situation for Mother. T. 24-25. Upon formulating the
temporary safety plan of Great Grandmother staying with the family to provide relief,
however, Caseworker later learned Great Grandmother did not remain at the residence.
T. 26. Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court’s concerns for newborn’s
environment are supported by clear and convincing evidence. We have previously found
that “circumstances giving rise to a legitimate risk of harm may suffice to support a
dependency adjudication under R.C. 2151.04(C).” In re R.B., 5th Dist. Knox No. 17CA22,
2018-Ohio-4086, ¶ 32, citing In re S Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170624, 2018-
Ohio-2961, ¶ 36, internal citation omitted.
{¶24} We conclude the trial court's finding that John Doe is a dependent child
pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C) is supported by sufficient evidence. See, In re A.C., 5th Dist.
Richland No. 2020 CA 0053, 2021-Ohio-288, appeal not allowed, 163 Ohio St.3d 1440,
2021-Ohio-1896, 168 N.E.3d 1199, reconsideration denied, 164 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2021-
Ohio-2742, 172 N.E.3d 172 [mother “showed no signs of having a plan or executing a [Cite as In re L.L., 2023-Ohio-3032.]
plan to adequately take care of” child and state need not subject a child to a potentially
detrimental environment].
{¶25} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶26} The sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the
Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J., concur.