In re L.P.

2013 Ohio 2607
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 24, 2013
Docket13-12-60, 13-12-61
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 2607 (In re L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re L.P., 2013 Ohio 2607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[Cite as In re L.P., 2013-Ohio-2607.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:

L.P., CASE NO. 13-12-60

ALLEGED DEPENDENT CHILD. OPINION [SHANE POWELL - APPELLANT].

W.P., CASE NO. 13-12-61

Appeals from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court Nos. 21150040 and 21150041

Judgments Affirmed

Date of Decision: June 24, 2013

APPEARANCES:

John M. Kahler, II for Appellant Victor H. Perez for Appellee, SCDJFS Mary F. Snyder for Appellee, Micki DeLarosa Beverly and Bonifacio DeLarosa, Appellees Rebecca Herner, Counsel for CASA Guardian Ad Litem Case No. 13-12-60, 13-12-61

PRESTON, P.J.

{¶1} Father-appellant, Shane Powell, appeals the judgment of the Seneca

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division granting the legal custody of

his children, L.P. and W.P., to their maternal grandparents, Beverly and Bonisacio

DeLaRosa (“the DeLaRosas”), and granting him supervised visitation for one

hour, twice a month. We affirm.

{¶2} On September 7, 2011, the Seneca County Department of Job and

Family Services (“SCDJFS”) filed complaints alleging that L.P., eight years of

age, and W.P., five years of age, were neglected and dependent children as defined

in R.C. 2151.03(A)(2), 2151.04(C). The complaint concerning L.P. was assigned

trial court case no. 21150040, and the complaint concerning W.P. was assigned

trial court case no. 21150041. (Doc. No. 1).1 The complaints were filed after both

parents admitted they were heroin addicts and had used bath salts to get high, and

after Shane was arrested on drug trafficking charges. (Id., West Aff., attached).

{¶3} Contemporaneous to filing the complaint, SCDJFS also requested ex

parte orders to place the children in Beverly DeLaRosa’s temporary custody under

its protective supervision and order the children’s parents, Shane Powell and

Micki DeLaRosa,2 to complete substance abuse treatment pursuant to R.C.

2151.3514. (Doc. No. 3). The trial court granted the ex parte orders that same

1 The citations to the docket numbers are the same in both cases, so only one docket number will be cited. 2 Micki is not appealing the trial court’s decision and, in fact, supported SCDJFS’ motion to grant her parents, the DeLaRosas, legal custody of her children. (Aug. 28, 2012 Tr. at 151).

-2- Case No. 13-12-60, 13-12-61

day. (Doc. No. 4). The trial court also appointed one Guardian Ad Litem

(“GAL”) for both L.P. and W.P. (Doc. No. 5).

{¶4} On September 8, 2011, a shelter care hearing was held. (Doc. No. 6).

The parents waived a probable cause hearing, and the trial court ordered that the

minor children remain in Beverly DeLaRosa’s temporary care and custody and

under SCDJFS’ protective supervision. (Id.); (Doc. No. 8); (Doc. No. 12). The

trial court also determined that both parents were indigent and entitled to court-

appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 6); (Doc. Nos. 9-10); (Doc. No. 12). The trial court

gave Beverly discretion to allow the parents to visit the minor children provided

that visitation was at a supervised visitation facility such as Patchworks House.

(Doc. No. 6); (Doc. No. 12).

{¶5} On October 7, 2011, the trial court held an adjudication hearing, and

the parents both admitted that L.P. and W.P. were dependent children pursuant to

R.C. 2151.04(C). (Doc. No. 14). The trial court found the minor children

dependent based upon the parties’ admission, and, thereafter, SCDJFS dismissed

the remaining allegations in the complaint. (Id.). The trial court ordered that the

children remain in the DeLaRosas’ temporary custody and under SCDJFS’

protective supervision. (Id.). The trial court further ordered that the parents

continue their respective substance abuse treatment plans. (Id.).

-3- Case No. 13-12-60, 13-12-61

{¶6} On November 23, 2011, the trial court held a dispositional hearing.

(Doc. No. 19). Shane was not in agreement with the proposed disposition recited

by SCDJFS, so the court proceeded to a full dispositional hearing. (Id.). After

presentation of the evidence, the trial court ordered that the children remain in the

DeLaRosas’ temporary custody and under the SCDJFS’ protective supervision.

(Id.). The trial court granted Micki visitation as agreed by the custodian, and if not

agreed, visitation at Patchworks House. (Id.). The trial court granted Shane

visitation at Patchworks House and ordered that he have no contact with the

DeLaRosas. (Id.).

{¶7} On February 9, 2012, Shane filed a motion to order the DeLaRosas to

transport the children to CROSSWAEH Community Based Correctional Facility

for visitation. (Doc. No. 21).

{¶8} On February 28, 2012, the trial court held a review hearing and

hearing on the motion Shane filed for visitation. (Doc. No. 22). The trial court

continued its previous orders and allowed the paternal grandparents visitation at

Patchworks House. (Doc. No. 29). The trial court also denied Shane’s motion for

visitation at CROSSWAEH, and ordered that the children’s counseling continue.

(Id.).

-4- Case No. 13-12-60, 13-12-61

{¶9} On May 9, 2012, the GAL filed a motion for an in camera interview of

the minor children, which the trial court granted and held the hearing on June 15,

2012. (Doc. Nos. 33-35).

{¶10} On June 21, 2012, the SCDJFS filed a motion to modify the trial

court’s dispositional order to award the DeLaRosas legal custody of L.P. and

W.P., terminate its protective supervision, order appropriate parental visitation,

and establish child support. (Doc. No. 38).

{¶11} On June 22, 2012, the paternal grandparents, Douglas and Bonnie

Powell (“the Powells”), filed a motion to intervene to protect their rights and

advocate for reunification of the children with their father, and son, Shane. (Doc.

No. 39). The trial court scheduled a hearing on this motion for July 25, 2012;

however, the Powells filed a motion to continue the hearing. (Doc. Nos. 42-43).

The trial court was unable to reschedule the motion hearing prior to the previously

scheduled August 28-29, 2012 annual review hearing and hearing on the motion to

modify the previous disposition orders; consequently, the trial court ordered that

the motion to intervene be decided on briefs. (Doc. Nos. 42, 44). On August 20,

2012, the trial court denied the Powells’ motion to intervene. (Doc. No. 50).

{¶12} On August 28, 2012, the trial court held a combined annual

review/motion to modify disposition hearing. The second day of the hearing was

continued to October 2, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 54, 56).

-5- Case No. 13-12-60, 13-12-61

{¶13} On October 12, 2012, the trial court filed entries granting SCDJFS’

motion to modify disposition granting the DeLaRosas legal custody of the minor

children. (Doc. No. 61). The trial court stated in the entry that child support

would be determined at a subsequent hearing scheduled for November 9, 2012.

(Id.); (Doc. No. 62).

{¶14} On October 29, 2012, Shane filed notices of appeal from the trial

court’s October 12, 2012 entries awarding legal custody to the DeLaRosas, which

were assigned appellate case nos. 13-12-47 and 13-12-48. (Doc. No. 63).

{¶15} On November 9, 2012, a hearing on child support was held before a

magistrate who subsequently recommended that Shane and Micki should each pay

$335.76 per month in child support. (Doc. No. 70). The trial court adopted and

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re M.P.
2025 Ohio 601 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
In re I.C., S.C.
2023 Ohio 4707 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
In re I.T.
2023 Ohio 3010 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
In re A.D.
2023 Ohio 2442 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
In re L.W.
2022 Ohio 3696 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
In re C.S.
2022 Ohio 2451 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
In re M.H.
2014 Ohio 1485 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
In re N.L.
2013 Ohio 3983 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ohio 2607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lp-ohioctapp-2013.