[Cite as In re L.S., 2012-Ohio-3794.]
COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES: IN THE MATTER OF: : W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Sheila G. Farmer, J. L.S. & D.S. : Julie A. Edwards, J. : : Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 : : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, Probate & Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 09-N- 149 & 09-N-150
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 21, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant
SEAN M. WARNER WILLIAM PAUL BRINGMAN Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 13 East College Street STEVE KNOWLING Fredericktown, Ohio 43019-1192 Prosecuting Attorney Holmes County, Ohio 164 E. Jackson Street Millersburg, Ohio 44654 [Cite as In re L.S., 2012-Ohio-3794.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Joseph Slabaugh, appeals from the January 6, 2012, Judgment
Entry issued by the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, Probate & Juvenile
Division, in Case No. 09N149 and the December 20, 2011, Judgment Entry issued by
the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, Probate & Juvenile Divisions, in Case No.
09N150.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant is the biological father of L.S. (DOB 1/17/05) and D.S. (DOB
6/14/07). On July 27, 2009, a complaint was filed in Case No. 09N149 alleging that L.S.
was a neglected and dependent child. On the same date, a complaint was filed in Case
No. 09N150 alleging that D.S. was a neglected and dependent child. Both complaints
indicated that there were concerns over lack of parental supervision as well as
unsanitary living conditions.
{¶3} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed in both cases on September
11, 2009, appellant and his wife entered a plea of admission to both charges involving
L.S. and D.S and the court found the children to be neglected and dependent. They also
entered a plea of admission to the complaints involving two older children, C.S. and
S.S. who are not the subject of this appeal. A case plan that was filed on August 25,
2009, was adopted by the trial court.
{¶4} Following a review hearing on April 15, 2010, the trial court ordered that
the protective supervision previously granted to Holmes County Department of Job &
Family Services (HCDJFS) continue. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 3
{¶5} On June 4, 2010, HCDJFS filed motions in both cases asking that
protective supervision be extended for an additional six (6) months. On June 18, 2010,
HCDJFS filed motions in both cases seeking an emergency review hearing. The
agency, in its motions, indicated that it had concerns over the children’s safety and the
unsanitary condition of the home and that appellant and his wife were not making
sufficient progress on their court ordered case plan. An emergency review hearing was
scheduled for June 22, 2010.
{¶6} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed in both cases on June 23, 2010,
temporary custody of L.S. and D.S. and the two older children was granted to HCDJFS.
A review hearing was held on July 12, 2010. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed
in both cases on July 14, 2010, the trial court ordered that temporary custody of the
children remain with HCDJFS and granted the motion to extend temporary custody.
Following a review hearing on August 23, 2010, the trial court granted temporary
custody of L.S. and D.S. to Doyle and Lydia Lee, appellant’s aunt and her husband. The
Lees were also granted temporary custody of C.S. and S.S., the two older children. The
trial court also ordered that HCDJFS have protective supervision over all of the children
for a six month period beginning on August 23, 2010.
{¶7} A review hearing was held on October 5, 2010. Pursuant to a Judgment
Entry filed on the same day in both cases, the trial court ordered that temporary custody
remain with the Lees and that visits between appellant and his wife and D.S. and L.S.
be supervised by the Lees. The trial court ordered that the frequency and duration of the
visits be as agreed upon by the Lees and appellant and his wife. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 4
{¶8} On December 2, 2010, HCDJFS filed a Motion for an Emergency Review
Hearing. HCDJFS, in its motion, alleged that the Lees were unable to maintain custody
of the two older children, C.S. and S.S, due to severe behavioral issues. As
memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on December 6, 2010, temporary custody of
C.S. and S.S., was returned to appellant and his wife with protective supervision by
HCDJFS.
{¶9} Thereafter, on January 12, 2011, HCDJFS filed a motion in both cases
seeking to extend temporary protective supervision for a period of six months. Following
a hearing held on March 28, 2011, the trial court granted such motion and ordered that
temporary custody of C.S. and S.S. remain with their parents while temporary custody
of L.S. and D.S. remain with the Lees. The trial court extended protective supervision.
{¶10} On June 3, 2011, HCDJFS filed a Motion to Terminate the Protective
Supervision Order/Temporary Custody Order and to Close Case. The motion was filed
on both cases. The agency, in its motion, asked that legal custody of L.S. and D.S. be
awarded to the Lees and that their cases be closed. Appellant, on June 10, 2011, filed
an objection to the motion for legal custody. Hearings were held on September 16,
2011 and September 19, 2011.
{¶11} At the September 19, 2011, hearing, the parties stipulated that legal
custody of D.S. would be granted to the Lees and that the only issue to discuss with
respect to D.S. was visitation. With respect to L.S., the parties agreed to supervised
visitation unless and until L.S.’s counselor, Denise Sampson, stated otherwise. The
parties agreed to keep L.S.’s case open for sixty days and to have her counselor submit Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 5
her recommendation to the trial court under seal fourteen days ahead of the next review
hearing.
{¶12} At the September 19, 2011, hearing, Michelle Kelly, a home-based
therapist through Your Human Resource Center, testified that she started working with
the subject family in this case in December of 2009. At the time, the primary concerns
were the physical state of the home and the ability to provide adequate supervision for
the children. She testified that appellant was not very involved in the parenting process
and that his wife was overwhelmed. At the time Kelly initially started working with the
family, appellant, his wife and all four children were in the home. Kelly testified that the
older two children, who were twins, needed a lot of attention and that L.S. would wander
off by herself when they came home from school. She further testified that by the fall of
2010, she was not confident that appellant and his wife were ready for their children to
return. Once C.S. and S.S., who are twins, were returned to the home in December of
2010, Kelly went out to the house twice a week focusing one week on parenting and the
other on the twins.
{¶13} Kelly testified that one of the twins, S.S., was acting out sexually while
appellant and his wife were in the room and that “for the most part it would go- it would
occur for awhile before it would be addressed.” Transcript at 20. She testified that,
during a visit in December of 2010, at which all four children were present, the twins
demanded most of the attention. During a second visit in May of 2011 that Kelly
observed, L.S. and D.S. did not refer to appellant and his wife as mom and dad and L.S.
was nervous when her mother took her to the bathroom. Kelly testified that, during the Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 6
visit in December of 2010, appellant’s wife did not clean L.S. up well after a bowel
movement.
{¶14} Kelly testified that, at the end of the second visit, L.S. and D.S. were ready
to go and were excited to see the Lees. She further testified that, the last time she was
at appellant’s trailer in August of 2011 there was trash all over and at least one
cockroach. She indicated that the trailer posed a safety hazard to L.S. and D.S. who
were too young to identify the safety concerns and avoid them. Kelly also testified that
appellant’s wife was overwhelmed and lacked confidence that she could manage all
four children. According to Kelly, both L.S. and D.S. had made tremendous progress
developmentally while with the Lees during the pendency of the case. She indicated
that D.S.’s communication skills had improved and that L.S. was much more out-going.
{¶15} During the hearing, Kelly was asked what concerns she would have if L.S.
and D.S. had visitation with their parents every other weekend. She testified that the
biggest concern was that the twins acted out sexually and had poor impulse control.
According to Kelly, appellant and his wife minimized the sexual acting out among the
oldest two girls and the alleged victimization of L.S.
{¶16} When asked, Kelly indicated that she thought that it was important that
there be some type of companionship schedule set up between D.S. and his mother
and that D.S. did not fear his mother. She further testified that C.S. and S.S. had
different needs than D.S., who was younger.
{¶17} At the hearing, the Lees indicated to the trial court that they did not agree
with once a month visits and believed that every other month would be appropriate. The
Guardian Ad Litem, when asked by the trial court what he thought, noted that L.S. and Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 7
D.S. did not refer to appellant and his wife as mom and dad, but called them by their
first names. He noted that most of the attention during visits was focused on D.S. and
that L.S. did her own thing. The Guardian Ad Litem also indicated that he thought
visitation should be every three to four weeks.
{¶18} At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated that L.S.’s case would
remain open and that there would be a review hearing in approximately sixty days. He
noted that L.S.’s counselor would be filing a written report fourteen days prior to the
hearing and that D.S.’s case would be closed.
{¶19} The trial court, pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed in Case No. 09N150 on
September 22, 2011, stated that the agency’s June 3, 2011 motion was held in
abeyance as to D.S. The trial court noted that the parties were unable to reach an
agreement on the issue of visitation between D.S. and his parents. Pursuant to a
Judgment Entry filed in Case No. 09N149 on September 22, 2011, the trial court denied
the agency’s Motion to Terminate the Protective Supervision Order/Temporary Custody
Order and to Close Case as to L.S. The trial court further ordered that temporary
custody of L.S. would remain with Doyle and Lydia Lee with continued protective
supervision by HCDJFS. The trial court also ordered that visits between L.S. and her
parents would continue to be supervised and upon agreement of the parties as to
frequency and duration. In its Judgment Entry, the trial court indicated that it would
consider allowing unsupervised visits between L.S. and her parents if the court received
a letter from L.S.’s counselor stating that unsupervised visits would be in L.S.’s best
interest. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 8
{¶20} On October 19, 2011, appellant filed a motion in Case No. 09N149
seeking a definitive visitation schedule with L.S. Appellant, in his motion, alleged that
the Lees had cancelled visitation between L.S. and her parents the last two weekends.
The Lees filed a letter in response to such motion on October 24, 2011. A Judgment
Entry was filed in Case No. 09N149 stating that appellant’s motion would come on for
an initial hearing at the scheduled November 21, 2011 review hearing.
{¶21} An informal hearing was held in lieu of the November 21, 2011 review
hearing. The trial court, as memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed in Case No. 09N149,
ordered that temporary custody of L.S. remain with the Lees and that the protective
supervision order continue. The trial court also ordered that the Guardian Ad Litem
would observe one visit between L.S. and D.S. and their parents and would file a report
with the court on the issue of visitation on or before December 14, 2011. The trial court,
in its order, also ordered that appellant’s motion regarding visitation would be held in
abeyance. In a Judgment Entry filed the same day in Case No. 09N150, the trial court
stated that it would not issue a decision on the question of visitation between D.S. and
his parents until after the court had received and reviewed the report of the Guardian Ad
Litem.
{¶22} On November 30, 2011, the Lees filed a letter with the court stating that
they opposed any unsupervised visits between D.S., L.S. and appellant and his wife.
{¶23} The Guardian Ad Litem, in a report filed in both cases on December 13,
2011, recommended that visits continue to be supervised for a period of three to four
hours at a neutral location agreed to by the Lees and appellant and his wife and that the
visits occur at least every other weekend or at other times agreed to by the parties. The Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 9
Guardian Ad Litem noted that there “was no affection displayed between the children
and their parents or sisters during or at the end of the visit” and that L.S. referred to her
family as “monsters” and exhibited fear of being left by the Lees. The Guardian Ad
Litem also indicated that he believed that if appellant and his wife were granted
weekend visits, L.S. would suffer emotionally. The Guardian Ad Litem further indicated
that the neutral visitation setting helped alleviate L.S.’s fears.
{¶24} The trial court, via a Judgment Entry filed in Case No. 09N149 on
December 19, 2011, denied appellant’s Motion for Definitive Visitation Schedule. The
trial court ordered that temporary custody of L.S. would remain with the Lees and that
all visits between L.S. and either or both of her parents would continue being supervised
by the Lees and that the dates and times of these visits could continue to be as agreed
upon by the Lees and appellant and his wife. The trial court stated that it would consider
the question of legal custody of L.S. on January 4, 2012 and stated that any party could
file pleadings on the issue of legal custody on or before such date.
{¶25} A Judgment Entry was filed on December 20, 2011 in Case No. 09N150
granting legal custody of D.S. to the Lees and terminating the agency’s protective
supervision order. The trial court ordered that visitation between D.S. and his parents
continue and that such visits continue to be supervised by the Lees until the Lees
determined that supervision was no longer necessary. The trial court ordered that the
frequency, duration and location of the visits were to be as agreed upon by the Lees
and appellant and his wife. The trial court closed the case.
{¶26} On December 28, 2011, appellant filed a letter stating his objection to the
proposed grant of legal custody to the Lees. On January 6, 2010, the trial court issued a Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 10
Judgment Entry in Case No. 09N149. The trial court in its Judgment Entry, granted legal
custody of L.S. to Doyle and Lydia Lee, terminated the protective supervision order and
closed the case. The trial court also ordered that visitation between L.S. and her parents
continue to be supervised by the Lees and that that the frequency, duration and location
of the visits were to be as agreed upon by the Lees and appellant and his wife.
{¶27} On January 17, 2012, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial
court’s December 20, 2011 Judgment Entry in Case No. 09N150. The appeal has been
assigned Case No. 12CA001.
{¶28} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error in such case:
{¶29} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 20,
2011 [SIC] IN TERMINATING PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION/TEMPORARY
CUSTODY, CLOSING CASE, GRANTING LEGAL CUSTODY TO DOYLE LEE AND
LYDIA LEE, AND ORDERING VISITATION WITH APPELLEE TO BE SUPERVISED
BY DOYLE AND/OR LYDIA LEE UNTIL DOYLE AND LYDIA LEE DEEM SUPERVISED
VISITS ARE NOT NECESSARY AND THAT ARE AGREED UPON BY SAID
CUSTODIANS AND PARENTS.”
{¶30} On January 17, 2012, appellant also filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial
court’s January 6, 2012 Judgment Entry in Case No. 09N149. The appeal has been
assigned Case No. 12CA002.
{¶31} Appellant raises the following assignment of error in such case:
{¶32} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 20,
2011 IN TERMINATING PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION/TEMPORARY CUSTODY,
CLOSING CASE, GRANTING LEGAL CUSTODY TO DOYLE LEE AND LYDIA LEE, Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 11
AND ORDERING VISITATION WITH APPELLEE TO BE SUPERVISED BY DOYLE
AND/OR LYDIA LEE UNTIL DOYLE AND LYDIA LEE DEEM SUPERVISED VISITS
ARE NOT NECESSARY AND THAT ARE AGREED UPON BY SAID CUSTODIANS
AND PARENTS.”
{¶33} For purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the two cases
together.
Case No. 12CA001 & 12CA002
{¶34} Appellant, in his assignment of error in both cases, argues that the trial
court erred in terminating protective supervision, granting legal custody of L.S. and D.S.
to Doyle and Lydia Lee and closing the two cases. Appellant also argues that the trial
court erred in ordering that appellant’s visitation with L.S. and D.S. be supervised by the
Lees until the Lees deemed that supervised visitation was no longer necessary and that
visitation be as agreed upon by the Lees and appellant and his wife.
{¶35} We first note this was a grant of legal custody, not permanent custody.
Legal custody does not divest parents of residual parental rights, privileges, and
responsibilities. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006–Ohio–1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, at
¶ 17. This means appellant may petition the court for a modification of custody in the
future. Id.
{¶36} We recognize that the right to parent one's children is a fundamental right.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.E.2d 49 (2000); In re Hayes,
79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997). “However, government has broad
authority to intervene to protect children from abuse and neglect.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio
St.3d 73, 2007–Ohio–1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, at ¶ 28. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 12
{¶37} R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) states, in relevant part, as follows: “If a child is
adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child, the court may make any of the
following orders of disposition:
{¶38} “(3) Award legal custody of the child to either parent or to any other person
who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the
child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to
the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings. A person identified in a
complaint or motion filed by a party to the proceedings as a proposed legal custodian
shall be awarded legal custody of the child only if the person identified signs a
statement of understanding for legal custody that contains at least the following
provisions:
{¶39} “(a) That it is the intent of the person to become the legal custodian of the
child and the person is able to assume legal responsibility for the care and supervision
of the child;
{¶40} “(b) That the person understands that legal custody of the child in question
is intended to be permanent in nature and that the person will be responsible as the
custodian for the child until the child reaches the age of majority. Responsibility as
custodian for the child shall continue beyond the age of majority if, at the time the child
reaches the age of majority, the child is pursuing a diploma granted by the board of
education or other governing authority, successful completion of the curriculum of any
high school, successful completion of an individualized education program developed
for the student by any high school, or an age and schooling certificate. Responsibility
beyond the age of majority shall terminate when the child ceases to continuously pursue Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 13
such an education, completes such an education, or is excused from such an education
under standards adopted by the state board of education, whichever occurs first.
{¶41} “(c) That the parents of the child have residual parental rights, privileges,
and responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the privilege of reasonable visitation,
consent to adoption, the privilege to determine the child's religious affiliation, and the
responsibility for support;
{¶42} “(d) That the person understands that the person must be present in court
for the dispositional hearing in order to affirm the person's intention to become legal
custodian, to affirm that the person understands the effect of the custodianship before
the court, and to answer any questions that the court or any parties to the case may
have.”
{¶43} As is stated above, the parties stipulated at the September 19, 2011,
hearing, that the Lees would have legal custody of D.S. The only issue with respect to
D.S. as to such hearing concerned visitation. It also appears, as appellant himself
notes in his briefs, that appellant stipulated to the Lees having legal custody of L.S.
{¶44} Moreover, we find that the trial court's decision that it was in the best
interest of L.S. and D.S. to grant legal custody to the Lees is supported by the
preponderance of the evidence. Unlike in a permanent custody proceeding where a
juvenile court's standard of review is by clear and convincing evidence, the standard of
review in legal custody proceedings is preponderance of the evidence. In re A.C., 12th
Dist. No. CA2006–12–105, 2007–Ohio–3350 at ¶ 14; In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445,
455, 751 N.E.2d 552 (7th Dist. 2001). Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 14
{¶45} In this type of dispositional hearing, the focus must be the best interest of
the child. In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006–Ohio–1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188; In re
Nawrocki, 5th Dist. No. 2004–CA–0028, 2004–Ohio–4208.
{¶46} R.C. 2151.414(D) provides factors to be considered in making a best-
interest-of-the-child determination:
{¶47} “In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to
division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of section
2151.353 or division (C) of section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
{¶48} “(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's
parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other
person who may significantly affect the child;
{¶49} “(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through
the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child;
{¶50} “(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been
in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private
child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month
period ending on or after March 18, 1999;
{¶51} “(d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and
whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody
to the agency;
{¶52} “(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
apply in relation to the parents and child.” Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 15
{¶53} A trial court's determination on legal custody should not be overruled
absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Stull v. Richland Cty. Children Services, 5th
Dist. Nos. 11CA47, 11CA48, 2012-Ohio-738. An abuse of discretion is when the trial
court's judgment is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶54} Appellant, in his brief, contends that the trial court erred in relying on an
unsworn letter that the Lees filed with the trial court on November 30, 2011, which was
after the evidentiary hearing, and that the trial court erred in ordering the Guardian Ad
Litem to file a report, but did not conduct a hearing after the report was filed. Appellant
notes that he did not have a chance to cross-examine the Guardian Ad Litem or the
Lees.
{¶55} However, as is stated above, at the September 19, 2011 hearing, Michelle
Kelly testified that the condition of the home was unsafe for the younger children who
were unable to appreciate and avoid dangerous conditions. She further testified that
appellant and his wife focused on the two older children and that L.S. was fearful of her
mother and older siblings. Kelly also testified that appellant and his wife minimized the
sexual acting out among the older girls and that they failed to adequately address the
same. Kelly also indicated that appellant and his wife were not progressing as they
should have despite intensive services offered over a two year period. According to
Kelly, both D.S. and L.S. improved developmentally while with the Lees.
{¶56} Based on the foregoing, and in view of appellant’s stipulation, we find that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting legal custody to the Lees. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 16
{¶57} Appellant also maintains that the trial court erred in ordering that visitation
be supervised by the Lees and that visitation be as agreed upon by the Lees and
appellant and his wife. Decisions involving visitation rights are within the sound
discretion of the trial court and, upon review, an appellate court will not disturb such a
decision absent an abuse of discretion. Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 541 N.E.2d
1028 (1989). The term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or
judgment, it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore, supra.
{¶58} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, based upon
L.S.’s and D.S.’s best interests, to award appellant supervised, as opposed to
unsupervised, visitation with the children. There was evidence that the visits had an
adverse effect on L.S., who was fearful of her family and that the family home posed a
safety risk to both children. In addition, there was evidence that appellant and the Lees
lived far apart. Finally, as noted by appellee, even though the trial court closed the
cases, it retained jurisdiction over D.S. and L.S. pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(E)(1) and
should the Lees refuse visitation or fail to provide reasonable visitation, appellant can
move the trial court to modify its disposition. R.C. 2151.353(E)(2).
{¶59} Finally, while appellant contends that his trial counsel did not adequately
protect his interests, there is nothing in the record supporting such contention. At the
conclusion of the September 19, 2011, hearing, appellant’s counsel argued for
increased visitation between appellant and his children. Holmes County App. Case Nos. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002 17
{¶60} Based on the foregoing, the assignments of error in Case No. 12-CA-001
and 12-CA-002 are overruled.
{¶61} Accordingly, the judgment of the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas,
Probate & Juvenile Divisions is affirmed.
By: Edwards, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/d0606 [Cite as In re L.S., 2012-Ohio-3794.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : : L.S. & D.S. : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY : : : : CASE NOS. 12-CA-001 & 12-CA-002
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, Probate & Juvenile Divisions,
is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant, Joseph Slabaugh.
_________________________________