In re R.C.

2023 Ohio 146

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 18, 2023
• Docket: 2022CA0015
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re R.C., 2023-Ohio-146.]

COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: IN THE MATTER OF: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Hon. John W., Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. R.C. Case No. 2022CA0015

OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 20223002

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 18, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant Father For Appellee Coshocton JFS

BRIAN W. BENBOW FREDERICK A. SEALOVER BENBOW LAW OFFICES LLC 725 Pine Street 265 Sunrise Center Drive Coshocton, Ohio 43812 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 2

Wise, John, J.

{¶1} Appellant M.C. appeals the decision of the Coshocton County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which found R.C. to be a dependent and neglected

child and granted R.C.’s grandparents temporary custody of R.C. The following facts give

rise to this appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} Appellant is the father of R.C., and K.T. is the mother of R.C.

{¶3} On January 12, 2022, the Agency filed a complaint in the Court of Common

Pleas of Coshocton County Juvenile Division alleging that R.C. was an abused and

dependent child. R.C. was fifteen-years old when the complaint was filed.

{¶4} On February 2, 2022, following an arraignment and hearing, R.C. was

placed in the temporary custody of his grandparents.

{¶5} On April 6, 2022, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing.

{¶6} At the adjudicatory hearing, Deanna Lanham testified she was an intake

caseworker at the Agency. On November 4, 2021, Ms. Lanham received a report that

R.C.’s step-mother called R.C. a “little bitch” and threatened to make him wear “girl

clothes” to school if he did not stop crying. Ms. Lanham made R.C. run laps around the

house as punishment.

{¶7} After speaking with Appellant, Ms. Lanham completed a home visit on

November 8, 2021. R.C.’s step-mother admitted to calling R.C. a “bitch.”

{¶8} On November 11, 2021, the Agency received a report that R.C. had hit his

step-mother. Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 3

{¶9} On November 12, 2021, the magistrate ordered R.C. to have no contact

with his stepmother. He was placed in juvenile detention for a week. Upon discharge he

was placed with his paternal grandparents, A.C. and P.C. Both parents agreed for R.C.

being placed with his paternal grandparents after discharge.

{¶10} Next, Parole Officer Kyle Myers testified R.C.’s stepmother lives with

Appellant. The magistrate ordered R.C. to have no contact with his stepmother, making

it impossible to place R.C. with Appellant. R.C. could not be placed with his mother, as

she has a small child at home that could not be around domestic violence.

{¶11} On April 15, 2022, the trial court also found R.C. to be a dependent child

pursuant to R.C. §2151.04(A)(C). The trial court ordered temporary custody to A.C. and

P.C.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶12} Thereafter, Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal and raises the

following three Assignments of Error:

{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDIAL [sic] ERROR BY

INFRINGING UPON FATHER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RAISE HIS CHILD

WITHOUT EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING SUCH ACTIONS DEPRIVING THIS RIGHT.

{¶14} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FINDING

R.C. TO BE A DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER R.C. 2151.04(A)(C) WHEN FATHER

COMMITTED NO ACTS OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT WHATSOEVER AND WHEN THE

CHILD COMMITTED DELINQUENT ACTS AGAINST THE STEPMOTHER. THE TRIAL

COURT’S ADJUDICATION ACCORDINGLY LACKED FACTUAL SUPPORT AS

REQUIRED BY R.C. 2151.28(L). THE TRIAL COURT CONSEQUENTLY LACKED Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 4

JURISDICTION TO FIND THE CHILD A DEPENDENT CHILD BASED UPON

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

{¶15} “II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FINDING

R.C. TO BE A DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER R.C. 2151.04(A)(C) WHEN FATHER

COMMITTED NO ACTS OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT WHATSOEVER AND WHEN THE

CHILD COMMITTED DELINQUENT ACTS AGAINST THE STEPMOTHER FOR WHICH

HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT AND SUBJECT TO EXISTING

TRIAL COURT ORDERS. THE TRIAL COURT FURTHER LACKED JURISDICTION

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE TRIAL [COURT]

IN THAT ORDERS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE IN THE CHILD’S DELINQUENCY

PROCEEDING. THE TRIAL COURT’S ACTIONS WERE THUS TAKEN IN VIOLATION

OF SECTION 2, ARTICLE III, OF THE UNITED STATE [sic] CONSTITUTION AND THE

GENERAL NOTION OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.

{¶16} “III. THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE MOVING PARTY

FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT

THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE CHILD’S HOME FOR THE CHILD TO

RETURN SAFELY HOME. THE TRIAL COURT THEREFORE COMMITTED

PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY NOT ORDERING THE CHILD TO BE RETURNED HOME.”

I.

{¶17} In Appellant’s first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues there was

insufficient evidence in the record to find R.C. dependent. We disagree.

{¶18} “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- Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 5

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 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).

{¶19} Pursuant to R.C. §2151.04(A), a dependent child is one “[w]ho is homeless

or destitute or without adequate parental care, through no fault of the child’s parents,

guardian, or custodian. Also, 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 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.

{¶20} The Agency presented evidence that the relationship between R.C. and his

step-mother deteriorated to the point where R.C. engaged in two separate incidents of

domestic violence against his stepmother and had to be placed in juvenile detention. A

no contact order with R.C.’s stepmother was placed into effect following the second

domestic violence incident. Following R.C.’s release from his second placement in

juvenile detention, the caseworker and probation officer testified placing R.C. at

Appellant’s home where his stepmother lives would be detrimental to R.C. Furthermore, Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 6

R.C. is unable to reside at Appellant’s home without violating the no-contact order with

his stepmother.

{¶21} Based on the forgoing, the trial court’s finding that R.C. is a dependent child

pursuant to R.C. §2151.04(C) is supported by sufficient evidence.

{¶22} Appellant’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.

II.

{¶23} In Appellant’s second assignment of error, Appellant summarily argues the

trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter because a delinquency order was

in effect. We disagree.

{¶24} Appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error on appeal. See, App.R.

16(A)(7). “It is the duty of the appellant, not this court, to demonstrate his assigned error

through an argument that is supported by citations to legal authority and facts in the

record.” State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2006-0005, 2007-Ohio-1804, ¶141,

quoting State v. Taylor, 9th Dist. Medina No. 2783-M, 1999 WL 61619 (Feb.9, 1999). See,

also, App.R. 16(A)(7).

{¶25} “If an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this

court’s duty to root it out.” State v. Romy, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020 CA 00066, 2021-Ohio-

501, 168 N.E.3d 86, ¶35, citing Thomas v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 08CA17, 2009-

Ohio-3299, ¶14. Therefore, we may disregard assignments of error Appellant presented

for review since he failed to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of

error is based and any supporting legal authority. App.R. 12(A)(2).

{¶26} Appellants have not supported their general argument with citations to the

record. Furthermore, Appellant’s argument fails to cite statutes, case law, rules of Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 7

evidence, rules of civil procedure, or learned treatises, and apply the legal authority to the

facts of the case. Consequently, we find that Appellant has not presented an argument,

but relies only upon the assertion of error, and we thus disregard this assignment of error.

{¶27} Accordingly, Appellant’s second Assignment of Error is overruled.

III.

{¶28} In Appellant’s third Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the Agency failed

to make reasonable efforts to return R.C. to his home. We disagree.

{¶29} R.C. §2151.419 requires the Agency to make reasonable efforts to reunite

parents with their children where the agency has removed the children from the home.

“Reasonable efforts means that a children’s services agency must act diligently and

provide services appropriate to the family’s need to prevent the child’s removal or as a

predicate to reunification.” In re H.M.K., 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos. 16-12-15 and 16-12-16,

2013-Ohio-4317, ¶95, quoting In re D.A., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1197, 2012-Ohio-1104,

¶30. “In determining whether the agency made reasonable efforts [pursuant to R.C.

§2151.419(A)(1)] to prevent the removal of the child from the home, the issue is not

whether the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the

reasonableness standard under the statute.” In re Lewis, 4th Dist. No. 03CA12, 2003-

Ohio-5262, ¶16. “‘Reasonable efforts’ does not mean all available efforts.” Id. A

“reasonable effort” is “an honest, purposeful effort, free of malice and the design to

defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 63,

606 N.E.2d 1011 (12th Dist.1992).

{¶30} In the case sub judice, the Agency sought placement with R.C.’s mother,

who was unable to take custody. Without R.C.’s stepmother voluntarily relocating, R.C. Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0015 8

could not be placed in Appellant’s home without violating the trial court’s no-contact order.

Therefore, the least restrictive out-of-home placement was with R.C.’s paternal

grandparents. Appellant summarily states other efforts could be made to place R.C. with

Appellant but offers no deeper insight. As such, the Agency used “an honest, purposeful

effort, free of malice and the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage”

when placing R.C. Id.

{¶31} Appellant’s third Assignment of Error is overruled.

{¶32} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,

Juvenile Division of Coshocton County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, John, J.

Wise, Earle, P. J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 0113