In re T.K.

2025 Ohio 75

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 12-24-04
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re T.K., 2025-Ohio-75.]

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

IN RE: CASE NO. 12-24-04 T.K.,

ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT CHILD. OPINION

[MELISSA U. - APPELLANT]

Appeal from Putnam County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 20233001

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: January 13, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Misty Wood for Appellant

Gary L. Lammers for Appellee Case No. 12-24-04

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Mother-appellant, M.U. (“Mother”), brings this appeal from the April

25, 2024 judgment of the Putnam County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division.

On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by conducting an

in camera interview with the minor child, T.K., over her objection. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} T.K. was born in November of 2010. Her parents are Mother and C.K.

(“Father”). Notably, Mother and Father have not been in a relationship for a long

time. For several years prior to the inception of this case, T.K. was living solely with

Mother.

{¶3} On January 19, 2023, the Putnam County Department of Job and Family

Services (“PCDJFS”) filed a complaint alleging that T.K. was an abused, neglected,

and dependent child. PCDJFS alleged that Mother, as the custodian of T.K., was not

compliant with recommended medical and mental health treatment for T.K. after

T.K. had emergency inpatient treatment for suicidal ideations on two separate

occasions.

{¶4} After her inpatient treatment, a safety plan was created for T.K., which

included her having no access to prescription or non-prescription drugs. However,

Mother’s home had “several bags of edible marijuana and three, thirteen-gallon -2- Case No. 12-24-04

trash bags of medications” that were accessible to T.K. just days after T.K. was

released from Sun Behavioral Health. Mother also did not take T.K. to her follow-

up counseling appointments and T.K. was not consistently given her psychiatric

medications.

{¶5} Further, PCDJFS noted that Mother had her own significant mental

health concerns. In fact, Mother was found unresponsive on December 19, 2022.

She was incoherent “and presented as a possible overdose.” Less than a month later

Mother was recommended for inpatient psychiatric treatment and she refused to

stay.

{¶6} PCDJFS also alleged that Mother was not complying with the

requirements to have T.K. attend school. T.K. had 56 hours of unexcused absences

and 150 total absent hours from school. T.K. was failing all of her primary classes.

{¶7} The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing wherein both Mother

and Father admitted that T.K. was a dependent child. In exchange for the parents’

admissions, PCDJFS dismissed the allegations of abuse and neglect. T.K. was then

placed in the temporary custody of K.W., a relative, with supervision provided by

PCDJFS. This arrangement was maintained following the dispositional hearing.

{¶8} On September 27, 2023, Father filed a motion to modify the disposition,

requesting custody of T.K.

-3- Case No. 12-24-04

{¶9} On October 6, 2023, Mother’s attorney filed a request for a competency

evaluation of Mother. That request was granted and Mother was found “not to be

competent.” As a result, a GAL was appointed for Mother.1

{¶10} On November 17, 2023, a hearing was held on Father’s motion to

modify disposition. Although Mother’s attorney objected to Father being awarded

temporary custody of T.K., Mother’s GAL and T.K.’s GAL supported Father’s

motion. Ultimately the trial court determined that it was in T.K.’s best interests for

Father to be granted temporary custody of T.K. with protective supervision provided

by PCDJFS.

{¶11} On January 9, 2024, Father filed a motion for custody of T.K. and for

the PCDJFS case to be terminated.

{¶12} On March 25, 2024, a hearing was held on Father’s motion for

custody. After considering the evidence, the recommendations of T.K.’s GAL and

Mother’s GAL, and the arguments of the parties, T.K. was placed in the custody of

her Father. Further, PCDJFS’s case was terminated, and Mother was granted

supervised visitation.

{¶13} A final Judgment entry was filed April 25, 2024. It is from this

judgment that Mother appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our

review.

1 The competency evaluation is not included in our record.

-4- Case No. 12-24-04

Assignment of Error

The trial court abused its discretion in overruling the objection to the in-camera review due to concerns that the child had been coached in the matter.

{¶14} In her assignment of error, Mother argues that the trial court abused

its discretion by interviewing T.K. in camera over Mother’s objection.

Standard of Review

{¶15} “A trial court’s decision as to whether to interview a child cannot be

reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213, 219

(1988). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219

(1983).

Analysis

{¶16} At the March 25, 2024 hearing on Father’s motion for custody of T.K.,

Father requested that the trial court interview T.K. in camera to determine T.K.’s

wishes. Mother’s attorney objected to the trial court interviewing T.K., stating that

she believed T.K. “might have been coached.” (Tr. at 6). The trial court overruled

Mother’s objection and interviewed T.K. in camera.

{¶17} Mother now argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing

to conduct an inquiry regarding her concerns over T.K. potentially being coached.

-5- Case No. 12-24-04

She argues that she was prejudiced by the trial court’s determination to interview

T.K. in camera; however, she does not explain how the trial court’s decision

specifically prejudiced her. Similarly, she does not provide any case authority or

legal support establishing how the trial court abused its discretion.

{¶18} In our own review of the matter, we emphasize that pursuant to R.C.

2151.23(F)(1), a “juvenile court shall exercise its jurisdiction in child custody

matters in accordance with [inter alia] section[] 3109.04 . . . of the revised code.”

The interplay between R.C. 2151.23 and R.C. 3109.04 is important because R.C.

3109.04(B)(1) states that upon the request of either party, the trial court “shall

interview [the child] in chambers[.]” (Emphasis added.) Given this clear statutory

language, we can find no error here, let alone an abuse of discretion, where a trial

court interviews a child after it has been specifically requested by a party because

that is precisely what R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) requires.

{¶19} Moreover, we emphasize that Mother baldly asserted that she was

concerned that T.K. had been coached, but she had no reasoning to support her

suspicion. Further, we fail to see how even if there was error, there could be any

prejudice here because T.K.’s GAL and Mother’s GAL both recommended that

Father be granted custody.

{¶20} In sum, Mother raised an unsupported objection to the trial court

interviewing T.K. in camera and that objection was overruled. We find no error with

the trial court’s decision. Therefore, Mother’s assignment of error is overruled.

-6- Case No. 12-24-04

Conclusion

{¶21} Having found no error prejudicial to Mother in the particulars assigned

and argued, her assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Putnam

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlm

-7-