J.L. v. T.R.
This text of 2024 Ohio 1659 (J.L. v. T.R.) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as J.L. v. T.R., 2024-Ohio-1659.]
COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
J.R.C.D.L. : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. -vs- : : Case No. 23 AP 11 0061 : T.D.L.R. : : : Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2023 CC 00170
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 29, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee:
GWENDOLYN STARDA NO APPEARANCE 148 E. Liberty St., Suite 224 Wooster, OH 44691 [Cite as J.L. v. T.R., 2024-Ohio-1659.]
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant J.R.C.D.L. appeals the November 2, 2023 judgment entry
of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellant J.R.C.D.L. filed a complaint for
custody with the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.
Appellant moved the juvenile court to name her the legal custodian of the minor child,
G.D.L.S. The minor child, born on March 18, 2006, was Appellant’s sister-in-law.
Appellant alleged the minor child was an abused, neglected, and dependent child. Father
of the minor child, who resided in Guatemala, waived service of the complaint. Mother of
the minor child was deceased. As part of her complaint, Appellant noted that the minor
child could be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status if the juvenile court awarded
her legal custody of the minor child.
{¶3} The matter came on for hearing before the juvenile court on October 30,
2023. Appellant and the minor child were the two witnesses. Both required an interpreter
in the IXIL language. Appellant testified that she lives in Dover, Ohio with her husband
and three children. The minor child is the sister of her husband. Appellant left Guatemala
and has resided in the United State since 2015. While Appellant resided in Guatemala,
Appellant never spoke with the child’s father. Appellant testified that her husband
sometimes spoke with his father. Appellant knew that her husband spoke to his father
about their plans to have the minor child come to the United States.
{¶4} Appellant testified that she and her husband arranged and paid to have the
minor child transported from Guatemala to the United States. The minor child came to [Cite as J.L. v. T.R., 2024-Ohio-1659.]
live with her on January 3, 2023. Appellant testified that the minor child’s father did not
visit the child or send money for the child. Appellant did not believe that the minor child
was safe with Father because she had told her that her father hit her multiple times. It
was not safe for the child in Guatemala due to the gangs.
{¶5} The minor child testified that she was in 12th grade at Dover High School.
She stated she did not feel safe with her father in Guatemala because he hit her. She
was not asked whether she had any contact with her father since she had come to the
United States.
{¶6} The juvenile court issued its judgment entry on November 2, 2023, denying
Appellant’s complaint for legal custody. Because a non-parent was seeking custody and
the child had not been previously adjudicated neglected, abandoned, or dependent, the
juvenile court first determined parental unsuitability. The juvenile court found that based
on evidence presented at the hearing and its consideration of the credibility of the
witnesses, it found no evidence that father of the child was unsuitable. The juvenile court
found the child was not abandoned, neglected, or abused as defined by statute. It found
reunification with the father was possible and it was in the child’s best interest to return to
Guatemala.
{¶7} On November 29, 2023, Appellant filed her notice of appeal of the juvenile
court’s judgment entry.
{¶8} The matter was assigned on February 27, 2024.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶9} Appellant raises three Assignments of Error: [Cite as J.L. v. T.R., 2024-Ohio-1659.]
I. THE TRIAL COURT NEGLECTED TO MAKE FINDINGS AS TO ALL THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, AND LACKED BOTH AUTHORITY
AND EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT THE CHILD IS A “RUNAWAY.”
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND WENT AGAINST
THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN FINDING THE
CHILD NOT CREDIBLE AS TO HER TESTIMONY OF ABUSE.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED AS A
MATTER OF LAW AND FACT WHEN FINDING THAT THE CHILD WAS
NOT NEGLECTED, ABANDONED, OR ABUSED.
ANALYSIS
Mootness
{¶10} Before we address Appellant’s three Assignments of Error, we first examine
whether the matter has become moot due to the age of the child in question. “Mootness
is a jurisdictional question because the Court ‘is not empowered to decide moot questions
or abstract propositions.” Salameh v. Doumet, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19 CAF 01 0029,
2019-Ohio-5392, ¶ 18 quoting State v. Feister, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2018 AP 01
0005, 2018-Ohio-2336, ¶ 28 quoting United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116,
40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.Ed. 808 (1920), quoting California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co.,
149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747 (1893); Because mootness is a
jurisdictional question, the question of mootness is one that must be addressed even if
the parties do not raise it. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. at 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30
L.Ed.2d 413.
{¶11} The Third District Court of Appeals has explained: [Cite as J.L. v. T.R., 2024-Ohio-1659.]
Mootness has been described as a “doctrine of standing in a time frame:
The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the
litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”
Consequently, a case is moot where a judgment is sought on a matter that
when rendered does not have any practical effect upon the issues raised
by the pleadings.
(Citations omitted.) Siferd v. Siferd, 3rd Dist. No. 5-17-04, 2017-Ohio-8624, 100 N.E.3d
915, 2017 WL 5565495, ¶ 12 quoting RLJ Management Co., Inc. v. Larry Baldwin, 3rd
Dist. Crawford No. 3–01–16, 2001 WL 1613014 (Dec. 18, 2001), quoting U.S. Parole
Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980).
{¶12} The child in this case was born on March 18, 2006. When Appellant filed
her motion for legal custody, the child was a minor under the age of 18 years old. During
the pendency of the appeal, the child turned 18 years old on March 18, 2024.
{¶13} The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the
custody of any child that is not a ward of another court of this state. R.C. 2151.23(A)(2).
R.C. 2151.011(B)(6) defines “child” to mean “a person who is under eighteen years of
age, except that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over any person who is adjudicated an
unruly child prior to attaining eighteen years of age until the person attains twenty-one
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 Ohio 1659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jl-v-tr-ohioctapp-2024.