[Cite as In re A.H., 2014-Ohio-1929.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
IN RE A.H. :
: Case No. CT2013-0051
:
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, Case No. 21230177
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 5, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Mother:
JOHN D. WEAVER
MARIA N. KALIS 542 S. Drexel Ave.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Bexley, OH 43209
27 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 189 For Maternal Grandmother:
Zanesville, OH 43702-0189 ROSE FOX
223 Main St.
Guardian ad Litem: Zanesville, OH 43701
VINCENT RUSSO
44 S. 6th St. For Father:
Zanesville, OH 43701 FREDRICK SEALOVER
45 N. Fourth St.
For MMCS: Zanesville, OH 43701
MOLLY MARTIN
27 N. 5th St. For Paternal Aunt:
Zanesville, OH 43701 DREMA BOGART
P.O. Box 30402
Gahanna, OH 43230
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0051 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Mother appeals the September 23, 2013 judgment entry of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} A.H. was born on September 11, 2012 to Mother. Muskingum County
Children Services (“MCCS”) became involved with the family at A.H.’s birth because the
child tested positive for Hydrocodone at birth. A.H. was placed in the care of the child’s
Maternal Grandmother.
{¶3} The trial court appointed a Guardian ad Litem for A.H. on January 3, 2013.
On that same day, MCCS filed a complaint requesting the trial court declare A.H.
neglected and dependant. A shelter care hearing was held on January 4, 2013 and A.H.
was placed in the temporary custody of Maternal Grandmother.
{¶4} On February 21, 2013, Paternal Aunt filed a Motion to be Made a Party
upon Disposition and a Motion for Legal Custody, or alternatively, Temporary Custody.
The trial court granted the motion to be made a party upon disposition.
{¶5} An adjudicatory hearing was held on March 20, 2013, where A.H. was
adjudicated a neglected and dependent child. The trial court next held the dispositional
hearing where A.H. was placed in the temporary custody of Maternal Grandmother
under the protective supervision of MCCS.
{¶6} Maternal Grandmother filed a Motion for Legal Custody on April 16, 2013.
{¶7} The trial court held a hearing on the motions for legal custody on
September 17, 2013. The trial court issued its judgment entry on September 23, 2013.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0051 3
The trial court granted legal custody of A.H. to Paternal Aunt. Maternal Grandmother
was awarded visitation of A.H. Protective supervision by MCCS of A.H. was terminated.
{¶8} It is from this decision Mother now appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶9} Mother raises two Assignments of Error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING LEGAL CUSTODY
WITHOUT FINDING THAT REASONABLE EFFORTS HAS BEEN TAKEN TO
PREVENT THE CONTINUED REMOVAL OF A.H.
{¶11} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FINDING IT
WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF A.H. TO AWARD LEGAL CUSTODY TO
[PATERNAL AUNT].”
ANALYSIS
I.
{¶12} Mother argues in her first Assignment of Error that the trial court erred in
not entering the specific findings of fact as required under R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). Upon
the authority of this Court’s previous decision in In re B.G., 5th Dist. Muskingum No.
CT2013-0033, 2014-Ohio-409, we agree.
{¶13} R.C. 2151.419 governs hearings on efforts of agencies to prevent removal
of children from homes. Subsection (A)(1) states the following:
Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, at any hearing
held pursuant to section 2151.28, division (E) of section 2151.31, or
section 2151.314, 2151.33, or 2151.353 of the Revised Code at which the
court removes a child from the child's home or continues the removal of a
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0051 4
child from the child's home, the court shall determine whether the public
children services agency or private child placing agency that filed the
complaint in the case, removed the child from home, has custody of the
child, or will be given custody of the child has made reasonable efforts to
prevent the removal of the child from the child's home, to eliminate the
continued removal of the child from the child's home, or to make it
possible for the child to return safely home. The agency shall have the
burden of proving that it has made those reasonable efforts. If the agency
removed the child from home during an emergency in which the child
could not safely remain at home and the agency did not have prior contact
with the child, the court is not prohibited, solely because the agency did
not make reasonable efforts during the emergency to prevent the removal
of the child, from determining that the agency made those reasonable
efforts. In determining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child's
health and safety shall be paramount.
{¶14} Subsection (B)(1) states the following:
A court that is required to make a determination as described in
division (A)(1) or (2) of this section shall issue written findings of fact
setting forth the reasons supporting its determination. If the court makes a
written determination under division (A)(1) of this section, it shall briefly
describe in the findings of fact the relevant services provided by the
agency to the family of the child and why those services did not prevent
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0051 5
the removal of the child from the child's home or enable the child to return
safely home.
{¶15} There is no dispute that the September 23, 2013 judgment entry granting
legal custody to Paternal Aunt does not contain a brief description in the findings of fact
as to the relevant services provided by the agency to the family of the child and why
those services did not prevent the removal of the child from the child’s home or enable
the child to return safely home.
{¶16} Pursuant to In re B.G. supra and In re Kyle, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No.
2008 AP 01 0002, 2008-Ohio-5892, we reverse the trial court’s September 23, 2013
judgment entry for the trial court’s failure to address in writing the reasonable efforts of
the agency as required by R.C. 2151.419.
{¶17} The first Assignment of Error is sustained.
II.
{¶18} Based upon our opinion in the first Assignment of Error, the second
Assignment of Error is premature.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0051 6
CONCLUSION
{¶19} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
and law.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, P.J. and
Baldwin, J., concur.