In re A.W.

Carr, Judge,

dissenting.

{¶ 22} I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 23} I agree that CSB has not challenged the trial court’s determination that A.W. was not dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). Therefore, I am unable to render an opinion as to the propriety of that determination.

{¶ 24} I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that CSB failed to present clear and convincing evidence that A.W. was residing in a household in which a person residing therein committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication that A.W.’s sibling was an abused, neglected, or dependent child so as to find A.W. dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(D). I would not construe the phrase “committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication” as narrowly as does the majority. I do not believe that the legislature intended to protect only those children whose siblings had been abused or neglected under known circumstances by clearly identifiable perpetrators who had been held criminally accountable. Rather, I believe that the legislature intended to provide a safety net for all children whose siblings had been subjected to circumstances giving rise to their abuse, neglect, or dependency.

{¶ 25} In this case, A.W.’s sibling was adjudicated abused and dependent based on Mother’s stipulation to those facts. Mother’s act of stipulating that F.M. was abused and dependent resulted in that child’s adjudication as such. Notwithstanding the absence of evidence regarding thé specific circumstances resulting in F.M.’s injuries, I would conclude that Mother’s stipulation that the child was both abused and dependent constituted the commission of an act that formed the basis of the child’s adjudication pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(D)(1).

{¶ 26} Moreover, I would conclude that the circumstances surrounding F.M.’s abuse and dependency, specifically the child’s sustaining of unusual, unexplained, and significant injuries, indicate that A.W. is in danger of being abused or neglected by a person in the household so as to satisfy R.C. 2151.04(D)(2). Accordingly, I would affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication of dependency.