dissenting.
{¶ 75} Because I do not believe that the state carried its burden of showing either that Jordan was an abused child, pursuant to R.C. 2151.031(C), or that Jayden and Jillian were dependent children, pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C), I would reverse and remand based on their parents’ first and second assignments of error. In consequence of that, I would find the third assignment of error moot.
{¶ 76} Under the statutes, findings of either abuse or dependency require the state to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence — evidence that “will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” (Emphasis added.) Cross, 161 Ohio St. 469, 53 O.O. 361, 120 N.E.2d 118, at paragraph three of the syllabus. As the majority notes, this high evidentiary standard is meant to protect parents’ constitutional right to raise and nurture their offspring. Cf. Veccia, 2006-Ohio-6095, 2006 WL 3350706, at ¶ 31. The evidence presented by the state in this case is simply of insufficient quality to meet the standard required.
{¶ 77} Five medical experts testified. The three distinguished physicians from Rainbow stated that Jordan’s injuries correlated highly with child abuse. However, they admitted to not having checked into his medical history, and they were unaware of, or failed to take into account, his traumatic birth. Dr. Barnes testified that when a newborn presents with a skull fracture like Jordan’s, determining whether the injury might have resulted from birth trauma is a requisite. In effect, there was a failure in the standard of care. And while we *364are required to defer to the trial court’s determination of the credibility of witnesses, that court stated that all the physicians testifying before it were credible. It is further worth noting that Dr. Sivit admitted in his own testimony that Dr. Paul Kleinman, with whom Dr. Barnes coauthored two chapters in Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse, is the leading authority in the field of radiology and child abuse.
{¶ 78} Further, both Dr. Barnes and Dr. Keller strongly opposed the testimony of all three of the state’s medical witnesses that Jordan did not display symptoms of rickets or a metabolic bone disorder. Both asserted that babies with rickets often display injuries mimicking those typical of child abuse. Dr. Keller testified that all of Jordan’s injuries might be the result of birth trauma and normal handling, if he did have rickets. The trial court specifically accepted her testimony was credible, and that Jordan did have rickets.
{¶ 79} Of course, both Dr. Barnes and Dr. Keller admitted that they could not rule out child abuse as the source of Jordan’s injuries. But this was because no attempt was made by the attending physicians in June 2007 to rule out rickets as the source.
{¶ 80} I simply cannot see that the state presented clear and convincing evidence that Jordan was abused. I would not find that it presented a preponderance of evidence that he was abused.
{¶ 81} Again, the state failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the environment of Jillian and Jayden rendered them dependent. X-rays taken at Rainbow at the time of their brother’s examination in June 2007 failed to establish any injuries, and neither did their medical records. The police established that inspection of the Palkovic/Savchuk home revealed nothing to arouse suspicion. Indeed, Teresa and Andrew had taken measures to make the house safe for toddlers.
{¶ 82} Fundamentally, the findings of dependency appear to be based on suspicions regarding the demeanor and conduct of Andrew. He was alone with Jordan for several hours the day before Teresa noticed the skull fracture. Teresa admitted that Andrew is a rough man, who likes to roughhouse with his children. He has occasionally physically displayed anger towards her. He was distraught and uncommunicative the evening Jordan was brought to Rainbow.
{¶ 83} I do not think that these facts rise, as a matter of law, to clear and convincing evidence that Andrew’s conduct renders his household an unfit environment for his daughters.
{¶ 84} I further note that Jayden and Jillian were reunited with their parents at the dispositional hearing held October 31, 2007 — one day following the entry of the judgment appealed. Jordan returned to his parents’ household by the end of *365December 2007. There seems to have been no criminal investigation of Andrew. These facts strongly suggest that the authorities involved realized that these children were neither dependent nor abused.
{¶ 85} Under the majority’s analysis, it is difficult to visualize any scenario under which an aggrieved parent could ever mount a manifest-weight challenge to a finding of dependency or neglect.
{¶ 86} I respectfully dissent.