In re L.H. , 2018 Ohio 802 ( 2018 )

[Cite as In re L.H., 2018-Ohio-802.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: :
CASE NOS. CA2017-06-081
L.H., et al. : CA2017-06-083
CA2017-06-087
:
OPINION
: 3/5/2018
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case Nos. 17-D000022, 17-D000023, & 17-D000024
The Law Offices of Jane A. Short, Alexandra E. Winters, 42 East Silver Street, Lebanon,
Ohio 45036, guardian ad litem
Kim Bui, 8080 Beckett Center Drive, Suite 112, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellant,
Mother
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten Brandt, 520 Justice Drive,
Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee, Warren County Children Services
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from the decisions of the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, which adjudicated her children dependent and abused and granted
protective supervision to Warren County Children Services. For the reasons discussed
below, we reverse.
{¶ 2} Mother is the biological mother of D.T. and his two younger step-siblings, L.H.1
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
and L.H.2. D.T.'s biological father is deceased. Father, who is not a party to this appeal, is
believed to be the biological father of L.H.1 and L.H.2.
{¶ 3} At the adjudicatory hearing, a caseworker with Warren County Children
Services ("WCCS" or "the agency") testified that in August 2016, the agency received a
report alleging that Father was physically abusing D.T. – then seven years old – with a belt.
The report also alleged that there were firearms in the apartment where Mother and the
children lived. The caseworker contacted Mother by phone, who denied the allegations.
{¶ 4} The caseworker subsequently visited the apartment. Mother, D.T., and L.H.1
were present. L.H.2 was not yet born. Mother again denied that abuse occurred or that
there were firearms in the apartment. The caseworker asked Mother about allegations that
Father had committed acts of domestic violence towards her. Mother denied the allegations
and claimed that her mother ("maternal grandmother") reported the allegations and that
maternal grandmother did not like Father.
{¶ 5} During the visit, the caseworker had no concerns with respect to the condition
of the apartment, the availability of food, or the condition of the children. Father appeared
while the visit was ongoing. Father denied living with Mother and the children and claimed to
reside with another person in the same apartment complex. Father denied physically
abusing D.T. and denied that there were firearms in the apartment.
{¶ 6} The caseworker observed D.T.'s room and noticed that there was a plastic liner
on the bed and the room smelled of urine. Mother and Father explained that D.T. had been
urinating on himself and that they were seeing a pediatrician to address the issue.
{¶ 7} The caseworker offered Mother and Father parenting classes. Both declined.
The caseworker noticed that L.H.1 appeared to have delayed speech issues and offered to
enter the child into a speech program. Mother and Father declined this offer.
{¶ 8} The caseworker maintained sporadic contact with Mother over the next few
-2-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
months. In early November 2016, the caseworker again visited with the family. All family
members were present, including L.H.2 who had just recently been born. Mother and Father
again reported that Father was not living at the apartment. The caseworker again offered
parenting classes, which the parents declined. There were no concerns with the apartment.
{¶ 9} The caseworker testified that in January 2017 the agency received a report that
D.T. was fearful to return home from school because Mother "whooped" D.T. on his "nuts"
with a belt as discipline for urinating on himself and leaving his soiled clothing in the
bathroom. The caseworker and another WCCS social worker went to the apartment, where
Mother and Father were present. D.T. was still at school.
{¶ 10} The caseworker relayed the allegations from outside the apartment. Mother
and Father both became extremely upset. Mother denied the allegations and told the
caseworker that she was not going to allow her to enter the apartment. Mother complained
that the agency should have closed their case. Father was walking through the apartment,
yelling, and saying that "people were lying."
{¶ 11} D.T. arrived as the caseworker was attempting to convince Mother and Father
to let the agency enter D.T. into a safety plan. Mother confronted D.T., asking him if he felt
safe in the home, if he told anyone he did not feel safe, and whether he was being physically
abused. D.T. said "no."
{¶ 12} The caseworker asked for permission to speak with D.T. privately, which the
parents allowed. The caseworker spoke with D.T. for approximately seven minutes. D.T.
was quiet and shy. D.T. would only answer the caseworker's questions with one or two-word
answers. The caseworker asked D.T. if he was afraid of being at home and he shook his
head slowly from side to side, indicating "no." The caseworker asked D.T. if he had been
hurt recently and D.T. shrugged his shoulders. D.T. was in winter clothing. The caseworker
could not see whether there were any bruises or marks on his body and did not check.
-3-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
{¶ 13} While the caseworker spoke with D.T., Father continued to yell in the
background. Father then went into the kitchen and the caseworker heard loud noises like
"dishes hitting each other." Given the escalation in Father's anger, the two agency
employees decided to call the police.
{¶ 14} The responding police officers went into the apartment and spoke with Mother
and Father. Father calmed down after speaking with the police. The caseworker again
asked the parents to enter D.T. into a safety plan. They declined.
{¶ 15} WCCS scheduled D.T. for an interview the next day at the Child Advocacy
Center of Warren County ("CAC"). Maternal grandmother brought D.T. to the interview.
Over Mother's objection, the social worker who conducted the interview, Tracey Tindall,
testified that D.T. disclosed to her that Mother "whooped" him on his "private parts" with
Father's belt. Tindall asked D.T. how the "whooping" felt; he yelled. D.T. also disclosed that
his dad "whooped" him on his butt, although D.T. pointed towards his upper thigh. D.T. also
alleged that Father "whooped" him for "telling" and that he was "hurt on his arm."
{¶ 16} In February 2017, WCCS filed a complaint alleging that D.T. was an abused
and dependent child. WCCS simultaneously filed complaints alleging that L.H.1 and L.H.2
were dependent children. WCCS requested that the court grant a disposition of protective
supervision to the agency.
{¶ 17} Following the adjudicatory hearing, at which only the WCCS caseworker and
Tindall testified, a magistrate issued an April 2017 decision recommending that the court find
that D.T. was an abused child pursuant to R.C. 2151.031(B) and (D) and a dependent child
pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). The magistrate further recommended that the court find that
L.H.1 and L.H.2 were dependent children pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). The juvenile court
adopted the decisions on the same day. Mother objected to the magistrate's decisions but
filed her notices of appeal before the court ruled on the objections. Mother raises five
-4-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
assignments of error in this appeal.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING A SOCIAL WORKER TO
TESTIFY TO INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.
{¶ 20} Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay,
i.e., D.T.'s statements to Tindall concerning the alleged abuse. The court allowed Tindall's
testimony pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4), the hearsay exception for statements made for
purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.1 Mother argues that the evidence at the hearing
did not support the conclusion that D.T.'s statements were for medical diagnosis or
treatment.
{¶ 21} This court reviews challenges to the lower court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987),
paragraph two of the syllabus. The term "abuse of discretion" implies that the court's attitude
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Thornton, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2012-09-063, 2013-Ohio-2394, ¶ 34. A decision is unreasonable when it is unsupported
by a sound reasoning process. State v. Roome, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2016-09-028,
2017-Ohio-4230, ¶ 8.
{¶ 22} At the adjudicatory stage of juvenile proceedings there must be strict
adherence to the rules of evidence. In re Theaderman, 12th Dist. Brown Nos. CA2001-04-
003, CA2001-04-004, CA2001-08-012, and CA2001-08-013, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 151, *15
(Jan. 18, 2002), fn. 2; and In re Vickery, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA89-05-076, 1990 Ohio App.
LEXIS 5604, *5 (Dec. 17, 1990), citing In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St. 3d 229, 233
1. Prior to the adjudicatory hearing, Mother moved in limine to exclude Tindall's testimony concerning D.T.'s
statements. The court denied the motion. Mother preserved her objection at the hearing.
-5-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
(1985).2 Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
Evid.R. 801(C). Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule
applies. Evid.R. 802. Evid.R. 803(4) provides an exception to the hearsay rule as follows:
[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment and describing medical history, or past or present
symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general
character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as
reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
As explained by the staff notes, statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment have a "circumstantial guaranty of trustworthiness" because of the assumption that
"a person will be truthful about his physical condition to a physician because of the risk of
harmful treatment resulting from untruthful statements." Evid.R. 803(4), Staff Notes.
{¶ 23} Hearsay statements concerning abuse made by a child to a social worker may
be admissible under the Evid.R. 803(4) exception if they are made for purposes of medical
diagnosis or treatment. See State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007-Ohio-5267. The salient
inquiry is whether the statement was made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment
rather than for some other purpose. State v. Rose, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-11-214,
2012-Ohio-5607, ¶ 42, citing Muttart at ¶ 47. In making this determination, the court must
consider the circumstances surround the child's statements. Muttart at ¶ 48. While the
specific considerations may change, the Ohio Supreme Court has provided the following
nonexhaustive list of factors: (1) the manner in which the child was questioned, (2) whether
the child had any motive to fabricate abuse, (3) whether the child understood the need to tell
the truth, (4) the age of the child, (5) whether the statements were elicited as part of a police
investigation or with the intention of preserving a statement for trial (a "facade for state
2. The standard is relaxed at the dispositional stage, where the court has discretion to admit ordinarily
inadmissible evidence. Juv.R. 34(B)(2).
-6-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
action"), and (6) the circumstances by which the child came to be interviewed. Id. at ¶ 49,
61, 62.
{¶ 24} With respect to the manner in which Tindall questioned D.T., the recorded
interview was not admitted into evidence. Tindall testified that she received training in
interviewing methods to avoid suggestibility. Tindall's testimony specific to her interview with
D.T. focused on the answers that D.T. provided concerning the abuse rather than the specific
questions she asked of him. In sum, there is little evidence in the record from which we can
determine whether D.T.'s statements were trustworthy based on Tindall's interview.
{¶ 25} There was no evidence in the record indicating that D.T. had any motivation to
fabricate the abuse claims. With respect to whether D.T. understood the need to tell Tindall
the truth, Tindall testified that when she met with D.T. she informed him that her job was
simply to talk to people about "things that happened." Notably, Tindall admitted that she did
not tell D.T. that he was at the CAC for purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment because
"it's not my role." Thus, by Tindall's own account there is no evidence to indicate that D.T.
understood he was being questioned for medical purposes.
{¶ 26} With respect to whether the statements were elicited for purposes of an
agency investigation rather than medical concerns, Tindall testified that as a forensic
interviewer at the CAC she acted as an agent for both medical workers and law enforcement.
Any interviews she conducted would be recorded, and could then be shared with others on
the CAC's multi-disciplinary team. Tindall noted that she sometimes made referrals for
mental or medical health needs following an interview.
{¶ 27} Other than this generic testimony there is little in the record before us that
supports the conclusion that D.T.'s statements to Tindall were made for purposes of medical
diagnosis or treatment. Tindall testified that she tried to determine in the interview whether
D.T. sustained physical injuries. However, the record contains little evidence clarifying the
-7-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
questions she posed to D.T. on this subject. With respect to the location of the injuries,
Tindall testified that D.T. said that Mother struck him on his "private parts." Tindall initially
explained that she was not sure whether D.T. said "private parts" or used another phrase.
Later, under cross-examination, Tindall indicated that D.T. said "private parts." Regardless,
Tindall conceded that she did not know what part of D.T.'s body D.T. was referring to when
he said "private parts." When asked why she would not have used a drawing or doll to assist
in o0btaining this information Tindall stated that it was best practice not to use drawings or
dolls and claimed that research had found that "it's best to let children use their own words."
However, if a purpose of Tindall's interview was to gather information for potential medical
treatment one would assume that she would use some method to determine a precise injury
location. Her explanation is more sensible if the purpose of the interview was merely to
confirm and create evidence in support of the agency's investigation.
{¶ 28} Tindall could not recall if D.T. stated that he had any marks or bruises on his
body from the abuse. Tindall also could not recall if she asked D.T. a question concerning
marks or bruises. Tindall did not look for bruises or ask to see any part of D.T.'s body where
he claimed to have been abused because "that's not my role." Based upon the record before
us, the evidence supports the conclusion that Tindall obtained D.T.'s statements for purposes
of assisting the agency with its investigation and not for medical diagnosis or treatment.
{¶ 29} With respect to how D.T. came to be interviewed, maternal grandmother
brought D.T. to the interview the day after an agency caseworker attempted to convince
Mother and Father to enter D.T. into a safety plan. There is some indication in the record
that maternal grandmother may have been the source of a report to the agency. WCCS
sc0heduled the interview. The agency did not seek D.T.'s emergency removal for the alleged
physical abuse the day of the report but instead was satisfied to wait until the next day to
have him interviewed. Thus, this factor supports the conclusion that the agency sought the
-8-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
interview to further its investigation and not because of medical concerns. After reviewing the
relevant Muttart factors, this court concludes that the record contained insufficient evidence
upon which the juvenile court could find that the statements made by D.T. to Tindall were for
purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
{¶ 30} The agency argues that this case is indistinguishable from this court's past
cases finding statements made by an abused child to an interviewing social worker
admissible under Evid.R. 803(4). State v. Kersbergen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-218,
2015-Ohio-3103; State v. Richardson, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2014-03-023, CA2014-06-
044, and CA2014-06-045, 2015-Ohio-824; State v. Pence, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-
05-045, 2013-Ohio-1388; and State v. Gray, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-176, 2012-
Ohio-4769. Those cases are distinguishable because in each some credible evidence
supported a threshold determination that at least some of the statements made during the
interview were for medical diagnostic reasons rather than exclusively in support of an agency
or law enforcement investigation. In Kersbergen the child discussed various medical
concerns about her body, including cramps and concerns that she was developing differently
than other girls because of the abuse. Id. at ¶ 9, 27. In Richardson, the children's concerned
mother took the children to a hospital where they were interviewed and the child physically
examined and then referred for further interviews at a child advocacy center. Id. at ¶ 5, 33.
In both Pence and Gray, the interviewer asked the child sex abuse victims to specify
precisely where they had been touched using an anatomically correct drawing to assist with
potential further medical evaluation. Pence at ¶ 37; Gray at ¶ 3. Additionally, in the cited
cases the child victim either testified or all or portions of the interview were made part of the
record. Kersbergen at ¶ 10; Richardson at ¶ 9; Pence at ¶ 37; Gray at ¶ 8. Finally, to extent
this court found that certain statements were erroneously admitted, we also found that the
error was either harmless or did not meet a plain error standard because of substantial other
-9-
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
evidence in the record supporting the court's findings. Kersbergen at ¶ 68; Richardson at ¶
38, 43; Pence at ¶ 38; Gray at ¶ 51.
{¶ 31} In this case, the record contains little more than rote discussion of the purpose
of the CAC and Tindall's role as a forensic interviewer. The evidence concerning the
interview did not objectively reveal that the agency was investigating the alleged abuse for
purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Accordingly, the juvenile court erred in allowing
Tindall to testify as to D.T.'s statements.
{¶ 32} This error requires reversal. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.35(A), a juvenile court's
adjudication of a child as abused, neglected, or dependent must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. See also Juv.R. 29(E)(4). An appellate court's review of a juvenile
court's decision finding clear and convincing evidence is limited to whether there is sufficient,
credible evidence in the record supporting the juvenile court's decision. In re L.J., 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2007-07-080, 2007-Ohio-5498, ¶ 12. A reviewing court will not reverse a
finding by a juvenile court that the evidence was clear and convincing unless there is a
sufficient conflict in the evidence presented. In re A.F., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2006-09-
012, 2007-Ohio-1646, ¶ 10.
{¶ 33} Save for Tindall's inadmissible testimony, the record contains no clear and
convincing evidence of abuse. D.T. did not testify. The guardian ad litem did not testify. The
prosecutor did not submit any documentary evidence or photographs at the hearing. The
WCCS caseworker observed no physical evidence of abuse during any of her three in-person
interactions with the family. The WCCS caseworker testified that when she spoke to D.T.
following the January 2017 report he reluctantly denied physical abuse. But the caseworker
did not attempt to physically examine the child or seek an appropriate person to do the same.
Thus, no credible, admissible evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that D.T. was an
abused child.
- 10 -
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
{¶ 34} The juvenile court's findings of dependency were primarily based upon its
finding that D.T. was an abused child. The court indicated that Mother's and Father's
emotional response to the agency's allegation also supported its finding of dependency.
However, Mother's and Father's behavior alone, though understandably concerning to the
agency workers, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the children were
dependent. Accordingly, because no admissible evidence exists to support the juvenile
court's adjudications we sustain Mother's first assignment of error.
{¶ 35} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 36} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADJUDICATING ALL THREE CHILDREN AS
DEPENDENT WHEN NO CHILD HAS BEEN SO ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE FILING
OF THE COMPLAINTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE ASSERTION.
{¶ 37} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 38} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE SOCIAL WORKER TO
TESTIFY TO A LEGAL CONCLUSION ABOUT CHILD ABUSE, AND NO PROPER
FOUNDATION WAS LAID TO QUALIFY THE WITNESS TO MAKE SUCH STATEMENT.
{¶ 39} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 40} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE ALLEGATIONS
CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT INSTEAD OF THE INFORMATION ACTUALLY
PRESENTED AT TRIAL, AND THE ADJUDICATIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND WERE CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 41} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 42} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING [THE] PARTIES TO PROCEED
WITH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE PRIOR TO RESOLUTION OF MOTHER'S OBJECTION
- 11 -
Warren CA2017-06-081,
CA2017-06-083, CA2017-06-087
[TO] THE ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS.
{¶ 43} Mother's remaining assignments of error are rendered moot upon our
resolution of Mother's first assignment of error and we need not address them. App.R.
12(A)(1)(c). Accordingly, this court overrules Mother's second through fifth assignments of
error.
{¶ 44} Judgment reversed and the trial court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders
are vacated.
S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
- 12 -