In re E.J. ( 2020 )

[Cite as In re E.J., 2020-Ohio-4010.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN RE: :
E.J. : CASE NO. CA2020-03-025
: OPINION
8/10/2020
:
:
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 18-D000090
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee
Lauren L. Clouse, 7681 Tylers Place Boulevard, Suite 3, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for
appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} E.J. appeals from the decision of the Butler County Common Pleas Court,
Juvenile Division, which denied her request to attend the permanent custody hearing in her
dependency case. For the reasons discussed below, this court affirms the juvenile court's
decision.
Warren CA2020-03-025
{¶2} In August 2018, Warren County Children Services ("WCCS" or "the agency")
filed a complaint alleging that E.J. was a dependent child. The complaint alleged that E.J.'s
legal custodians had expressed concerns as to their ability to provide for E.J. due to E.J.'s
behavioral issues. E.J.'s biological parents were not in a position to assume any form of
custody. WCCS requested temporary custody.
{¶3} The court held a hearing and subsequently issued an order granting WCCS
temporary custody. Later, the court adjudicated E.J. dependent and continued temporary
custody with the agency.
{¶4} In an effort to help manage her behavioral issues, WCCS placed E.J. in a
residential treatment program. After some progress, the agency returned E.J. to the care
of her legal custodians. WCCS later terminated the placement due to the agency's
concerns with the legal custodians' ability to supervise E.J. and E.J.'s failure to follow the
legal custodians' rules. The agency thereafter placed E.J. in a children's home.
{¶5} In November 2019, WCCS moved for permanent custody. The court
appointed E.J. an attorney to represent her in the case and at the hearing. E.J., who was
then 14 years old, moved that she be allowed to attend the permanent custody hearing and
further moved for an in camera interview.
{¶6} The court denied E.J.'s request to attend the hearing, concluding that it was it
was not in her best interest to listen to testimony concerning the shortcomings of her
biological parents. However, the court granted E.J.'s motion for an in camera interview.
{¶7} Following the permanent custody hearing and in camera interview, the court
issued a decision finding that a grant of permanent custody to WCCS was in E.J.'s best
interest. E.J. appeals, raising the following assignment of error.
{¶8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MINOR CHILD'S MOTION
TO BE PRESENT AT THE PERMANENT CUSTODY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE
-2-
Warren CA2020-03-025
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE
1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶9} E.J. argues that she was a party to the custody proceedings and as such was
entitled to due process of law, which would include the right to attend the permanent custody
hearing. E.J. contends that she opposed permanent custody and could have assisted her
counsel during the proceedings. E.J. also argues that her age at the time of the hearing
indicated that she was sufficiently mature to hear the testimony.
{¶10} The Revised Code provides that the juvenile court "may excuse the
attendance of the child at the hearing in cases involving abused, neglected, or dependent
children." R.C. 2151.35(A)(1). This provision is mirrored by the Ohio Rules of Juvenile
Procedure, which provide that "[t]he court may excuse the attendance of the child at the
hearing in neglect, dependency, or abuse cases." Juv.R. 27(A). It is therefore within the
sound discretion of the juvenile court to excuse a child's attendance at a permanent custody
hearing. In re Sallee, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA91-02-023, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 3760, *11.
Consequently, an appellate court reviews the juvenile court's decision to excuse a child
from a permanent custody hearing for an abuse of discretion, which implies that the court's
decision was unconscionable, unreasonable, or arbitrary. Salle at *11-12; Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217 (1983).
{¶11} The juvenile court premised its decision on concerns that it would not be in
E.J.'s best interest to listen to testimony discussing her parents' shortcomings. This
reasoning reflects a valid, sensible concern for the stability of E.J.'s mental health, which
concern was the underlying reason for the dependency case. Additionally, that E.J. was 14
years old at the time of the hearing could imply a greater ability to comprehend the testimony
and potentially increase mental health trauma that might occur as a result of attending the
hearing. See Sallee at *11 (concluding that a thirteen year old's presence at the permanent
-3-
Warren CA2020-03-025
custody hearing would likely be "too traumatic" and "more detrimental than beneficial").
This court does not find that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying E.J.'s motion
to attend the hearing.
{¶12} E.J. also contends that the juvenile court, in excusing her from the hearing,
violated her due process rights. The basic consideration of due process is whether the
individual had the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893 (1976). This court finds that the
juvenile court provided E.J. with the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and
manner consistent with due process of law. The juvenile court interviewed E.J. in camera
and the decision on permanent custody reflects that the court carefully considered her
wishes. The court also appointed E.J. counsel to represent her interests at the hearing.
The record reflects that E.J.'s attorney cross-examined the WCCS caseworker and elicited
testimony concerning E.J.'s wishes. Counsel further provided a closing argument
reiterating E.J.'s position against permanent custody. Based on the foregoing, this court
overrules E.J.'s assignment of error.
{¶13} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-4-