In re B.G. , 2014 Ohio 409 ( 2014 )

[Cite as In re B.G., 2014-Ohio-409.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
B.G., P.G., & K.G. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
: Case No. CT2013-0033
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos.
21230095, 21230096, 21230097
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For MCCS
JOHN D. WEAVER MOLLY L. MARTIN
542 South Drexel Avenue 27 North Fifth Street
Bexley, OH 43209 P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, OH 43702-0189
Guardian ad Litem
JEANETTE MOLL
803B Market Street
Zanesville, OH 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On June 14, 2012, appellee, the Muskingum County Children Services,
filed a complaint for the temporary custody of B.G. born May 9, 2009, P.G. born April 7,
2010, and K.G. born May 27, 2012, alleging the children to be abused, neglected, and
dependent. Mother of the children is appellant, Ashley Emahiser; father is Cody
Grandstaff.
{¶2} An adjudicatory hearing was held on May 28, 2013 and all three children
were found to be neglected. Following a dispositional hearing, legal custody of the
three children was awarded to Tim and Mary Hazelton. The adjudicatory dispositional
entry was filed on June 26, 2013.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of errors are as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION THAT THE CHILDREN WERE
NEGLECTED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE."
II
{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FAILING TO
DESCRIBE IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT THE RELEVANT SERVICES PROVIDED BY
THE AGENCY TO THE APPELLANT AND WHY THESE SERVICES DID NOT
ENABLE THE CHILD[REN] TO RETURN HOME AS REQUIRED BY R.C.
2151.419(B)(1)."
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 3
III
{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISON THAT THE AGENCY HAD MADE
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL IS NOT SUPPORED BY CLEAR
AND CONVICNING EVIDENCE."
II
{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court erred in not entering findings of fact as
required under R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). We agree.
{¶8} 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
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
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 4
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.
{¶9} 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
the removal of the child from the child's home or enable the child to return
safely home.
{¶10} The trial court's finding in its June 26, 2013 adjudicatory dispositional entry
states in total:
Finding: Based upon testimony presented, the Court finds that
[B.G.], [P.G.] and [K.G.] are neglected children as defined in Section
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 5
2151.03(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code. [B.G.], [P.G.] and [K.G.] are
neglected children who lack adequate parental care because of the faults
or habits of the children's parent/s, guardian or custodian.
The Court further finds that continuation in the home would be
contrary to the best interests and welfare of the children; placement is in
the best interest of the children; the agency has made reasonable efforts
to prevent placement.
{¶11} In In re Kyle, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2008 AP 01 0002, 2008-Ohio-
5892, this court reviewed a similar case and reversed the trial court's decision, stating
the trial court failed to address in writing the reasonable efforts of the agency as
required by R.C. 2151.419. We find the same in the case sub judice.
{¶12} Assignment of Error II is granted.
I, III
{¶13} Based upon our opinion in Assignment of Error II, these assignments are
premature.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 6
{¶14} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio,
Juvenile Division is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded for findings pursuant
to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1).
By Farmer, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
SGF/sg 117