In re N.J.

[Cite as In re N.J., 2017-Ohio-7466.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: N.J., et al. :
CASE NOS. CA2016-10-086
: CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
:
OPINION
: 9/5/2017
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 16-D000079
Robyn W. Cambron, 5260 Indian Run, Cincinnati, Ohio 45243, for children
Jeffrey W. Stueve, 301 East Silver Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellant T.H.
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee Warren County Children's Services
David E. Smith, 251 West Central Avenue, #235, Springboro, Ohio 45066, for N.J.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, T.H. (Mother), appeals a decision of the Warren County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating her children abused and dependent.
{¶ 2} Mother and N.J. (Father) are the parents of three minor children, K.J., Ni.J., and
Ne.J. Mother and the children reside together in an apartment; Father lives nearby. Mother
works 40 hours a week. Father watches the children in their home when Mother is at work.
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
The children's paternal grandmother (Grandmother) lives nearby and frequently visits the
children in their home.
{¶ 3} On June 9, 2016, Grandmother went to Mother's home around noon. Mother
was at work, Father was on the phone, K.J. and Ne.J. were asleep, and Ni.J. was sitting on
the floor against a wall. At the time, K.J. was six years old, Ni.J. was four years old, and
Ne.J. was 11 months old. After Father left the apartment to pick up Mother from work, Ni.J.
got up and walked toward Grandmother. Upon noticing that Ni.J. was limping, Grandmother
asked him to pull down his pants. When he did so, Grandmother observed bruises and
marks, primarily on the left side of his body around the rib cage and buttocks. Grandmother
also noticed welts on Ni.J.'s penis and that his penis was "ridiculously swollen." Suspecting
that Father was the perpetrator of the abuse, Grandmother immediately called 9-1-1 and
reported, "my grandbaby was abused."
{¶ 4} Lebanon Police Officer Christopher Brock responded to the scene. Officer
Brock is an experienced police officer whose training includes child abuse investigation,
forensic interview of children, and evidence collection. The officer spoke with Grandmother
who was visibly upset and crying. Grandmother showed the officer Ni.J.'s injuries. Officer
Brock observed old injuries and scars on Ni.J.'s shoulders, lower back, forehead, and head.
He further observed red, raised, fresh welts on Ni.J.'s torso. Several of the welts were "half-
moon" shaped. Based upon his training and experience, the "half-moon" shape of the welts
indicated to Officer Brock that Ni.J. had been struck with something that had been "doubled-
over." Regarding some of Ni.J.'s injuries, the officer also observed what he believed to be
the transfer of "finish" from an HDMI cable found in the home. Upon pulling down Ni.J.'s
pants, the officer observed additional bruising, "a lot of redness," and numerous half-moon
shaped welts on Ni.J.'s thighs and lower abdomen. Additionally, Ni.J.'s penis was very
-2-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
swollen, red, and bleeding and there was blood in Ni.J.'s underwear.
{¶ 5} Officer Brock asked Ni.J. "who did this" and "with what." Ni.J. and his brother
K.J. responded by retrieving a leather belt with a buckle and a doubled-over HDMI cable from
an upstairs bedroom. Neither K.J. nor Ne.J. displayed signs of physical injury. Nevertheless,
Grandmother took K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. to the hospital for examination.
{¶ 6} Upon learning that Father had an outstanding arrest warrant, Officer Brock
arranged for Father to be arrested prior to his return to Mother’s home. Upon being arrested,
Father was brought to the Lebanon Police Department and questioned regarding Ni.J.'s
injuries. Father admitted "whooping" Ni.J. that day for sneaking food out of the refrigerator
after being told several times not to and for urinating on himself. Father told the police he
struck Ni.J. five times with a belt. Father however denied using the HDMI cable on Ni.J.
Father stated he believed in whipping his children and that he had a strict "three strikes and
you're out policy."
{¶ 7} Later that day, Warren County Children Services ("WCCS") supervisor Ashley
Stutzman and a caseworker met with Mother at her home. Upon learning there were
allegations of physical abuse regarding her children, Mother replied, "my children are
disciplined; they're not abused." Stutzman then informed Mother of Ni.J.'s injuries. Mother
denied seeing any injuries the previous night when she bathed Ni.J. Mother stated that she
had been at work since 4:00 a.m. that day and that Father was watching the children as he
customarily does during her 40-hour work week. Mother told Stutzman that the children are
typically disciplined with two to three whippings with a belt, or by writing sentences, doing
push-ups or sit-ups, or by verbal counselling. Mother stated that both she and Father
administer discipline to the children. Mother admitted she had concerns with Father's
discipline of the children, believing it was too rough, and that she had noticed marks on
-3-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
Ni.J.'s back in the past. Mother further admitted she had spoken with Father about her
concerns that he was too rough with the children. Following this interview, Mother agreed to
a safety plan for the children to be removed from her home and placed with Grandmother.
{¶ 8} Other family members also expressed concerns with the manner in which
Father disciplined the children. Father's sister stated that she regularly visits the home, had
previously noticed a mark on Ni.J., and had spoken with Father about being too rough and
strict with the children. Grandmother stated that it had been going on for years, that Ni.J.
always had bruises on his forehead and scars on his body, and that these concerns led her
to frequently visit the children. Grandmother stated she had discussed her concerns with
Father about two years ago. Grandmother further stated that she had called WCCS in the
past but only asked general questions, and that she had called police to report the abuse but
hung up before speaking with anyone. Grandmother admitted that her failure to follow
through with these calls was because she feared Father would be sent to prison.1
{¶ 9} Concerned that Mother and other family members were unable or unwilling to
protect the children from Father, given the family's knowledge of Father's rough manner of
disciplining the children, the family's failure to report Father to the proper authorities, and
Mother's routine of leaving the children in Father's care during her work week, WCCS filed
complaints on June 10, 2016, alleging that K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. were abused children under
R.C. 2151.031(B), (C), and (D), and dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) and (D), and
moved for temporary custody. The safety plan was terminated and the children were placed
in foster care together.
{¶ 10} On August 19, 2016, and September 2, 2016, a magistrate held an adjudicatory
hearing and on September 15, 2016, entered an order finding that K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. were
1. Father was subsequently convicted of two counts of felony child endangering and sentenced to a prison term
for his abuse of Ni.J.
-4-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
abused children under R.C. 2151.031 and dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) and
(D).2 Following a dispositional hearing, all parties agreed it was in the children's best interest
to remain in the temporary custody of WCCS. Mother subsequently moved to set aside the
magistrate's order adjudicating K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. as abused and dependent children.
Mother argued that none of the children were dependent children under R.C. 2151.04, and
that neither K.J. nor Ne.J. were abused children under R.C. 2151.031. On September 27,
2016, the juvenile court denied Mother's motions to set aside the magistrate's order and
adopted the magistrate's order as an order of the juvenile court.
{¶ 11} Mother now appeals, challenging the adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as abused
children and K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. as dependent children in two assignments of error. Mother
does not appeal the adjudication of Ni.J. as an abused child.
{¶ 12} The state bears the burden of proof of establishing that a child is an abused or
dependent child. "A trial court's adjudication of a child as abused, neglected, or dependent
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence." In re T.B., 12th Dist. Fayette No.
CA2014-09-019, 2015-Ohio-2580, ¶ 12, citing R.C. 2151.35(A). "Clear and convincing
evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts
a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. * * * It does not
mean clear and unequivocal." (Emphasis sic.) Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477
(1954).
{¶ 13} With regard to construing the statutes involved here, R.C. 2151.01(A) provides
2. It is not apparent why the magistrate decided the matter pursuant to a "magistrate's order" as opposed to a
"magistrate's decision." Juv.R. 40(D)(2)(a)(i) restricts "magistrate's orders" to "[regulating] the proceedings" and
specifically provides that a "magistrate's order" may not be "dispositive of a claim or defense of a party."
Obviously, the September 15, 2016 "Magistrate's Order" disposed of the state's claims and Mother's defenses.
The designation is significant because the time to set aside a "magistrate's order" is 10 days whereas the time to
object to a "magistrate’s decision" is 14 days. Juv. R. 40(D)(2)(b) and (3)(b)(i). Although this is not a significant
issue in this case, the September 15, 2016 adjudication of the children as abused and dependent by
"magistrate's order" is incorrect. The designation of a magistrate's determination of an issue as a "magistrate's
order" or "magistrate's decision" is not merely a matter of form, but rather one of substance.
-5-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
The sections in [R.C.] Chapter 2151 * * * shall be liberally
interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following
purposes: To provide for the care, protection, and mental and
physical development of children subject to [R.C.] Chapter 2151,
whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child
from the child's parents only when necessary for the child's
welfare or in the interests of public safety.
{¶ 14} With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Mother's assignments of error.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADJUDICATING THE MINOR CHILDREN
DEPENDENT.
{¶ 17} Mother argues the juvenile court erred in adjudicating K.J., Ni.J., and Ne.J. as
dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) and (D).
Adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as Dependent Children under R.C. 2151.04(C)
{¶ 18} Mother first challenges the adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as dependent children
under R.C. 2151.04(C). The statute defines a "dependent child" as "any child * * * [w]hose
condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in
assuming the child's guardianship[.]"
{¶ 19} The determination that a child is dependent requires no showing of fault on the
parent's part. In re T.B., 2015-Ohio-2580 at ¶ 20. Rather, the focus is on the child's
condition or environment, and whether the child was without adequate care or support. Id.
Thus, dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C) requires "evidence of conditions or environmental
elements that were adverse to the normal development of the child." In re E.R., 9th Dist.
Medina No. 05CA0108-M, 2006-Ohio-4816, ¶ 13. However, a court may consider a parent's
conduct insofar as it forms part of the child's environment. In re T.B. at ¶ 20; In re Burrell, 58
Ohio St. 2d 37, 39 (1979). A parent's conduct is significant if it has an adverse impact on the
child sufficient to warrant intervention. In re T.B. at ¶ 20. "That impact cannot be simply
-6-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
inferred in general, but must be specifically demonstrated in a clear and convincing manner."
In re Burrell at 39.
{¶ 20} We have noted that R.C. 2151.04 is to be broadly applied to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of children:
While the child's present "condition or environment" is the focus
of a dependency determination, "the law does not require the
court to experiment with the child's welfare to see if * * * [the
child] will suffer great detriment or harm." "[T]he child does not
first have to be put into a particular environment before a court
can determine that * * * [the] environment is unhealthy or
unsafe."
(Emphasis sic.) In re A.P., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-10-425, 2006-Ohio-2717, ¶ 28,
quoting In re Burchfield, 51 Ohio App. 3d 148, 156 (4th Dist.1988), and In re Campbell, 13
Ohio App. 3d 34, 36 (12th Dist.1983). In other words, actual harm to a child is not necessary.
Rather, circumstances giving rise to a legitimate risk of harm may suffice to support an
adjudication of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C).
{¶ 21} The evidence discloses that Father ruled the children with "an iron fist" and that
he had a "three strikes and you're out" discipline policy. In Father's words, when a child gets
"three strikes," the child "get[s] a whipping." Father's discipline of the children was extreme.
All the children were subject to being whipped with a belt if Father or Mother deemed it
necessary. Mother and family members were aware of Father's propensity to administer
excessive discipline to the children, had spoken with him about it to no avail, and had failed
to act to protect the children. In fact, despite her concerns about Father, Mother left the
children alone with Father for 40 hours each week while she worked. K.J. and Ne.J. were
present in the home on June 9, 2016, when Father beat Ni.J.
{¶ 22} Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to adjudicate K.J. and Ne.J.
dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) because the adjudications were based entirely
-7-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
and solely upon the physical abuse suffered by Ni.J.
{¶ 23} Although there was no evidence of specific incidents where K.J. and Ne.J. were
disciplined excessively, testimony at the adjudicatory hearing shows that they were subject to
discipline by Father and exposed to the discipline Father administered to the other children,
including the beating Ni.J. received on June 9, 2016. There is authority that children present
in a home where another child is abused may be dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C).
In finding that the abuse of one child may serve as the basis for a finding that the abused
child's siblings were dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C), the Tenth Appellate District held,
"Regarding the adjudication of M.G., C.G., and D.G. to be dependent minor children, we find
that through establishing that M.E.G. had been sexually abused by her father, the state
provided sufficient evidence to allow the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence
that the elements of R.C. 2151.04(C) were met." In re M.E.G., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos.
06AP-1256 thru 06AP-1259, 06AP-1263 thru 06AP-1265, 2007-Ohio-4308, ¶ 62.
{¶ 24} Other cases support a finding of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C) where
children are exposed to domestic violence in the home. See In re J.G., 9th Dist. Wayne No.
12CA0037, 2013-Ohio-417 (ongoing exposure of children to domestic violence in the home
supported a finding of dependency under R.C. 2151.04[C]); In re A.C., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-
10-1025, 2010-Ohio-4933. As the Sixth Appellate District stated,
a long history of domestic violence between the parents can
constitute the clear and convincing evidence necessary for a
finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C); that is, a child residing in a
household where the parents' relationship is marred by domestic
violence is one whose condition or environment is such as to
warrant the state, in the interests of the child, to assume the
child's guardianship.
In re Alexander C., 164 Ohio App. 3d 540, 2005-Ohio-6134, ¶ 58 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 25} Although this case does not involve sexual abuse or domestic violence between
-8-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
parents, the same logic applies where children reside in a household where a sibling is being
physically abused by a parent. Because K.J. and Ne.J. reside in a home where they are at
risk of physical abuse and are exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling, their condition or
environment is such as to warrant the state, in their interests, in assuming their guardianship.
The juvenile court, therefore, did not err in adjudicating K.J. and Ne.J. as dependent children
under R.C. 2151.04(C).
Adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as Dependent Children under R.C. 2151.04(D)
{¶ 26} Mother next challenges the adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as dependent
children under R.C. 2151.04(D). The statute defines a "dependent child" as "any child * * *
[t]o whom both of the following apply":
(1) The child is residing in a household in which a parent,
guardian, custodian, or other member of the household
committed an act that was the basis for an adjudication that a
sibling of the child or any other child who resides in the
household is an abused, neglected, or dependent child.
(2) Because of the circumstances surrounding the abuse,
neglect, or dependency of the sibling or other child and the other
conditions in the household of the child, the child is in danger of
being abused or neglected by that parent, guardian, custodian,
or member of the household.
{¶ 27} It is well-established that "the date on which dependency existed must be
alleged in the complaint, and the trial court must determine that the circumstances which
support a finding of dependency existed as of the date or dates alleged in the complaint." In
re S.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-01-007, 2005-Ohio-5047, ¶ 9; R.C. 2151.23(A)(1).
{¶ 28} Mother argues that the determination as to whether a child is dependent must
be made as of the date alleged in the complaint, and not as of the date of the adjudicatory
hearing. Mother further argues that the language of R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) referring to an act of
a parent or other household member that "was the basis for an adjudication" uses past
-9-
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
tense, and thus, necessarily and solely refers to an adjudication existing at the time the
complaint is filed. Consequently, Mother asserts, because Ni.J. was not adjudicated abused
and dependent as a result of Father's excessive discipline until after the dependency
complaint regarding K.J. and Ne.J. was filed, K.J. and Ne.J. could not be adjudicated as
dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(D). In support of her argument, Mother cites In re
S.L., 3d Dist. Union Nos. 14-15-07 and 14-15-08, 2016-Ohio-5000.
{¶ 29} In In re S.L., the Third Appellate District addressed "whether R.C. 2151.04(D)
can serve as the basis for an adjudication of dependency notwithstanding the absence – as
of the filing of the complaint – of an adjudication of a sibling or other child in the household as
abused, neglected, or dependent based on an act of a parent or other household member."
Id. at ¶ 13. The appellate court held that
R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) refers to "an act that was the basis for an
adjudication." (Emphasis added.) The General Assembly chose
the word "was," which is a past-tense verb. "The past tense
indicates action already completed." In the context of R.C.
2151.04(D)(1), saying that an act was the basis of an
adjudication requires there to have been a past adjudication. In
other words, for an act to have been the basis for an
adjudication, there must have been a prior adjudication that a
sibling or other child residing in the household is an abused,
neglected, or dependent child. Had the General Assembly
intended to allow simultaneous adjudications‒as the Agency
argues‒it would have used present-tense, not past-tense,
language. Accordingly, because, under R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), the
determination of dependency is made as of the date alleged in
the complaint, the plain and unambiguous language of R.C.
2151.04(D)(1) requires that "a sibling of the child or any other
child who resides in the household" be adjudicated abused,
neglected, or dependent before the complaint is filed.
(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶ 30} In his September 15, 2016 order, the magistrate declined to apply In re S.L.,
finding its reasoning unpersuasive and finding instead that "the use of the words 'was the
basis of' refers to the 'act,' not the adjudication. Put another way, the 'act that was the basis
- 10 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
for an adjudication' requires some form of conduct or act to occur prior to the complaint being
filed." In other words, the juvenile court ruled that as long as the act giving rise to the
adjudication occurs before the R.C. 2151.04(D) dependency complaint is filed, then an
adjudication subsequent to the filing of the complaint can satisfy the requirements under R.C.
2151.04(D)(1).
{¶ 31} In response to Mother's argument, the state cites cases in which children were
adjudicated dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D) under circumstances similar to this case.
However, those cases did not directly address the issue presented here and in In re S.L., and
lacked any analysis of the statute. Apparently, no other courts have directly addressed the
issue of whether the phrase "was the basis for an adjudication" in R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) refers
to an existing adjudication of dependency, neglect, or abuse.
{¶ 32} "In construing a statute, the reviewing court must ascertain the intent of the
legislature in enacting the statute. To determine the intent of a statute, a court looks to the
language of the statute, giving effect to the words used. A court is neither to insert words that
were not used by the legislature nor to delete words that were used." (Citations omitted.)
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 113 Ohio St. 3d 394, 2007-Ohio-
2203, ¶ 12.
{¶ 33} "When a word is not defined, we use its common, ordinary, and accepted
meaning unless it is contrary to clear legislative intent. We also read the word in context
using rules of grammar and common usage." (Citations omitted.) Cincinnati City School
Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St. 3d 557, 2009-Ohio-3628, ¶ 15, citing R.C.
1.42.
{¶ 34} R.C. 1.43(C) is a rule of construction regarding the "tense" used in statutes and
provides that "[w]ords in the present tense include the future." Notably absent is any
- 11 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
reference to "words in the past tense," leaving one to conclude that past-tense words are
intended to refer to past events and nothing more.
{¶ 35} R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) requires the alleged dependent child to be "residing in a
household in which a parent * * * or other member of the household committed an act that
was the basis for an adjudication that a sibling of the child or any other child who resides in
the household is an abused, neglected, or dependent child." Among the elements of the
statute are (1) an act committed by a parent, and (2) an adjudication of dependency, neglect,
or abuse based upon the act. As stated above, the juvenile court construed the past-tense
language of the statute as applying to the act, and not to the adjudication. However, R.C.
2151.04(D)(1) applies past tense to both the act and the adjudication ("committed an act"
and "was the basis for an adjudication"). The statutory language that the act must have been
"committed" conveys the sense that the act was in the past. See In re M.P., 2d Dist. Greene
No. 2011 CA 71, 2012-Ohio-2334 (the use of the past tense by the General Assembly means
that a modification of child custody under R.C. 3109.04 may be ordered only after a move
from the state has already occurred). The subsequent statutory language that the past act
"was" the basis for an adjudication of dependency, neglect, or abuse conveys the sense that
the adjudication is a past judicial determination of the legal significance of the act.
{¶ 36} The state refers us to R.C. 2151.01(A) which directs that R.C. Chapter 2151 be
liberally construed so as "to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical
development of children." The state argues that Mother's interpretation of R.C.
2151.04(D)(1) would give rise to situations where children would be subject to the risks from
an abusive presence in their home, but the state would be powerless to intervene to protect
them under R.C. 2151.04(D) during the time between the filing of a complaint alleging a
sibling in the household is an abused child and the adjudication of abuse. The state's
- 12 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
argument in this regard is facially compelling.
{¶ 37} However, if R.C. 2151.04(D) is interpreted as primarily intending to provide
protection to children who were not residents of the home at the time of the adjudication
referred to in the statute and only enter the home after the adjudication, the untenable
situation described in the preceding paragraph is not present. See In re E. R., 2006-Ohio-
4816 at ¶ 30 (the intent of R.C. 2151.04[D][1] is to protect the next child from a similar fate);
In re W.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22356, 2005-Ohio-2968, ¶ 18 ("It is clear that, with the
addition of R.C. 2151.04[D], the legislature considered a parent's prior history with a child
welfare agency significant in regard to a determination that a subsequent child might be
dependent"). In this latter situation, R.C. 2151.04(D) provides a vehicle for state intervention
to protect children who come to reside in a home with a person who has engaged in conduct
resulting in a prior adjudication of neglect, dependency, or abuse and circumstances
suggests these children are at risk due to the presence of that person. See In re E.R. at ¶ 31
("children born after a sibling had been adjudicated abused, neglected or dependent and
removed from the parents' home were properly found dependent pursuant to R.C.
2151.04[D]"); In re S.M., 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2006-08-030, 2007-Ohio-2297, ¶ 17
(R.C. 2151.04[D][1] requires that a parent or a household member who resides in the same
household as a child whose status is at issue, previously committed an act that resulted in an
adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency regarding a sibling of that child). In addition,
children such as K.J. and Ne.J. would not necessarily be denied the protection of the
dependency statute as they could be adjudicated dependent under other sections of the
statute, including R.C. 2151.04(C), as was the case here.
{¶ 38} Based upon the foregoing, we find that because a determination of dependency
is made as of the date alleged in the complaint under R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), for a child to be
- 13 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
found dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D), R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) requires that a sibling of the
child or any other child who resides in the household be adjudicated abused, neglected, or
dependent before the dependency complaint for the child whose status is at issue is filed.
No evidence was presented at the adjudicatory hearing that K.J., Ne.J., or any other child
residing in the household was adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent before the
dependency complaints regarding K.J. and Ne.J. were filed on June 10, 2016. Rather, the
juvenile court adjudicated Ni.J. as an abused and dependent child on September 2, 2016, in
the same adjudicatory hearing it adjudicated K.J. and Ne.J. as dependent children under
R.C. 2151.04(D). The juvenile court, therefore, erred in adjudicating K.J. and Ne.J. as
dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(D).3 However, such error is harmless error in view of
our affirmance of K.J.'s and Ne.J.'s adjudications of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C).
Adjudication of Ni.J. as a Dependent Child under R.C. 2151.04
{¶ 39} Mother next challenges the adjudication of Ni.J. as a dependent child under
R.C. 2151.04. Mother first argues the juvenile court erred in adjudicating Ni.J. a dependent
child under R.C. 2151.04(D) given the lack of a predicate adjudication as required by R.C.
2151.04(D)(1) and the fact the abuse of Ni.J. cannot be the basis for a finding that he is
dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D).
{¶ 40} As stated above, the magistrate's order, which was approved and adopted as
an order of the juvenile court, adjudicated all three children as dependent children under R.C.
2151.04(D). The statute applies to children residing or having resided in the same household
as the abused child and the abuser. Because Ni.J. was the abused child, R.C. 2151.04(D)
does not apply to him. The juvenile court, therefore, erred in adjudicating Ni.J. as a
3. For a child to be adjudicated dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D), both subsections – R.C. 2151.04(D)(1) and
(2) – must apply. Based on our conclusion that the state failed to meet its burden of proof regarding R.C.
2151.04(D)(1), we need not consider R.C.2151.04(D)(2). In re S.L., 3d Dist. Union Nos. 14-15-07 and 14-15-08,
2016-Ohio-5000, ¶ 20, fn. 2.
- 14 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(D).
{¶ 41} Mother further argues the juvenile court erred in adjudicating Ni.J. as a
dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C) because Father was incarcerated as of the date of
the complaint, there was no evidence that Ni.J. lacked proper parental care from Mother, and
the conditions of the home presented no risk to Ni.J.'s health, safety, or welfare.
{¶ 42} As stated above, "a court may consider a parent's conduct insofar as it forms
part of the child's environment. A parent's conduct is significant if it has an adverse impact
on the child sufficient to warrant intervention." In re T.B., 2015-Ohio-2580 at ¶ 20. Ni.J. was
physically abused by Father under the guise of discipline. Mother was aware of the abuse,
yet did not act to protect Ni.J. Indeed, Mother's leaving Ni.J. in Father's care while she
worked served to expose Ni.J. to physical abuse by Father. That Father was incarcerated as
of the filing of the complaint does nothing to detract from the significance of the foregoing
facts, all of which existed as of the time of the filing of the complaint. Father's physical abuse
of Ni.J. formed a part of Ni.J.'s "condition or environment" as provided in R.C. 2151.04(C).
{¶ 43} Father's abuse of Ni.J. may serve concurrently as the basis for an adjudication
of abuse and dependency under R.C. 2151.031(C) and R.C. 2151.04(C), respectively.
Notwithstanding multiple adjudications, there is only one disposition. The juvenile court,
therefore, did not err in adjudicating Ni.J. as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C).
{¶ 44} Mother's first assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part.
{¶ 45} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 46} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADJUDICATING THE MINOR CHILDREN K.J.
AND Ne.J. ABUSED.
{¶ 47} Mother argues the juvenile court erred in adjudicating K.J. and Ne.J as abused
children under R.C. 2151.031(B), (C), and (D), as alleged in the complaints. As pertinent to
- 15 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
Mother's argument, R.C. 2151.031 defines an "abused child" as any child who
(B) Is endangered as defined in [R.C.] 2919.22, except that the
court need not find that any person has been convicted under
that section in order to find that the child is an abused child;
(C) Exhibits evidence of any physical or mental injury or death,
inflicted other than by accidental means, or an injury or death
which is at variance with the history given of it. Except as
provided in division (D) of this section, a child exhibiting evidence
of corporal punishment or other physical disciplinary measure by
a parent * * * is not an abused child under this division if the
measure is not prohibited under [R.C.] 2919.22.
(D) Because of the acts of his parents, * * * suffers physical or
mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child's health or
welfare.
{¶ 48} As stated above, the complaints alleged that K.J. and Ne.J. were abused
children under R.C. 2151.031(B), (C), and (D). In the "Law" section of the magistrate's order,
the magistrate discusses what is provided in each of these subsections and notes that during
the adjudicatory hearing, the "State argues that [K.J.] and [Ne.J.] are abused pursuant to
[R.C.] 2151.031(B) and (C)." Noticeably, the magistrate did not mention that the state
claimed K.J. and Ne.J. to be abused children under R.C. 2151.031(D), as alleged in the
complaint. In the "Decision" section of the magistrate's order, the magistrate "finds the minor
children * * * to be abused pursuant to O.R.C. 2151.031," without specifying the subsections
of R.C. 2151.031 serving as the basis of the adjudications. The juvenile court's judgment
entry denying Mother's motions to set aside the magistrate's order and adopting and
approving the magistrate's order as an order of the juvenile court did not further address the
subsections of R.C. 2151.031under which K.J. and Ne.J. were adjudicated abused children.
However, in announcing the adjudication in open court, the magistrate stated that K.J. and
Ne.J. were adjudicated as abused children solely under R.C. 2151.031(B).4 Due to the lack
4. Based upon our review of the record, the evidence does not support the adjudications of K.J. and Ne.J. as
abused children under R.C. 2151.031(C) and (D) as these subsections require evidence of physical or mental
- 16 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
of specificity as to the basis upon which K.J. and Ne.J. were adjudicated abused children in
the magistrate's order and the judgement entry approving it, we rely upon the magistrate's
stated basis for the adjudications made at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, and
only address the juvenile court's adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J. as abused children under R.C.
2151.031(B).
{¶ 49} R.C. 2151.031(B) defines an abused child as any child who is endangered as
defined in R.C. 2919.22. In turn, R.C. 2919.22 provides in relevant part that
(A) No person, who is the parent * * * of a child under eighteen
years of age * * * shall create a substantial risk to the health or
safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or
support. * * *
(B) No person shall do any of the following to a child under
eighteen years of age * * *:
(1) Abuse the child;
(2) Torture or cruelly abuse the child;
(3) Administer corporal punishment or other physical
disciplinary measure, or physically restrain the child in a cruel
manner or for a prolonged period, which punishment, discipline,
or restraint is excessive under the circumstances and creates a
substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child;
(4) Repeatedly administer unwarranted disciplinary measures
to the child, when there is a substantial risk that such conduct, if
continued, will seriously impair or retard the child's mental health
or development [.]
{¶ 50} As stated above, the magistrate's order did not discuss the reasoning
underlying the determination that K.J. and Ne.J. were abused children under R.C.
2151.031(B). There was no evidence at the adjudicatory hearing that K.J. and Ne.J. were
themselves abused, tortured, or subjected to excessive or unwarranted corporal punishment.
injury. As discussed later in the opinion, there was no evidence that K.J. or Ne.J. suffered from or displayed
evidence of physical or mental injury.
- 17 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
R.C. 2919.22(B) therefore does not apply. Presumably, the juvenile court found that Mother
permitted K.J. and Ne.J. to reside in a home with a physically abusive parent and took no
efforts to protect them, thus "[creating] a substantial risk to the health or safety of the
child[ren], by violating a duty of care, protection, or support" under R.C. 2919.22(A).
{¶ 51} R.C. 2912.22(A) embodies the well-established principle that parents have a
legal duty to protect their children from harm. State v. Kamel, 12 Ohio St. 3d 306, 309 (1984);
Couch v. Harrison, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2000-08-063, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 651, *6
(Feb. 12, 2001). Because there is an affirmative duty to protect children from harm, "an
inexcusable failure to act in the discharge of [that] duty * * * where such failure to act results
in a substantial risk to the child's health or safety" constitutes an "act" under R.C. 2912.22.
Kamel at 309; Couch at *6.
{¶ 52} Mother's act of leaving the children in the care of a physically abusive parent for
long periods of time with knowledge of his propensity to administer severe and
disproportionate discipline is concerning. Certainly, the presence of children in an abusive
home satisfies the elements for dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C) as a "condition or
environment" warranting state intervention. However, unlike dependency under R.C.
2151.04(C), abuse under R.C. 2151.031(B) and 2919.22(A) requires clear and convincing
evidence that there is a "substantial risk to the health or safety" of the children. "Substantial
risk" means "a strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a
certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist." R.C. 2901.01(A)(8).
{¶ 53} As the party seeking adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J., the state bears the burden
of establishing abuse by clear and convincing evidence. There was no evidence at the
adjudicatory hearing that K.J. and Ne.J. were abused or subjected to excessive corporal
punishment. Although the WCCS supervisor observed an inch-long scar on Ne.J.'s leg on
- 18 -
Warren CA2016-10-086
CA2016-10-090
CA2016-10-091
the day of the incident, neither K.J. nor Ne.J. exhibited any signs of physical abuse. There
was also no testimony that K.J. or Ne.J. had previously exhibited signs of physical abuse.
While there was testimony that family members had seen "marks" on the "children" in the
past, the testimony referred to Ni.J. or did not identify the child or children to which the
testimony referred. Thus, this testimony may not serve as evidence that K.J. or Ne.J. had
suffered prior physical abuse. Furthermore, there was also no evidence that K.J. and Ne.J.
were at risk for or suffered from any mental injury as a result of Father's behavior.5 Under
such circumstances, there is simply no clear and convincing evidence that K.J. and Ne.J.
were abused children under R.C. 2151.031(B). The juvenile court, therefore, erred in
adjudicating K.J. and Ne.J. as abused children under R.C. 2151.031(B).
{¶ 54} Mother's second assignment of error is well-taken and sustained.
{¶ 55} Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the juvenile court's adjudication of K.J.,
Ni.J., and Ne.J. as dependent children under R.C. 2151.04(C) but reverse and vacate the
juvenile court's adjudication of all three children as dependent children under R.C.
2151.04(D). We further reverse and vacate the juvenile court's adjudication of K.J. and Ne.J.
as abused children under R.C. 2151.031(B).
{¶ 56} Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
5. The state asserts there was evidence K.J. and Ne.J. suffered mental injury as a result of Father's discipline
and refers us to a succinct portion of Grandmother's testimony at the adjudicatory hearing. Grandmother
testified she was concerned about "mental abuse" because Father gave timeouts that were too long given the
children's ages, and "made them do push-ups. He would make them – he's not in the mood to learn no ABCs,
so you don't pressure and push people." Without minimizing the sincerity of Grandmother's concerns, such
concerns do not establish that K.J. or Ne.K. suffered emotional harm due to Father's strict disciplinary practices.
- 19 -