In re T.W.

[Cite as In re T.W., 2012-Ohio-2843.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
WYANDOT COUNTY
IN RE: T.W., CASE NO. 16-11-12
A MINOR CHILD-APPELLANT. OPINION
Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court No. D2111042
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 25, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Amanda J. Powell for Appellant
Jonathan K. Miller and Douglas D. Rowland for Appellee
Case No. 16-11-12
SHAW, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant T.W. appeals the October 17, 2011 judgment of
the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, sentencing T.W. to
non-reporting probation upon being adjudicated an Unruly Child in violation of
R.C. 2151.022(A).
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. T.W. was a fourth-
grade student at a middle school in Upper Sandusky. Between September 1, 2010
and early May 2011, the school was having difficulty with T.W. as T.W. would
routinely leave class without permission, would refuse to do work assigned to him
while in class, and would make comments to school staff that could be considered
threats. As a result, in early May of 2011, T.W. was placed in a classroom for
students who had been labeled “emotionally disturbed.” Despite the change,
T.W.’s behavior did not improve.
{¶3} On May 25, 2011, Jim Wheeler, the Principal for the middle school,
filed a complaint against T.W. alleging that T.W. was an Unruly Child in violation
of R.C. 2151.022(A). The complaint claimed that “[o]n or about September 1,
2010 through May 23, 2011, * * * T.W. did not submit to the reasonable control of
his parents, teachers, guardian, or custodian, by reason of being wayward or
habitually disobedient.” (Doc. 1).
-2-
Case No. 16-11-12
{¶4} On August 25, 2011, an adjudicatory hearing was held to determine
whether T.W. was an “unruly child.” At the hearing, the State called Principal
Wheeler as its first witness. Principal Wheeler testified that T.W. would routinely
leave class without permission. Principal Wheeler also testified that on one
occasion T.W. threatened to run away and on another occasion T.W. had made
comments that could be construed as threats.1 Principal Wheeler testified that at
least once “he spent his entire day dealing with T.W.’s behavior and the
disruptions they caused.” (Doc. 28). Further, Principal Wheeler testified that
T.W. “would not accept any disciplinary measure unlike any other student even
those with the same behavioral issues as [T.W.].” (Doc. 28).
{¶5} After Principal Wheeler was cross-examined, the State called Suzanne
Getz, a Teacher’s Aide for the “emotionally disturbed” class. Getz testified to her
interaction with T.W. and the difficulties she encountered. Next, the State called
Patrolman Joseph Ruse. Ruse testified to the “four to five” times he was called to
the middle school for incidents related to T.W. (Aug. 25, 2011 Tr. at 50). The
State then rested its case.
{¶6} Although T.W.’s counsel did cross-examine all of the State’s
witnesses, T.W. did not testify, T.W. did not call any witnesses, and T.W. did not
enter any exhibits into evidence. However, at the close of testimony, T.W.’s
1
In one such comment T.W. “looked at [the Principal], held his thumb and forefinger like this and said
words to the effect of * * * ‘you’re getting on – you’re trying my patience. * * * [Y]ou are here, you better
hope it doesn’t get to here’ and then he closed the thumb and forefinger.” (Aug. 25, 2011 Tr. at 10).
-3-
Case No. 16-11-12
attorney orally moved to dismiss the complaint against T.W., claiming that no
“teacher” testified to T.W. being unruly and that, therefore, the charge could not
be proven. The court took the argument under advisement.
{¶7} On September 1, 2011, the court filed its Judgment Entry finding that
Principal Wheeler satisfied the definition of “teacher” in R.C. 3319.09 as Principal
is explicitly listed within the statutory definition of teacher.2 The court then
specifically found Principal Wheeler’s testimony credible and held that “Mr.
Wheeler’s testimony established that [T.W.] does not submit to the reasonable
control of his teacher, Mr. Wheeler, by reason of being wayward and habitually
disobedient. The Court therefore adjudges [T.W.] to be an unruly child and finds
him guilty of violating Revised Code Section 2151.022(A) beyond a reasonable
doubt.” (Doc. 28). The judgment entry of the court ordered T.W. to undergo a
psychological evaluation to determine what disposition would be in T.W.’s best
interest.
{¶8} On October 17, 2011, a dispositional hearing was held. At the hearing
T.W.’s attorney stated that T.W. had been diagnosed with ADHD and was being
medicated for that disorder.3 T.W.’s attorney stated that T.W. had been attending
a new school, had been behaving, and had received an interim grade report with all
2
The court did hold, however, that the testimony from Getz and Patrolman Ruse would not be considered
as neither fit the statutory definition.
3
According to T.W’s attorney’s statements, reports also indicated T.W. had “Oppositional Disorder” as
well as ADHD. (Oct. 17, 2011 Tr. at 2).
-4-
Case No. 16-11-12
A’s and one B. (Oct. 17, 2011 Tr. at 3). T.W.’s attorney then asked that in light
of those facts that the case be closed, or, in the alternative, that if the case was to
remain open for probation, that the only condition be that T.W. maintain his
medication and his appointments.
{¶9} Ultimately the court placed T.W. on nonreporting probation, ordered
T.W. to continue at his new school and ordered T.W. to continue seeing his
doctor, Dr. Spare. This disposition was memorialized in a judgment entry on the
same day as the dispositional hearing, October 17, 2011.
{¶10} It is from this judgment that T.W. appeals, asserting the following
assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE WYANDOT COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED
WHEN IT DENIED [T.W.]’S REQUESTS TO DISMISS THE
CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION,
R.C. 2151.01, AND JUVENILE RULES 1(B), 9(A), AND
29(F)(2)(d).
{¶11} In his assignment of error, T.W. argues that the trial court erred by
not dismissing the complaint against him. Specifically, T.W. contends that
pursuant to the Juvenile Rules of Procedure, the complaint against T.W. should
have been dismissed because dismissal was in T.W.’s and the community’s best
interests.
-5-
Case No. 16-11-12
{¶12} “Juvenile Rule 29(F)(2) vests the trial court with discretion to
adjudicate and dispose of a case.” In Re Arnett, 3d. Dist. No. 5-04-20, 2004-Ohio-
5766, ¶ 9, citing In re Bynum, 8th Dist. No. 75672, (Feb. 17, 2000) unreported.
Whether a proceeding should be dismissed or reach the merits is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge. Id., citing In re N.K., 8th Dist. No. 82332, 2003-Ohio
7059, ¶ 23. The standard of review in this context is an abuse of discretion. See,
E.g., In re Smith, 80 Ohio App.3d 502, 504 (1st. Dist.1992) (reviewing an appeal
from the State after a trial judge dismissed a juvenile complaint as being in the
best interest of the child). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an
error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219
(1983).
{¶13} In this case T.W. was found guilty of being an Unruly Child in
violation of R.C. 2151.022(A), which defines an unruly child as “[a]ny child who
does not submit to the reasonable control of the child’s parents, teachers, guardian,
or custodian, by reason of being wayward or habitually disobedient.” The trial
court found T.W. guilty of being an unruly child based upon the “credible”
testimony of Principal Wheeler. (Doc. 28).
{¶14} Both at the close of T.W.’s adjudication hearing and before the trial
court’s final disposition at the dispositional hearing, T.W.’s attorney made a
-6-
Case No. 16-11-12
request to dismiss the complaint against T.W.4 Notwithstanding those requests,
the trial court proceeded to sentence T.W. to nonreporting probation.
{¶15} On appeal, T.W. argues that the trial court should have dismissed the
complaint against him. In support of his argument, T.W. claims that he was doing
better in his new school and that he had not shown any behavioral problems since
being diagnosed with, and medicated for, ADHD. T.W. also cites several
provisions of the Juvenile Rules of procedure, which, as he claims, mandate a
dismissal. The relevant excerpts of the Juvenile Rules cited by T.W. are provided
below.
Juv.R. 1
***
(B) Construction
These rules shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to
effectuate the following purposes:
(1) to effect the just determination of every juvenile court
proceeding by ensuring the parties a fair hearing and the
recognition and enforcement of their constitutional and other
legal rights;
(2) to secure simplicity and uniformity in procedure, fairness in
administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and
delay;
(3) to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical
development of children subject to the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court, and to protect the welfare of the community; and
4
At the dispositional hearing, T.W.’s attorney requested that the case be ‘closed.’ (Oct. 17, 2011 Tr. at 3).
-7-
Case No. 16-11-12
(4) to protect the public interest by treating children as persons
in need of supervision, care and rehabilitation.
***
Juv.R. 9
(A) Court action to be avoided
In all appropriate cases formal court action should be avoided
and other community resources utilized to ameliorate situations
brought to the attention of the court.
***
Juv.R. 29
(F) Procedure upon determination of the issues
Upon the determination of the issues, the court shall do one of
the following:
(1) If the allegations of the complaint, indictment, or
information were not proven, dismiss the complaint;
(2) If the allegations of the complaint, indictment, or
information are admitted or proven, do any one of the following,
unless precluded by statute:
(a) Enter an adjudication and proceed forthwith to disposition;
(b) Enter an adjudication and continue the matter for
disposition for not more than six months and may make
appropriate temporary orders;
(c) Postpone entry of adjudication for not more than six
months;
(d) Dismiss the complaint if dismissal is in the best interest of
the child and the community.
-8-
Case No. 16-11-12
Juv.R. 1(B); 9(A); 29(F).
{¶16} According to T.W., pursuant to the rules above, the trial court was
required to dismiss the complaint. However, Juv.R. 29(F)(2) makes clear that it is
completely within the court’s discretion to choose any one of the enumerated ways
to dispose of the case. As is clearly stated in Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(b), it is well within
the trial court’s discretion to “enter an adjudication” and proceed to disposition.
The court in this case chose to proceed and to adjudicate rather than to dismiss the
complaint against T.W.
{¶17} Although the court did not specifically hold that it was in T.W. and
the community’s best interest to enter a disposition and place T.W. on
nonreporting probation, it is implicit within the trial court’s findings as the court
chose not to dismiss the case. Moreover, the trial court’s decision not to dismiss is
supported by the testimony at the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court had heard
the “credible” testimony of Principal Wheeler who described incidents that formed
the basis of finding T.W. unruly.
{¶18} Furthermore, while T.W. argues that between the adjudication
hearing and the dispositional hearing T.W.’s behavior had improved, T.W. had not
been at his new school for very long. T.W.’s argument that the case should be
dismissed is ultimately unsupported as T.W. cannot point to anything in the record
illustrating how it is in his, or the community’s, best interest that the case be
-9-
Case No. 16-11-12
dismissed.5 On the contrary, the record seems to establish that the current course
of action had been effective for T.W. as he had apparently been doing better in
school.
{¶19} At best, T.W. argues that an alternative disposition could have been
appropriate in this case. As it is well within the discretion of the court to
determine whether a complaint should be dismissed, there is evidence to support
the decision made by the trial court, and the trial court is in a better position to
determine what is in the best interests of T.W., we do not find an abuse of
discretion in this case.
{¶20} For the foregoing reasons, T.W.’s assignment of error is overruled
and the judgment of the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and ROGERS, J.J., concur.
/jlr
5
In fact there is no documentation supporting T.W.’s attorney’s oral claims at the dispositional hearing that
T.W. had had no behavioral problems or that his grades were as he stated. However, we note that even if
this information had been in the record, it would not have changed the outcome of this case as the record is
still devoid of proof that dismissal was in his or society’s best interest.
-10-