In re K.R. , 2021 Ohio 3417 ( 2021 )

[Cite as In re K.R., 2021-Ohio-3417.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: K.R. JUDGES:
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Knox County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case
Nos. 219-2028 & 219-2029
JUDGMENT: Vacated and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 28, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee Knox County Department For Appellant, Cheyenne Ramey
of Job and Family Services
CAROLYN FITTRO
ASHLEY L. JOHNS Fittro Law, LLC
Knox County Department of Job and 1335 Dublin R., Suite #115F
Family Services Columbus, Ohio 43215
117 East High Street
Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 For Paternal Grandmother of K.R.1
Guardian Ad Litem REBECCA STUMLER
130 E. Chestnut Street, Suite #301
ADAM O. JOHNSON Columbus, Ohio 43215
25 E. Waterloo Street
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 2
For Mother For Father of K.R. 2
PORTER R. WELCH WILLIAM VINSON
P.O. Box 125 35 Taylor Road
21 ½ Middle Street, Suite #1 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050
Galena, Ohio 43021
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 3
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} In Knox App. No. 21CA000005, appellant Cheyenne Ramey (“Mother”)
appeals the March 10, 2021 Judgment Entry entered by the Knox County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted legal custody of one of her minor
children (“Child 1”) to Jackie Stringfellow, Child 1’s paternal grandmother. In Knox App.
No. 21CA000006, Mother appeals the same judgment entry, which granted legal custody
of another of her minor children (“Child 2”) to William Vinson, Child 2’s father. Appellee
is Knox County Department of Job and Family Services (“KCDJFS”).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Mother and Zachary Metzger are the biological parents of Child 1. Metzger
is deceased. Mother and William Vinson are the biological parents of Child 2.
{¶3} On March 3, 2019, KCDJFS filed complaints alleging Child 1, Child 2, and
their two siblings (“Child 3” and “Child 4”) were neglected and dependent. The complaints
were based upon the deplorable home conditions, the children’s poor hygiene, Mother’s
failure to properly supervise the children, her inability to wake up in the morning and care
for the children, and her tumultuous relationship with her significant other. Mother gave
birth to her fifth child (“Child 5”) on March 5, 2019. On March 13, 2019, KCDJFS filed a
complaint regarding Child 5 and a motion to combine the sibling cases, which the trial
court granted on the same day.
{¶4} Following an incident of domestic violence between Mother and Scott
Owens, the father of Child 5, KCDJFS filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody on
April 9, 2019. The trial court conducted a shelter care hearing on April 11, 2019, denied
KCDJFS’s motion and returned the Children to Mother under a safety plan requiring 24/7
supervision of Mother. On April 26, 2019, KCDJFS filed a second motion requesting an
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 4
ex parte order of temporary custody based upon the inappropriate home conditions and
the lack of supervision of the Children despite the safety plan. The trial court granted the
motion and the Children were immediately removed from Mother’s custody. At a shelter
care hearing on April 29, 2019, the trial court continued temporary custody with KCDJFS.
Following an adjudicatory hearing on May 3, 2019, the trial court returned the Children to
Mother’s custody under the protective supervision of KCDJFS. The trial court also
granted Jackie Stringfellow visitation with Child 1.
{¶5} At an adjudicatory hearing on May 15, 2019, Mother admitted the Children
were dependent and the trial court dismissed the allegations of neglect. On May 20,
2019, KCDJFS filed a third motion again requesting an ex parte order of temporary
custody based upon continued concerns of Mother failing to provide adequate supervision
of the Children. Specifically, the Children were observed outside without adult
supervision and Child 5 was observed in an unsafe sleeping situation, unattended by
Mother. Child 1 was not included in the motion as he was on vacation with Stringfellow.
Following a shelter care hearing on May 21, 2019, the trial court granted temporary
custody of the Children to KCDJFS and ordered Mother and Owens to create a detailed
supervision plan. KCDJFS filed an amended case plan for Mother and the Children on
June 4, 2019. On the same day, Stringfellow filed a motion to be added as a party and a
motion for temporary and/or legal custody with a statement of understanding. After a
dispositional hearing on June 4, 2019, the trial court placed Child 1 in the temporary
custody of Stringfellow with protective supervision to KCDJFS. The trial court continued
temporary custody of the other four children with KCDJFS. The trial court ordered
visitation at KCDJFS’s discretion with input from the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”).
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 5
{¶6} The trial court conducted a review hearing on August 14, 2019. The trial
court granted KCDJFS’s request to transition Child 2 and Child 3 to Mother’s custody with
protective supervision beginning on August 19, 2019. All other dispositional orders
remained in place. Child 2 and Child 3 were returned to Mother’s custody on the specified
date.
{¶7} Following a review hearing on November 21, 2019, the trial court
maintained the status quo. In addition, the trial court issued a no contact order between
the Children and James Looney, who was identified as the father of Child 4. Looney is a
registered sex offender, however, Mother permitted him to have contact with the Children
during visitation.
{¶8} On February 4, 2020, William Vinson filed a motion for ex parte temporary
custody of Child 2, which the trial court summarily denied. The trial court conducted a
hearing on the denial on February 6, 2020, and scheduled Vinson’s motion for review. At
a review hearing on February 26, 2020, the trial court granted KCDJFS’s motion for an
extension of involvement. KCDJFS advised the trial court Child 2 and Child 3, who were
in Mother’s custody, had educational and medical issues. In addition, KCDJFS was
having ongoing issues with Mother truthfully reporting the status of the Children. KCDJFS
also had concerns about the Children being injured during visitation with Mother. The
trial court ordered Child 3 remain in Mother’s custody, Child 1 remain in the temporary
custody of Stringfellow, Child 2 be placed in the temporary custody of Vinson, and Child
4 and Child 5 remain in the temporary custody of KCDJFS. The trial court granted
KCDJFS protective supervision of Child 1 and Child 2.
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 6
{¶9} On June 2, 2020, Mother gave birth to Child 6. Mother entered into a
voluntary case plan related to Child 6. Child 6 was added to a subsequent amended case
plan involving the Children. On June 4, 2020, Stringfellow filed a motion to be added as
a party and motion for legal custody. The trial court conducted a review hearing on June
16, 2020, and maintained the status quo.
{¶10} KCDJFS filed a motion to modify disposition on July 8, 2020, requesting
legal custody of Child 1 be granted to Stringfellow and legal custody of Child 2 be granted
to Vinson. KCDJFS further requested the trial court terminate its involvement with Child
1 and Child 2 should the trial court grant the motion to modify. Via Judgment Entry filed
September 28, 2020, the trial court maintained the status quo and scheduled a hearing
on all pending motion for January 19, 2021.
{¶11} Via Journal Entry filed March 10, 2021, the trial court granted legal custody
of Child 1 to Stringfellow and legal custody of Child 2 to Vinson. The trial court also
granted Mother liberal and frequent parenting time with Child 1 and Child 2 with dates
and times as agreed upon by the parties.
{¶12} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals, raising the following
assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FINDING THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF [CHILD 1]
TO GRANT LEGAL CUSTODY OF HIM TO PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FINDING THAT THE KNOX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 7
FAMILY SERVICES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNIFY
MOTHER WITH ALL OF HER CHILDREN, SPECIFICALLY [CHILD 1] AND
[CHILD 2].
III. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS IN WRITING THE
REASONABLE EFFORTS OF KNOX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB
AND FAMILY SERVICES, AS REQUIRED BY O.R.C. 2151.419.
{¶13} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be considered
in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).
III
{¶14} In her third assignment of error, Mother contends the trial court failed to set
forth the requisite findings of fact to support its reasonable efforts determination pursuant
to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). We agree.
{¶15} R.C. 2151.419 governs hearings on the efforts of agencies to prevent
removal of children from their homes. Subsection (A)(1) provides:
(A)(2) 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
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 8
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 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.
{¶16} Subsection (B)(1) states:
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.
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 9
{¶17} In In re Kyle, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No.2008 AP 01 0002, 2008–Ohio–5892,
and In re B.G., P.G., and K.G., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2013–0033, this Court
reviewed similar cases and, in both cases, reversed the trial courts’ decisions, finding
each 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. The trial court found KCDJFS
made reasonable efforts by creating a case plan and utilizing kinship and foster
placement for some of the Children. The trial court did not recite the “relevant services”
provided, nor state “why those services did not prevent the removal of the child from the
child's home or enable the child to return safely home.” R.C. 2151.419(B)(1).
{¶18} In its Reply Brief, KCDJFS argues the record is replete with testimony
regarding the efforts it made towards reunification and the reasons why those efforts were
unsuccessful. KCDJFS suggests the trial court’s failure to make the requisite findings
and state its rationale is merely a “clerical error.” Appellee’s Brief at 16. We do not.
{¶19} Because the trial court failed to make sufficient requisite reasonable efforts
finding under R.C. 2151.419, we sustain Mother's third assignment of error, and vacate
the trial court's judgment and remand this case to said court for written findings pursuant
to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1).
I, II
{¶20} In light of our disposition of Mother’s third assignment of error, we find her
first and second assignments of error to be premature.
Knox County, Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 10
{¶21} The judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion
and law.
By: Hoffman, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur