In re P.C.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 8-20-40, NO. 8-20-46, NO. 8-20-45, NO. 8-20-47,NO. 8-20-39, NO. 8-20-41,8-20-39 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE: P.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] In re: A.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] In re: C.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] In re: P.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] In re: A.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] In re: C.C., [Daniel C. - Appellant] |
Alison Boggs, Marysville, for Appellant, Father.
Stacia L. Rapp, for Appellee, Logan County Children's Services.
Linda MacGillivray, Guardian Ad Litem.
{¶1} Father-appellant, Daniel C. ("Daniel"), brings these appeals from the August 10, 2020, judgments of the Logan County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, adjudicating his children P.C., A.C., and C.C. dependent, placing them in the temporary custody of Paternal Grandparents, granting Daniel supervised parenting time subject to the approval of Logan County Children's Services (the "Agency"), and placing the children under the protective supervision of the Agency. Daniel also appeals the trial court's August 18, 2020, judgments granting the request of the children's mothers to immunize the children.
{¶2} On August 6, 2018, the Agency filed complaints and a motion for temporary orders alleging that P.C. (born in 2007), A.C. (born in 2010), and C.C. (born in 2013), were dependent children pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). According to the complaints, all three children were residing with their father, Daniel, at the time. The record establishes that Danielle F. is the mother of P.C. and A.C., and Amy C. is the mother of C.C.; however, Daniel was married to a woman named Jonna C. at the time the complaint was filed.
{¶3} As the basis for the complaints, the Agency alleged that it had received "multiple referrals" regarding concerns for the well-being of the children coming from numerous referral sources and that the reports spanned multiple months. (Doc. No. 1 at 2).1 The complaints contained numerous allegations, beginning with a claim that in February of 2018, Daniel had left the three younger children in the care of their older sibling D.C., who was also a minor at the time, for eight to ten days while Daniel and his wife travelled out of state.2 D.C. purportedly did not have access to a car or a phone. The Agency also alleged that it received reports of filthy living conditions in Daniel's home; that Daniel permitted the children to consume alcoholic beverages; that Daniel smoked marijuana in front of the children; that the children had inadequate food and clothing; and that P.C. and A.C. had a significant amount of absences from school due to Daniel's failure to treat a chronic lice problem that had been an ongoing issue for the prior three years.
{¶4} The complaints further alleged that D.C., with whom the children were left during the vacation, was " ‘very slow’ cognitively and was ‘always in trouble with the courts for thieving and getting into trouble;’ " that Daniel was suspected of selling marijuana and using it with D.C.; and that Daniel and his wife Jonna, who was not the mother of any of the children, constantly fought in front of the children creating an unstable environment. (Doc. No. 1). The Agency claimed that when it tried to investigate the allegations in these referrals, Daniel refused to cooperate and told the caseworkers to return with a court order.
{¶5} The Agency explained that it had been involved in three prior cases with Daniel since 2011 and that in each of those cases Daniel was uncooperative and had a history of refusing to comply with the drug screening in the case plans. These prior cases involved concerns of improper supervision in Daniel's home with C.C. found wandering outside, concerns with Daniel's drug use, an incident in which A.C. was alleged to have struck C.C. causing him to have a nose bleed, concerns with P.C. and A.C. not completing their school work, and ongoing issues with the children having lice and bed bug bites. In August of 2017, Daniel eventually completed the case plan objectives and the cases were closed. However, the Agency stated that based upon the most recent referrals its involvement with the family was warranted again.
{¶6} In the ensuing months after the complaint was filed the Agency filed a motion for emergency temporary custody of the children alleging, inter alia , that Daniel and D.C. had been smoking marijuana together, that both D.C. and Daniel disciplined the younger children by spanking them and leaving red marks, that the children would often go to bed hungry because they were not fed, that the children still dealt with lice and fleas, that the electricity had been shut off at their home for a period of time in September of 2018, and that Daniel did not believe in doctors so the children had not seen a doctor.
{¶7} Following a hearing the trial court issued an entry finding probable cause to remove the children from Daniel's home. The children were placed in the temporary care of paternal grandfather and paternal step-grandmother.
{¶8} On October 25 and 30, 2018, the trial court conducted an adjudication and disposition hearing on the Agency's dependency complaints. Prior to taking testimony, the trial court conducted in camera interviews of the children. Upon commencement of the hearing, several witness testified for the Agency including ongoing Agency caseworkers, the mother of P.C. and A.C. (Danielle F.), the girl scout leader for P.C. and A.C.,3 and paternal step-grandmother (temporary legal custodian). Daniel presented testimony of numerous witnesses in support of his case including that of his mother, his then-wife, and family acquaintances. Daniel also testified at the hearing.
{¶9} On December 18, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding clear and convincing evidence to adjudicate the children dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C). However, the entry did not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered the Agency to continue its protective supervision of the children and placed the children in the temporary custody of paternal grandfather and paternal step-grandmother. Daniel was granted supervised visitation with the children subject to the Agency's approval.
{¶10} On June 27, 2019, Danielle F. filed a Motion for Vaccination
of P.C. and A.C., and she requested a hearing on the matter. In response, Daniel filed a motion opposing the immunization of P.C. and A.C.
{¶11} On August 22, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the Motion for Vaccination
. At the hearing, the trial court also considered a request to vaccinate C.C.4 Daniel testified regarding his beliefs against vaccinating his children. He explained that he specifically objected to certain ingredients in some vaccines, such as mercury and aluminum. He also expressed concerns about possible side effects of vaccines, such as allergic reactions and death. However, he acknowledged that some of his children had received vaccinations, and that his views had changed on the matter as he aged. He was against vaccination at the time of the hearing, or at the very least he was against forcing the children to receive vaccinations before they could make the decision for themselves.
{¶12} On September 20, 2019, the trial court issued judgment entries on Danielle F.’s motion to vaccinate P.C. and A.C., and Amy C.’s request to vaccinate C.C. Specifically, the trial court granted the motion to vaccinate and ordered the children to be immunized.
{¶13} Daniel then filed an appeal to this Court, challenging the trial court's dependency findings and the trial court's determination on the vaccination
issue. See
In re P.C. , A.C. , C.C. , P.C. , A.C. , C.C. , 3d Dist. Logan Nos. 8-19-45, 46, 47, 8-19-54, 55, 56, 2020-Ohio-2889, 2020 WL 2313802. Although the trial court made its dependency determination regarding the children at the conclusion of the October 30, 2020, hearing, and the trial court filed a judgment entry on the matter on December 18, 2018, the record did not indicate that Daniel was ever properly served pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Because of the lack of service, this Court determined under App.R. 4(A), "the time for filing a notice of appeal never began to run because of the failure to comply with Civ.R. 58(B)." In re P.C. at ¶ 17. Therefore we determined that Daniel could challenge both the dependency findings and the vaccination
issue on appeal. Id.
{¶14} Proceeding to Daniel's assignments of error in his initial appeal, we held that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2151.28(L) in its judgment entry finding the children dependent because the entry was "devoid of any findings of fact and conclusions of law." Id. at ¶ 24. We determined that the entry did not make any " ‘specific findings as to the existence of any danger to the child and any underlying family problems that are the basis for the court's determination that the child is a dependent child." In re P.C. , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-19-45, 2020-Ohio-2889, 2020 WL 2313802, ¶ 24, citing R.C. 2151.28(L). Therefore the prior judgments finding the children dependent were vacated and the cases were remanded to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with R.C. 2151.28(L). Since the cases were being remanded to the trial court, we found the vaccination
issue moot because it would have to be revisited after proper judgment entries of adjudication and disposition were filed in compliance with statutory rules. Id. at ¶ 28.
{¶15} Following remand, the trial court issued a new judgment entry on August 10, 2020, finding the children dependent by clear and convincing evidence and reiterating the previously stated disposition. The new judgment entry contained extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶16} On August 18, 2020, the trial court filed a judgment entry regarding the immunization issue, ordering the vaccination
of the children pursuant to the mothers’ requests. The entry also contained multiple...
To continue reading
Request your trial