OPINION
Stephenson
J.
This
is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Athens County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, awarding permanent
custody of Sammy Spears, born August 21, 1972, Mary Jane
Spears, born September 15, 1974, Melinda Spears, born August
16, 1973 and Amy Spears, born November 17, 1978, to the
Athens County Children Services Board, hereinafter referred
to as "Board". The natural parents of the children,
Jimmy Lee and Nancy Spears, are the appellants herein and
assign the following errors:
"Assignment of Error I"
The Juvenile Court committed error prejudicial to the rights
of the natural parents when it allowed inadmissible evidence
in determining to make temporary disposition under Juv. R.
13.
Assignments of Error II and III
II. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it
failed to dismiss the allegation charging sexual abuse of Amy
Spears.
III. The trial court below committed prejudicial error when
it failed to dismiss the counts charging neglect of Melinda
Spears, Mary Jane Spears, and Amy Spears as well as the
counts charging dependency of all the children.
Assignment of Error IV
The court committed prejudicial error when it allowed the
foster parents of the children to intervene as parties prior
to the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings below.
Assignment of Error V
The court below committed prejudicial error when it failed to
approve the employment of a clinical practitioner to assist
counsel for the natural parents.
Assignment of Error VI
The court below erred when it allowed the opinion testimony
of Dr. Farber, a child psychologist.
Assignment of Error VII
The court below committed prejudicial error when it allowed
expert testimony regarding the truthfulness of the children
in claiming there had been sexual abuse.
Assignments of Error VIII and IX
VIII. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it
permitted the introduction of evidence of sexual abuse of
Sammy Spears.
IX. The court committed prejudicial error when it found that
Sammy Spears was an abused child within the meaning of R.C.
2151.03(A).
Assignment of Error X
The court below committed prejudicial error when it ordered
that the natural parents be excluded from the courtroom
during the testimony of the children.
Assignment of Error XI
The court below committed prejudicial error when it failed to
dismiss all allegations due to the lack of showing of the
court's jurisdiction.
Assignment of Error XII
There was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain the
findings of facts and conclusions of law made by the trial
court following the adjudicatory hearing.
Assignment of Error XIII
The court below committed error when it ordered Children
Services to have permanent custody instead of ordering that a
reunification plan be entered as part of an award of
temporary custody."
This
is the second appeal to this court from the court below
respecting the permanent custody of the children involved in
this appeal. In early 1981, the Athens County Children
Services Board filed complaints for permanent custody upon
averments of neglect. The court below granted permanent
custody. Upon appeal in Case No. 1095, this court reversed
and remanded for further proceedings, the reversal being upon
the grounds of admission of irrelevant evidence and
insufficiency of evidence respecting the neglect averments in
the complaints filed under R.C. 2151.03(C).
After
remand, the Board filed new complaints averring that Mary
Jane Spears and Melinda Spears were neglected, dependent and
abused children, the factual polriion of the complaints
reciting, by attachment, the statutory language of R.C.
2151.03(B), defining neglect, and R.C. 2151.04(C), defining
dependency, then averred in Mary Jane's and Melinda's
complaints, the following under "Abused Child"
"This child is the victim of "sexual activity"
as defined in 2907 of the Revised Code, where such activity
would constitute an offense under that chapter, to-wit: this
child has had sexual intercourse with her father, Jimmy Lee
Spears while residing in his home, this sexual intercourse
has had a detrimental effect upon this child, the mother of
this child was aware of this activity and permitted it to
continue this is contrary to 2151.031(A) of the Ohio Revised
Code."
The
complaint respecting Sammy was based upon averments of
neglect and dependency and, in addition to reciting the
statutory language of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C),
averred the following under "Neglected Child":
"He lacks proper parental care because of the faults or
habits of his parents, to-wit: his father has had sexual
activity with his sisters and this type of perversion is
permitted by the mother, this degenerate home environment has
a detrimental effect upon this child contrary to 2151.03(B)
of the Ohio Revised Code."
The
complaint respecting Amy, after averring a neglected and
dependency status in statutory language, averred further
under "Abused Child":
"Amy Spears is a victim of sexual activity as defined
under Chapter 2907 of the Revised Code, where such activity
would constitute an offense under that chapter, this child
has been detrimentally effected (sic) by the conduct of her
parents in permitting sexual activity, contrary to
2151.031(A) of the Ohio Revised Code."
After
evidence was presented at the adjudicatory hearing, the court
entered the following findings:
"1. Jimmy Lee Spears and Nancy Spears are the natural
parents of Sammy Spears, Melinda Spears, Mary Jane Spears,
and Amy Jo Spears, alleged neglected, dependent and abused
children.
2. Dr. L. Eugene Arnold, M.D., whose testimony was stipulated
to as an expert, stated that the three older children could
remember something from two years ago and that Sam and
Melinda could remember farther back than that.
3. Dr. Arnold believed that Melinda's reporting of sexual
abuse was accurate.
4. Dr. Arnold stated that because of the very specific
description of the sexual molestation, by the children, that
he does not believe that they would have made up all of those
details. Based on his experience with hundreds of other
children he believed the Spears' children.
5. Dr. Fdward D. Farber, Ph.D., evaluated Melinda and Mary
Jane Spears in January of 1983.
6. Dr. Farber stated that Mary Jane and Melinda has been
sexually abused by their father.
7. Dr. McClanahan, an expert witness, testified that based on
his experience he found the Spears' children's
accounts of their sexual molestation to be truthful.
8. Dr. McClanahan stated that both Mary Jane and Melinda had
been victims of sexual abuse by Jimmy Lee Spears.
9. Wendy Chapman, an incest abuse worker from Wisconsin,
testified that Sam Spears had related to her a history of
sexual abuse by his mother, Nancy Spears.
10. Ms. Chapman stated that it was common for victims of
sexual abuse to refrain from telling about these incidents.
She felt that a period of two years in coming forward with
these incidents of sexual abuse was not unusual.
11. Sammy Spears, Melinda Spears and Mary Jane Spears are
competent witnesses within the meaning of Rule 601 of the
Ohio Rules of Evidence.
12. Sam Spears testified that he had been sexually abused by
Nancy Spears.
13. Melinda Spears testified, by her words and actions that
she had been sexually abused by her biological father.
Specifically that she had sexual intercourse with her
biological father.
14. Mary Jane Spears testified by her words and actions that
she had been sexually abused by her biological father.
Specifically she indicated that she had sexual intercourse
with her biological father, Jimmy Lee Spears.
15. The factual allegations of sexual abuse were not
discovered by Children's Services or any other
appropriate authority until subsequent to the prior cases of
neglect and dependency and could not have reasonably been
discovered any sooner.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
After
a dispositional hearing, the court entered a judgment
reciting, inter alia, the following:
"The Court in applying the facts, opinions and arguments
in this case to the statutory requirements of Section
2151.353 of the Ohio Revised Code finds that the parents have
acted in such a manner that the children are children without
adequate parental care. The Court further specifically finds
that it is likely that the parents would continue to act in
such a manner that the children would continue to be children
without adequate parental care if a reunification plan were
prepared pursuant to Section 2151.412 of the Ohio Revised
Code. The Court further finds that by clear and convincing
evidence that the incidents alleged were not isolated
occurrences, but rather an ongoing an repeated pattern of
behavior on the part of the parents. The Court being so
convinced has determined that there is no reasonable or
realistic hope that these children can be reunited with their
natural parents. In doing so, the Court has considered the
rights of the parents along with the best interest
...
