Masters, In re
| Decision Date | 24 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34723,34723 |
| Citation | 137 N.E.2d 752,165 Ohio St. 503 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O. 474 In re MASTERS et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An order of the Juvenile Court made pursuant to a finding that children are 'neglected' children within the meaning of Section 2151.03, Revised Code, and committing said children to the permanent custody of a child welfare board for the purpose of placing them for adoption is a final appealable order under Section 6, Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
2. Evidence of the confinement of a mother of minor children in a state hospital by reason of mental illness, during which confinement she had no funds with which to support the children and during which she was unaware of their whereabouts, is not sufficient evidence to support a finding by the Juvenile Court that such children are 'neglected' within the meaning of Section 2151.03, Revised Code.
This matter originated in the Juvenile Court of Muskingum County by the filing of a complaint by James B. Stubbins, alleging that two children, Mary Elizabeth Masters and Barbara Ann Masters, then aged two and one years, respectively, appeared to be neglected children in that they had not been supported by either of their parents for at least nine months. It is alleged further that for some nine months prior to the filing of the complaint the children had been supported by and cared for by Roy R. Fink and Christine C. Fink.
The mother of these children, Rosabel Masters, voluntarily appeared and testified at the hearing. The father, Ralph Masters, then living in Nevada waived service of summons thereby entering his appearance, but did not attend the hearing. There was no service on the children or on the Finks, although the latter were present at the hearing and testified.
Following the hearing, the Juvenile Court made a finding that the children were neglected and awarded permanent custody of them to the Muskingum County Child Welfare Board 'for the purpose of placing them for adoption with Roy R. Fink and Christine C. Fink.'
Mrs. Masters perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, which reversed the judgment of the Juvenile Court, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding that the children were neglected, and entered final judgment for Mrs. Masters.
The cause is before this court upon the allowance of complainant's motion to certify the record.
Walters, Stubbins & Ringhisen, Zanesville, for appellant James B. Stubbins.
Graham, Graham, Gottlieb & Johnston, Zanesville, for appellee Rosabel Masters.
An understanding of the questions presented by this appeal requires a brief sum mary of the evidence as found in the record.
Mrs. Masters was confined in the Columbus State Hospital almost constantly from August 1952 until about five weeks prior to the filing of the complaint herein. During that confinement, her husband, Ralph W. Masters, who had the care of these children, left them in the home of the Finks upon the recommendation of the executive secretary of the Child Welfare Board of Muskingum County. At the time he left the children with the Finks, Masters arranged to pay them $75 per month for the support of the children.
Masters made payments to the Finks for a few months and then removed himself to Nevada and ceased making any payments. In December 1954, he wrote to the Finks suggesting that they adopt the children, and a few days later he signed a consent to their adoption. Neither of the Finks made any effort to contact Mrs. Masters until after Masters had signed the consent to adoption, whereupon they wrote to her requesting her consent to the adoption. She refused, engaged counsel and appeared in response to the complaint filed by Stubbins.
Mrs. Masters testified that during the more than two years she was in the state hospital she had no source of revenue with which to support the children and was unaware of their whereabouts at the time of her release. She is presently employed and testified that she desires her children and is able to care for them.
It should be noted at this point that no issue is raised herein concerning the social, moral or economic fitness of either the Finks or Mrs. Masters to care for these children. The issue is solely whether there is sufficient evidence to support the charge of neglect.
Section 2151.27, Revised Code, provides for the filing of a complaint by any person having knowledge of a child under 18 who appears to be delinquent, neglected or dependent. It provide further that 'such application or sworn complaint may be upon information and belief and shall be sufficiently definite by using the word delinquent, neglected, dependent * * * as the facts may be.'
The complaint recites that the complainant 'has knowledge of two certain children * * * who appear to be neglected children.'
Section 2151.03, Revised Code, defines a 'neglected child' as including any child:
'(A) Who is abandoned by his parents, guardian or custodian;
'(B) Who lacks proper parental care because of the faults or habits of his parents, guardian, or custodian;
'(C) Whose parents,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.H.A., In Interest of
...relationship. "Neglect" has been defined as a disregard of duty resulting from indifference or wilfulness. In re Masters, 165 Ohio St. 503, 137 N.E.2d 752, 755 (1956); Matter of Betty C., 632 P.2d 412, 414 (Okla.1981); In re Sweet, 317 P.2d 231, 235 (Okla.1957). It has also been defined as ......
-
F. H., In Interest of
...constitutes abandonment, See In Interest of M. L., 239 N.W.2d 289 (N.D.1976); In re J. V., 185 N.W.2d 487 (N.D.1971); In re Masters, 165 Ohio St. 503, 137 N.E.2d 752 (1956). See also, Nelson v. Ecklund, 68 N.D. 724, 283 N.W. 273 We have said that in adjudicating the issue of parental rights......
-
In re
...all parental claims to the child." Baker v. Rose, 28 Ohio Misc. 200, 203, 270 N.E.2d 67(C.P. 1970), citing, In re Masters, 165 Ohio St. 503, 505-506, 137 N.E.2d 752(1956). See, also In re C.E., 2nd Dist. Champaign No. 2005-CA-11, 2005-Ohio-5913, ¶ 12. {¶26} "A presumption effectively revers......
-
In re Charleyann Myers, A. Dependent Child.
... ... courts in Ohio. See, e.g., In re Sekulich (1981), 65 ... Ohio St.2d 13, 417 N.E.2d 1014; In re Holmes (1980), ... 70 Ohio App.2d 75, 434 N.E.2d 1103; In re Bolden ... (1973), 37 Ohio App.2d 7, 306 N.E.2d 166. Cf. In re ... Masters (1956), 165 Ohio St. 503, 137 N.E.2d 752 ... (holding that a finding of neglect, included in a final ... disposition order, was appealable); In re Rule ... (1963), 1 Ohio App.2d 57, 203 N.E.2d 501 (holding that ... modification of a temporary custody order which was made ... ...