Friday First District Roundup 4-2-21

In re: S. & L. Children 
Case #C200341
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
The mother of S.S.1, S.S.2, W.L.1, and W.L.2 appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Juvenile court granting permanent custody of her children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). Mother challenges the grant of permanent custody on the ground that it was not in the children’s best interest. The children’s guardian ad litem and HCJFS maintain that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision, and we therefore affirm its judgment.
W.L.1 and W.L.2 are the children of mother and W.L. Their younger half-siblings S.S.1 and S.S.2 are the children of mother and Q.S. HCJFS became involved with the family in late January 2018 after W.L.1, then 10 years old, disclosed to hospital staff that Q.S. had penetrated her with his penis vaginally and anally. Mother was married to Q.S. at the time and she refused to believe W.L.1. Mother’s denial occurred despite mother’s knowledge of Q.S.’s substantiated history of sexually abusing a child whom he fathered with an adult daughter of mother. 

In re: R. 
Case #C200319
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion:
Appellant mother, K.R., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her child, R. Our thorough review of the record convinces us that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm.
Before October 2015, R. had mostly lived with her maternal grandmother. After R.’s grandmother passed away, R.’s mother, K.R., consented to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) taking legal custody of R. The trial court awarded R.’s maternal aunt legal custody of R. in February 2016.
In 2018, maternal aunt informed HCJFS that she was no longer willing to care for R. HCJFS found R. and her siblings at maternal aunt’s prior residence, living with K.R. There was no running water and the apartment was vacant except for the children’s belongings.

State of Ohio v. Buddy Eugene Struckman 
Case #C200210
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Defendant-petitioner-appellant Buddy Eugene Struckman appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgments overruling his Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial and denying his petition under R.C. 2953.21 for postconviction relief. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Struckman’s appeal from the overruling of his new-trial motion. And we affirm the common pleas court’s judgment denying postconviction relief.
In May 2018, Struckman was convicted upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance. We affirmed those convictions in the direct appeal. State v. Struckman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C180287, 2020-Ohio-1232, appeal not accepted, 159 Ohio St.3d 1446, 2020-Ohio3712, 149 N.E.3d 523.
Struckman also sought relief from his convictions by filing with the common pleas court, in August 2018, motions for a new trial and for leave to move for a new trial out of time and, in November 2019, a petition under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. for postconviction relief. Here, in the case numbered C-200210, he appeals the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial. And in the case numbered C-200069, he appeals the judgment denying his postconviction petition.

Bridgecreek Condominium Association, Inc. v. Doris Robinson 
Case #C200059
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Doris Robinson appeals the judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Bridgecreek Condominium Association, Inc., (“Bridgecreek”). Because we determine that Bridgecreek did not have the authority to assess unit owners like Robinson for trash removal, Robinson did not wrongfully withhold part of her assessment from Bridgecreek. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment, and we reverse.
Robinson owns a condominium unit in Bridgecreek. In 2016, Robinson began withholding $11.50 per month of her annual condominium assessment, because she disagreed with Bridgecreek’s decision to assess unit owners for trash removal. Bridgecreek placed a lien on Robinson’s property, and then filed the instant foreclosure complaint. Bridgecreek’s complaint alleged that, pursuant to Bridgecreek’s declarations (the “Declarations”), Robinson owed past due assessments and late fees. Bridgecreek filed a motion for summary judgment. Notably, Bridgecreek did not mention any specific Declarations or bylaws that Robinson had allegedly failed to follow. Instead, Bridgecreek simply asserted that Robinson failed to pay her “entire” assessment. 

In re: M.H., a minor child 
Case #C190718 
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:
In these consolidated appeals, appellant M.H. challenges her adjudications of delinquency by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court. The appeal numbered C-190692 involves an adjudication of delinquency for conduct that, if it had been engaged in by an adult, would have constituted the offense of obstruction of official business. The appeal numbered C-190693 involves an adjudication of delinquency for conduct that, if it had been engaged in by an adult, would have constituted the offense of resisting arrest. And the appeals numbered C-190717 and C-190718 involve adjudications of delinquency for conduct that, if it had been engaged in by an adult, would have constituted two offenses of assault on a peace officer. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgments of the juvenile court.
On December 11, 2018, Mount Healthy Police Officers Jordan Rubariu and Colin Higgins received a dispatch for “physical trouble with a customer who was refusing to leave [the Family Dollar].” The dispatch provided that “unruly juveniles” were in the store and that one of the juveniles had thrown candy at the store clerk. According to the dispatch, the juvenile was “a female black wearing a white coat and a red hat.”