Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.
Interested in getting these weekly updates sent right to your inbox? Sign up here!
In re: G. Children
Quote from Judge Course's Opinion:
Father has appealed from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting permanent custody of his minor children M.D.G. and M.K.G. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). He argues in two assignments of error that the termination of his parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the juvenile court erred in weighing his failure to complete services against him when the services could not be provided by HCJFS. He requests that he be given custody of both children, or, in the alternative, custody of M.D.G.
For the reasons discussed below, we overrule both assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
HCJFS was granted interim custody of the children on May 26, 2017, due to concerns over mother’s substance abuse. At the time, mother and the children were living together at a drug treatment center in Hamilton County, and father was living in Butler County. M.K.G. was approximately three years old, and M.D.G. was only a few months old. HCJFS developed case-plan services for both father and mother. Mother died in January 2018. On April 29, 2019, HCJFS filed a motion for permanent custody, which was opposed by father. The permanentcustody trial was conducted over two days, August 19, 2019, and September 20, 2019.
In re: M.R., K.R.1, J.R., K.R.2, and B.H.
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Appellant L.R. (“Mother”) appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court adjudicating her five children—B.H., K.R.1, J.R., K.R.2, and M.R.—dependent and placing three of the children in the legal custody of their respective fathers and two of the children in the temporary custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). We reverse the juvenile court’s judgment in part and remand the cause for further proceedings.
The juvenile court first adjudicated B.H., K.R.1, J.R., and K.R.2 dependent and removed them from their mother’s care in November 2017.1 This adjudication followed an incident of domestic violence between Mother and her eldest daughter, B.H., who was 12 years old at the time. B.H. and Mother had gotten into an argument over chores that turned physical. B.H. pulled out a knife and threatened to kill her mother and herself. The incident was apparently witnessed by J.R., who reported being scared.
Deron B. Saylor v. Holly Saylor, n.k.a. Holly Lewis
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:
The case before us concerns post-decree proceedings in a divorce case. The parties filed several motions with the trial court concerning issues regarding contempt and parental rights and responsibilities, including custody, residency, and parenting time. The parties resolved the motions through an agreed entry. Plaintiffappellant Deron Saylor then filed additional motions seeking to modify parental rights and responsibilities. The trial court limited its consideration of his motions to events that occurred after the parties signed the agreed entry. The court then denied Saylor’s motions and ruled in favor of defendant-appellee Holly Lewis.
Saylor has appealed, arguing in two assignments of error that the trial court erred: (1) in finding that the agreed entry resolved all issues pending before the court, and that the agreed entry was the point from which he was required to demonstrate a change of circumstances; and (2) by failing to properly weigh the evidence as required by Ohio law and local rule. We overrule Saylor’s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
U.S. Bank National Association, not in its Individual Capacity but Soloely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT v. Tina Bayne, John Doe, Name Unknown, the Unknown Spouse of Tina Bayne (if any), et al
Quote from Judgment Entry:
Defendant-appellant Tina Bayne appeals from the decision of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) on its complaint for foreclosure. We affirm.
The complaint, filed in 2017, relates to a promissory note and a mortgage of real property, known as 424 Appalossa Court, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45231, which secures the amounts due under the note. According to the parties, Bayne, the property, and the same loan were involved in a prior foreclosure action that was filed in 2015 and dismissed without prejudice by the trial court in 2016.
State of Ohio v. Chris Burrows
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
After entering guilty pleas, defendant-appellant Chris Burrows was convicted of several offenses and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 15 years. He now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his pleas and by imposing multiple and excessive sentences. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The state co-indicted Burrows for offenses related to an armed robbery and shooting involving one victim that occurred on July 8, 2016. Burrows initially pleaded not guilty. His trial was delayed in part due the health of the victim. When the parties appeared for trial in August 2018, Burrows offered to cooperate to some degree with the state, which resulted in the state foregoing additional charges and offering a plea bargain in this case. The state agreed to dismiss some counts in exchange for Burrows’s guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and felonious assault, both with three-year firearm specifications, and having weapons under a disability.