Friday First District Roundup 8-28-20

Friday First District Roundup will be going on hiatus for the months of September and October and will return mid-November. You can keep track of decisions on the Court's website.

In re: D.P.
Case #C200223

Quote from Judgment Entry:

The mother of D.P. appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting permanent custody of D.P. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). The child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and HCJFS request that we affirm.

D.P. was born in August 2017. HCJFS became involved soon after his birth. The primary concern was D.P.’s father’s domestic violence toward D.P.’s mother. D.P. was adjudicated dependent, but he remained in mother’s care with orders of protective supervision that required father not to reside with mother. Mother did not comply. In December 2017, the agency filed a new complaint after father assaulted mother in the home and in the presence of D.P. D.P. was removed and again adjudicated dependent. The court granted temporary custody of D.P. to HCJFS with the goal of reunification. Although mother was provided reunification services and temporary custody was extended, reunification was not possible because mother continued her relationship with the violence-prone father, even after his incarcerations.

Walter Reinhaus v. John Schueler, Building Official, City of Cincinnati Building Department
Case #C200064

Quote from Judgment Entry:

Walter Reinhaus appeals the judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the Board of Building Appeals upholding an adjudication order issued by the City of Cincinnati Building Department. Although this case has not yet been argued on the merits, our review of the record reveals that the order appealed from is not a final order, and that we must therefore dismiss the appeal.

In re: C and M Children
Case #C200004

Quote from Judge Mock's Opinion:

In the appeal numbered C-200003, mother appeals the juvenile court’s judgment terminating her parental rights with respect to her three children, J.C., currently age five, D.M.1, currently age three and D.M.2, currently age two. Although the father of D.M.1 and D.M.2 also had his parental rights terminated, he does not appeal that judgment but instead, in the appeal numbered C-200004, appeals the termination of mother’s parental rights with respect to his two children, and the grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). For the following reasons, we affirm the court’s judgment.

In September 2017, J.C. and D.M.1 were removed from mother’s home, where she was living with the father of D.M.1, and temporary custody was granted to HCJFS. J.C. has a different father than her sibling. Although the parental rights of J.C.’s father were terminated, he has not appealed. Therefore, any reference to “father” will refer to the father of D.M.1.

J.C. and D.M.1 were removed from mother and father’s care when it was discovered that D.M.1, one month old at the time, had a broken left femur. Apparently, the injury occurred while D.M.1 was in father’s care. Mother and father claim that J.C., who was three at the time, dropped D.M.1. D.M.1 was evaluated by a team of “child-abuse doctors” from Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, who reported that D.M.1’s injury was not accidental in nature and not in line with the parents’ explanation.

Time Warner Cable, Inc., & Subsidiaries v. City of Cincinnati, Ted Nussman, Tax Commissioner City of Cincinnati Income Tax Division
Case #C190375

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

Although nothing may be as certain as death and taxes, perhaps cable bills fall in close behind. This case involves two of those three eventualities, with a cable provider trying to escape certain taxation imposed by the city of Cincinnati. More broadly, however, this case involves a clash between a municipality’s right to tax pursuant to the constitutionally-engrained Home Rule Amendment and the General Assembly’s ability to curtail that right. After careful review, we conclude that aspects of the city’s municipal code must yield to the state statute, and we accordingly affirm the judgment below.