Title: In re Baby Boy Blackshear

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Baby Boy Blackshear, 90 Ohio St.3d 197, 2000-Ohio-173.] 
 
 
 
IN RE BABY BOY BLACKSHEAR. 
[Cite as In re Baby Boy Blackshear (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 197.] 
Juvenile law — Cocaine abuse — Termination of parental rights — When 
newborn’s toxicology screen yields a positive result for an illegal drug due 
to prenatal, maternal drug abuse, the newborn is, for purposes of R.C. 
2151.031(D), per se an abused child. 
When a newborn child’s toxicology screen yields a positive result for an illegal 
drug due to prenatal maternal drug abuse, the newborn is, for purposes of 
R.C. 2151.031(D), per se an abused child. 
(No. 99-1890 — Submitted June 6, 2000 — Decided October 25, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 1999CA00018. 
 
On July 14, 1998, appellant, Tonya Kimbrough, gave birth at Mercy 
Medical Center in Canton, Ohio, to a baby boy, Lorenzo Blackshear.  Shortly 
after his birth, certain persons of the hospital’s medical staff noted that Lorenzo 
was “jittery.”  A toxicology screen of Lorenzo’s urine indicated that Lorenzo had 
cocaine in his system.  Kimbrough was also tested and was found, as well, to have 
cocaine in her system. 
 
The Stark County Department of Human Services (“SCDHS”), appellee, 
received a referral concerning Lorenzo. SCDHS commenced an investigation.  
The investigation showed the allegations concerning Lorenzo and Kimbrough to 
be accurate.  SCDHS then, pursuant to R.C. 2151.27, filed a complaint with the 
Stark County Juvenile Court alleging that Lorenzo was an abused, neglected, 
and/or dependent child.1 
 
On July 17, 1998, upon the release of Lorenzo from the hospital, SCDHS 
assumed temporary custody of Lorenzo.  On September 30, 1998, a magistrate of 
the court held an evidentiary hearing.  On October 6, 1998, the magistrate filed a 
 
 
2 
decision finding Lorenzo to be an abused child.  In so finding, the magistrate said 
that “[a]n unborn fetus is considered a person under Ohio’s criminal code.  See 
R.C. 2903.11 for example.  Consequently an unborn fetus is a ‘child’ under R.C. 
2151.031.  Therefore harm which occurred prior to birth may constitute abuse.”  
Kimbrough objected to the decision of the magistrate.  Overruling the objection, 
the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision. 
 
Kimbrough appealed the judgment of the trial court.  The court of appeals 
affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 
 
On March 6, 2000, the Stark County Family Court granted permanent 
custody of Lorenzo to Robin Blackshear, Lorenzo’s biological father. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Paula M. Sawyers, for appellee. 
 
J. Dean Carro, for appellant. 
 
Wolman, Genshaft & Gellman and Susan Gellman; National Advocates 
for Pregnant Women/Women’s Law Project, Lynn Paltrow, Susan Frietsche and 
David S. Cohen, urging reversal for amici curiae, American Public Health 
Association, American Academy on Physician and Patient, American Nurses 
Association, Center for Women Policy Studies, Common Sense for Drug Policy, 
Division of Public Health and Policy Research of Montefiore Medical 
Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Drug Policy Foundation, Family 
Watch, Institute for Health and Recovery, Legal Action Center, Legal Services for 
Prisoners With Children, Lindesmith Center, National Abortion and Reproductive 
Rights Action League of Ohio, National Association of Alcoholism and Drug 
Abuse Counselors, Inc., National Center for Youth Law, National Council on 
Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc., National Women’s Health Network, 
 
 
3 
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Preterm, South Carolina Nurses 
Association, Women in Need, Inc., and Women’s Re-Entry Resource Network. 
__________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J.  Kimbrough presents us with a single proposition of law 
asking us to find that “[i]n enacting R.C. 2151.031, the Ohio General Assembly 
intended to exclude an unborn fetus from its definition of ‘child.’ ”  The trial court 
herein apparently permitted Kimbrough to frame the issue in this way because in 
response to Kimbrough’s arguments, the trial court held that “[c]onsequently an 
unborn fetus is a ‘child’ under R.C. 2151.031.”  While the court of appeals, in 
affirming the judgment of the trial court, discussed, inter alia, the question of 
whether a fetus is a child for purposes of R.C. 2151.031, it appears that the court 
of appeals did not directly rule on that issue, finding, presumably, that such a 
determination was not necessary to the resolution of the case before the court.  
The court of appeals did say, to be sure, that “we hold that R.C. 2151.031(D) is 
constitutionally applicable to a child born alive with post-birth symptoms of the 
exposure of illegal drugs by the child’s mother to the viable fetus.”  This would 
seem to be something less than an affirmance of the trial court’s finding that a 
fetus is a child. 
 
The issue arises because Kimbrough contends that the trial court and the 
court of appeals have assumed authority that the General Assembly did not 
provide when the courts permitted SCDHS to take custody of Lorenzo to the 
exclusion of Kimbrough.  The statute in question, R.C. 2151.031, and specifically 
subsection (D), provides: 
 
“As used in this chapter, an ‘abused child’ includes any child who: 
 
“ * * * 
 
“(D) Because of the acts of his parents, * * * suffers physical or mental 
injury that harms or threatens to harm the child’s health or welfare.” 
 
R.C. 2151.011(B) provides: 
 
 
4 
 
“As used in this chapter: 
 
“ * * * 
 
“(6)(a) ‘Child’ means a person who is under eighteen years of age * * *.”  
“Person” is not defined in R.C. 2151.011. 
 
Kimbrough contends that since the definition of “child” does not include a 
fetus, the General Assembly meant to exclude a fetus from the definition of 
“child” and since, Kimbrough contends, her action of using cocaine, which caused 
the injury to Lorenzo, occurred while Lorenzo was a fetus—and not while 
Lorenzo was a fully born child—R.C. 2151.031(D), the section defining who is an 
abused child, cannot be used to remove Lorenzo from her custody or control.  We 
disagree. 
 
We do not agree with Kimbrough in either how she has framed the issue 
or her interpretation of the statute.  Accordingly, we find that the issue is not 
whether a fetus is a child but rather whether the plain language of R.C. 
2151.031(D) applies to Lorenzo and the facts of this case.2  Again, R.C. 
2151.031(D) provides that, as used in R.C. Chapter 2151, an “abused child” 
includes any child who, “[b]ecause of the acts of his parents, * * * suffers 
physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child’s health or 
welfare.” 
 
It is clear that the action causing the injury to Lorenzo was taken by one of 
his parents, Kimbrough.  It is clear that the action taken by Kimbrough caused 
Lorenzo injury—both before and after birth.  It is clear that after his birth, 
Lorenzo was a “child” as defined in R.C. 2151.011(B)(6)(a).  It is clear, as the 
court of appeals ably noted, that the discovery of cocaine in Lorenzo’s system was 
by a postbirth test rather than by a prenatal test.  It is clear, and there can be no 
doubt, that an alleged abused child, once born, falls under the jurisdiction of the 
appropriate juvenile court.  R.C. 2151.23.  It is clear that a child has legal and 
constitutional rights and that juvenile courts were created, in part, to protect those 
 
 
5 
rights and to empower the state to provide for the care and protection of Ohio’s 
children.  It is clear that there can be no more sacred or precious right of a 
newborn infant than the right to life and to begin that life, where medically 
possible, healthy, and uninjured.  And it is clear that to ignore these facts, these 
rights, and the numerous problems presented in these cases is to place our 
collective heads in the proverbial sand and hope that the vexing questions will 
somehow just disappear.  Well, they will not! 
 
Thus we apply the statute as written and to the facts of this case.  
Accordingly, we hold that when a newborn child’s toxicology screen yields a 
positive result for an illegal drug due to prenatal maternal drug abuse, the 
newborn is, for purposes of R.C. 2151.031(D), per se an abused child. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur separately. 
 
PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
1. 
The department was aware that it had intervened two years earlier 
when Kimbrough gave birth to her first cocaine-addicted baby. 
 
2. 
The appellant, amici, and appellee have all cited a number of cases 
for our consideration.  The cases cited are not on point when the issue is framed 
as we have framed it and when the specific statute involved and the clear facts of 
the case at bar are considered. 
 
For examples, and the list is not meant to be all-inclusive, appellant, amici, 
and appellee all cite Werling v. Sandy (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 45, 17 OBR 37, 476 
N.E.2d 1053, and State v. Gray (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 514, 584 N.E.2d 710.  
 
 
6 
Appellant and appellee each cite Jasinsky v. Potts (1950), 153 Ohio St. 529, 42 
O.O. 9, 92 N.E.2d 809, and Williams v. Marion Rapid Transit, Inc. (1949), 152 
Ohio St. 114, 39 O.O. 433, 87 N.E.2d 334.  Appellant cites In re Ruiz (1986), 27 
Ohio Misc.2d 31, 27 OBR 350, 500 N.E.2d 935. 
 
The Williams, Jasinsky, and Werling cases all hinged on the rights of 
children, born alive or stillborn, to bring, or to have brought on their behalf, an 
action for injuries sustained because of the negligence of another, while they were 
still in their mother’s womb.  The case now before us involves the rights of a 
mother with regard to whether her parental rights can be terminated or curtailed.  
Accordingly, the cited cases are not on point. 
 
The Gray case was a criminal case and involved whether a mother could 
be prosecuted for child endangerment where substance abuse occurred during 
pregnancy.  As this was a criminal case, the court was mandated by R.C. 
2901.04(A) to strictly construe the criminal statute against the state and liberally 
construe the statute in favor of the accused.  Id., 62 Ohio St.3d at 515, 584 N.E.2d 
at 711.  The case at bar is a civil proceeding and involves R.C. Chapter 2151, 
whose terms are not subject to the strict construction rule.  In fact, in this case the 
opposite is true because R.C. 2151.01 mandates the court to liberally construe and 
interpret the sections of R.C. Chapter 2151, so as to provide for the care and 
protection of children and their constitutional and legal rights.  Thus, Gray has no 
application to the case now before us. 
 
Distinguishing Ruiz presents a more difficult problem but, in any event, 
the ultimate holding of Ruiz is in accordance with our decision today.  Judge 
Pollex of the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County, Juvenile Division, felt 
“compelled to hold that a viable fetus is a child under the existing child abuse 
statute.”  Ruiz, 27 Ohio Misc.2d at 35, 27 OBR at 355, 500 N.E.2d at 939.  This 
conclusion was reached after a review of a number of cases including Williams, 
Jasinsky, and Werling.  We have already shown how those cases do not apply in 
 
 
7 
the context of the case now before us.  Thus, a child born alive who tests positive 
at birth for addiction to cocaine suffers from abuse and continued abuse no matter 
when the original abuse occurred. 
__________________ 
 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., concurring.  I concur with the syllabus and 
the judgment of the majority.  I write separately to emphasize the limited scope of 
the majority’s holding. 
 
As the majority correctly concludes, the relevant issue presented for our 
determination is whether the plain language of R.C. 2151.031(D) is applicable to 
Lorenzo Blackshear and the specific facts of this case.  Accordingly, we need not 
reach the issue of whether a fetus is a child for purposes of this civil child-abuse 
statute.  Thus, the law announced today is limited to factual scenarios akin to the 
case at bar, where a newborn tests positive for an illegal drug, as the result of 
prenatal maternal substance abuse. 
 
This is a disturbing issue, especially in light of the fact that a child who is 
exposed to an illegal drug following its birth and possesses traces of the drug in 
its system would, without a doubt, be considered an abused child. 
 
The consequences of prenatal maternal substance abuse are tragic and 
cannot not be ignored.  According to one study, more than five hundred thousand 
“cocaine-exposed infants” are born in the United States each year.  Schueller, The 
Use of Cocaine by Pregnant Women:  Child Abuse or Choice? (1999), 25 J.Legis. 
163, 165, citing Spencer, Prosecutorial Immunity:  The Response to Prenatal Drug 
Use (1993), 25 Conn.L.Rev. 393, 394, citing a study by the National Association 
of Perinatal Addiction Research and Education. 
 
Accounts of drug-addicted newborns elicit intense emotional responses, 
such as anger and disbelief.  We question how mothers can inflict this type of 
harm on their innocent children.  Moreover, the full extent of harm done is often 
not known and, therefore, these children face uncertain futures. 
 
 
8 
 
While the number of drug-addicted newborns reaches epidemic 
proportions, and society searches for methods to deal with this crisis, this court 
must adhere to its duty to interpret the laws in accordance with the General 
Assembly’s intent.  To do otherwise would yield consequences reaching far 
beyond those either intended or anticipated by the General Assembly.  The 
majority must be commended for exercising restraint. 
 
“ ‘ “A court should not place a tenuous construction on [a] statute to 
address a problem to which the legislative attention is readily directed and which 
it can readily resolve if in its judgment it is an appropriate subject of legislation.” 
’ ”  State v. Gray (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 514, 518, 584 N.E.2d 710, 713, quoting 
People v. Hardy (1991), 188 Mich.App. 305, 310, 469 N.W.2d 50, 53, and People 
v. Gilbert (1982), 414 Mich. 191, 212-213, 324 N.W.2d 834, 844.  The courts are 
neither authorized nor properly equipped to make public policy determinations.  If 
the General Assembly wants to include a fetus within the definition of a “child” 
for purposes of R.C. 2151.031, it certainly knows how to do so. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Appellant’s sole proposition of law asks this court 
to decide that R.C. 2151.031(D) excludes unborn fetuses from the definition of 
“abused child.”  But as the majority notes, even if fetuses were excluded from the 
definition, a reasonable construction of the statute could support the adjudication 
of a newborn as an abused child for injuries inflicted prebirth.  Division (D) does 
not require that the parents inflict injury after birth.  It merely requires that the 
child suffer injury, due to an act by the parents, that harms or threatens to harm 
the child’s health or welfare.  The statute focuses on the status of the child—not 
the timing of the injury’s infliction.  Despite my agreement with the majority on 
this point, I cannot join today’s opinion and syllabus. 
 
 
9 
 
The syllabus equates a positive drug screen, in every case, with “injury 
that harms or threatens to harm” a newborn.  The majority’s per se rule assumes 
that harm to a child’s health or welfare—or the threat of such harm—necessarily 
follows from in utero exposure to an illegal drug.  The magistrate and trial court 
likewise assumed that “[a] newborn who tests positive for an illegal narcotic is 
abuse[d] per se.”  Rather than determining by clear and convincing evidence that 
Lorenzo’s exposure to cocaine caused or could have caused him harm, the court 
below (like the majority today) apparently proceeded from a generally accepted 
view that cocaine is harmful to its users. 
 
A positive result on a newborn’s drug screen is probative evidence of in 
utero exposure to illegal drugs.  Whether a newborn’s in utero exposure to an 
illegal substance actually harms or threatens to harm the child is, however, a 
separate question that can only be answered by considering appropriate medical 
evidence.  Such consideration is lacking in this case. 
 
Though there was evidence that Lorenzo was “jittery” soon after birth, the 
record contains no medical testimony linking this symptom to the positive drug 
screen.  The agency’s only witness at the adjudicatory hearing was a social 
worker who observed Lorenzo shake briefly twice during a five- to fifteen-minute 
period.  The day after birth, Lorenzo’s physician noted “not much jittering” and 
decided that he would “just observe.”   The following day, Lorenzo’s physician 
indicated that Lorenzo was “doing fine—no jitteriness.”  Three days after birth, 
Lorenzo was discharged.  Though Lorenzo’s physician noted a “positive drug 
screen” on the discharge summary, he identified no symptoms of injury that 
harmed or threatened to harm the child.  Nor did the physician specify the need 
for any medication or special care for Lorenzo. 
 
I would remand this cause for a determination of whether Lorenzo’s 
exposure to cocaine either harmed or threatened to harm him, as the plain 
language of R.C. 2151.031(D) requires.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
 
 
10 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.