[Cite as In re K.R. , 2021-Ohio-3417.]

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: K.R. JUDGES: Hon. Crai g R. Baldwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J.

Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 219-2028 & 219-2029

JUDGMENT: Vacated and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 28, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Appellee Knox Count y Departmen t For Appellant, Che y enne Rame y of Job and Famil y Services CAROLYN FITTRO ASHLEY L. JOHNS Fittro Law, LLC Knox Count y Department of Job and 1335 Dublin R., Suite #115F Famil y Services Columbus, Ohio 43215 117 East Hi g h Stree t Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 For Paternal Grandmother of K.R.1

Guardian Ad Litem REBECCA STUMLER 130 E. Chestnut Street, Suite #301 ADAM O. JOHNSON Columbus, Ohio 43215 25 E. Waterloo Stree t Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 2

For Mothe r For Father of K.R. 2

PORTER R. WELCH WILLIAM VINSON P.O. Box 125 35 Ta y lor Road 21 1⁄2 Middle Street, Suite #1 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Galena, Ohio 43021Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 3

Hoffman, J. {¶1} In Knox App. No. 21CA000005, appellant Cheyenne Ramey (“Mother” ) appeals the March 10, 2021 Judgment Entry entered by the Knox C ounty Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted legal custody of one of her minor children (“Child 1”) to Jackie Stringfellow, Child 1’s paternal grandmother. In Knox App. No. 21CA000006, Mother appeals the same judgment entry, which g ranted legal custody of another of her minor children (“Child 2”) to William Vinson, Child 2’s father. Appellee is Knox County Department of Job and Family Services (“KCDJFS”)

. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS {¶2} Mother and Zachary Metzger are the biological parents of Child 1. Metzger is deceased. Mother and William Vinson are the biological pare nts of Child 2. {¶3} On March 3, 2019, KCDJFS filed complaints alleging Child 1, Chi ld 2, and their two siblings (“Child 3” and “Child 4”) were neglected and dependent. The complaints were based upon the deplorable home conditions, the children’s poor hygiene, Mother’s failure to properly supervise the children, her inability to wa ke up in the morning and care for the children, and her tumultuous relationship with her sign ificant other. Mother gave birth to her fifth child (“Child 5”) on March 5, 2019. On Marc h 13, 2019, KCDJFS filed a complaint regarding Child 5 and a motion to combine the sibling cases, which the trial court granted on the same day. {¶4} Following an incident of domestic violence between Mother and S cott Owens, the father of Child 5, KCDJFS filed an ex parte motion f or temporary custody on April 9, 2019. The trial court conducted a shelter care hearin g on April 11, 2019, denied

KCDJFS’s motion and returned the Children to Mother under a saf ety plan requiring 24/7 supervision of Mother. On April 26, 2019, KCDJFS filed a second motion requesting anKnox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 4

ex parte order of temporary custody based upon the inappropriat e home conditions and the lack of supervision of the Children despite the safety plan . The trial court granted the motion and the Children were immediately removed from Mother’s custody. At a shelter care hearing on April 29, 2019, the trial court continued tempo rary custody with KCDJFS. Following an adjudicatory hearing on May 3, 2019, the trial cou rt returned the Children to Mother’s custody under the protective supervision of KCDJFS. T he trial court also granted Jackie Stringfellow visitation with Child 1. {¶5} At an adjudicatory hearing on May 15, 2019, Mother admitted the Children were dependent and the trial court dismissed the allegations of neglect. On May 20, 2019, KCDJFS filed a third motion again requesting an ex parte order of temporary custody based upon continued conc erns of Mother failing to prov ide adequate supervision of the Children. Specifically, the Children were observed outs ide without adult supervision and Child 5 was observed in an unsafe sleeping situ ation, unattended by

Mother. Child 1 was not included in the motion as he was on va cation with Stringfellow. Following a shelter care hearing on May 21, 2019, the trial cou rt granted temporary custody of the Children to KCDJFS and ordered Mother and Owens to create a detailed supervision plan. KCDJFS filed an amended case plan for Mother and the Children on June 4, 2019. On the same day, Stringfellow filed a motion to be added as a party and a motion for temporary and/or legal custody with a statement of u nderstanding. After a dispositional hearing on June 4, 2019, the trial court placed C hild 1 in the temporary custody of Stringfellow with protective supervision to KCDJFS. The trial court continued temporary custody of the other four children with KCDJFS. The trial court ordered

visitation at KCDJFS’s discreti on with input from the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”).Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 5

{¶6} The trial court conducted a review hearing on August 14, 2019. The trial court granted KCDJFS’s request to transition Child 2 and Child 3 to Mother’s custody with protective supervision beginning on August 19, 2019. All other dispositional orders remained in place. Child 2 and Child 3 were returned to Mother ’s custody on the specified

date. {¶7} Following a review hearing on November 21, 2019, the trial cour t maintained the status quo. In addition, the trial court issued a no contact order between the Children and James Looney, who was identified as the father of Child 4. Looney is a registered sex offender, however, Mother permitted him to have contact with the Children during visitation. {¶8} On February 4, 2020, William Vinson filed a motion for ex parte temporary custody of Child 2, which the trial court summarily denied. Th e trial court conducted a hearing on the denial on February 6, 2020, and scheduled Vinson ’s motion for review. At a review hearing on February 26, 2020, the trial court granted KCDJFS’s motion for an

extension of involvement. KCDJFS advised the trial court Child 2 and Child 3, who were in Mother’s custody, had educational and medical issues. In ad dition, KCDJFS was having ongoing issues with Mother truthfully reporting the stat us of the Children. KCDJFS also had concerns about the Children being injured during visit ation with Mother. The trial court ordered Child 3 remain in Mother’s custody, Child 1 remain in the temporary custody of Stringfellow, Child 2 be placed in the temporary cus tody of Vinson, and Child 4 and Child 5 remain in the temporary custody of KCDJFS. The t rial court granted KCDJFS protective supervisi on of Child 1 and Child 2.Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 6

{¶9} On June 2, 2020, Mother gave birth to Child 6. Mother entered into a voluntary case plan related to Child 6. Child 6 was added to a subsequent amended case plan involving the Children. On June 4, 2020, Stringfellow fil ed a motion to be added as a party and motion for legal custody. The trial court conducte d a review hearing on June 16, 2020, and maintained the status quo. {¶10} KCDJFS filed a motion to modify disposition on July 8, 2020, re questing legal custody of Child 1 be granted to Stringfellow and legal c ustody of Child 2 be granted to Vinson. KCDJFS further requested the trial court terminate its involvement with Child 1 and Child 2 should the trial court grant the motion to modify . Via Judgment Entry filed September 28, 2020, the trial court maintained the status quo a nd scheduled a hearing on all pending motion for January 19, 2021. {¶11} Via Journal Entry filed March 10, 2021, the trial court granted legal custody of Child 1 to Stringfellow and legal custody of Child 2 to Vins on. The trial court also granted Mother liberal and frequent parenting time with Child 1 and Child 2 with dates and times as agreed upon by the parties. {¶12} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals, raising the foll owing assignments of error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF [CHILD 1]

TO GRANT LEGAL CUSTODY OF HIM TO PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

FINDING THAT THE KNOX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB ANDKnox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 7

FAMILY SERVICES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNIFY MOTHER WITH ALL OF HER CHILDREN, SPECIFICALLY [CHILD 1] AND [CHILD 2].

III. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS IN WRITING THE

REASONABLE EFFORTS OF KNOX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, AS RE QUIRED BY O.R.C. 2151.419.

{¶13} This case comes to us on the expedited calendar and shall be co nsidered in compliance with App. R. 11.2(C).

III {¶14} In her third assignment of error, Mother contends the trial cou rt failed to set forth the requisite findings of fact to support its reasonable efforts determination pursuant to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). We agree. {¶15} R.C. 2151.419 governs hearings on the efforts of agencies to pr event removal of children from their homes. Subsection (A)(1) provid es:

(A)(2) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, at any hearing held pursuant to section 2151.28, division (E) of secti on 2151.31, or section 2151.314, 2151.33, or 2151.353 of the Revised Code a t which

the court removes a child from the child's home or continues th e removal of a child from the child's home, the court shall determine whethe r the public children services agency or private child placing agency that f iled the complaint in the case, removed the child from home, has custody of theKnox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 8

child, or will be given custody of the child has made reasonabl e efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the child's home, to elim inate the continued removal of the child from the child's home, or to mak e it possible for the child to return safely home. The agency shall have the burden of proving that it has made those reasonable efforts. If the agenc y removed the child from home during an emergency in which the child coul d not safely remain at home and the agency did not have prior contact with t he child, the court is not prohibited, solely because the agency did not make reasonable efforts during the emergency to prevent the removal of the chil d, from determining that the agency made those reasonable efforts. In d etermining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child's health and sa fety shall be paramount.

{¶16} Subsection (B)(1) states:

A court that is required to make a determination as described in division (A)(1) or (2) of this section shall issue written find ings of fact setting forth the reasons supporting its determination. If the court ma kes a written determination under division (A)(1) of this section, it shall b riefly describe in the findings of fact the relevant services provided by the agen cy to the family of the child and why those services did not prevent the removal of the child from the child's home or enable the child to return safely home

.Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 9

{¶17} In In re Kyle, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No.2008 AP 01 0002, 2008–Ohio–5892,

and In re B.G., P.G., and K.G., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2013–0033, this Court reviewed similar cases and, in both cases, reversed the trial courts’ decisions, finding each trial court failed to address in writing the reasonable ef forts of the agency as required by R.C. 2151.419. We find the same in the case sub judice. The trial court found KCDJFS made reasonable efforts by creating a case plan and utilizing k inship and foster placement for some of the Children. The trial court did not re cite the “relevant services” provided, nor state “why those services did not prevent the rem oval of the child from the child's home or enable the child to return safely home.” R.C. 2 151.419(B)(1). {¶18} In its Reply Brief, KCDJFS argues the record is replete with te stimony regarding the efforts it made towards reunification and the rea sons why those efforts were unsuccessful. KCDJFS suggests the trial court’s failure to mak e the requisite findings and state its rationale is merely a “clerical error.” Appellee ’s Brief at 16. We do not. {¶19} Because the trial court failed to make sufficient requisite rea sonable efforts finding under R.C. 2151.419, we sustain Mother's third assignme nt of error, and vacate the trial court's judgment and remand this case to said court f or written findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1).

I, II

{¶20} In light of our disposition of Mother’s third assignment of err or, we find her first and second assignments of error to be premature.Knox Count y , Case Nos. 21CA000005 & 21CA000006 10

{¶21} The judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consis tent with this Opinion

and law.

By: Hoffman, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur