[Cite as In re E.B., 2016-Ohio-7763.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: E.B. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 28151 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. DN 15-06-0402 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: November 16, 2016 

 

 WHITMORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Candice B. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her child, E.B., an abused 

and dependent child and placed her in the temporary custody of her maternal grandmother 

(“Grandmother”). This Court affirms. 

I 

{¶2} Mother is the mother of E.B., born December 4, 2011. The child’s father did not 

appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶3} Akron Police removed E.B. from Mother’s custody pursuant to Juv.R. 6 on June 

19, 2015 after Mother physically assaulted Grandmother while Grandmother was driving a 

moving vehicle in which E.B. was also riding as a passenger. On June 22, 2015, Summit County 

Children Services Board (“CSB”) filed a complaint, alleging that E.B. was an abused and 

dependent child. In addition to Mother assaulting Grandmother while she was driving E.B. in a 
2 

 

moving vehicle, CSB alleged that Mother was subsequently admitted to the hospital to be treated 

for psychiatric problems. 

{¶4} Following an adjudicatory hearing before a magistrate, E.B. was adjudicated an 

abused and dependent child. Mother filed objections, which were overruled by the trial court. 

The trial court entered independent judgment that adjudicated E.B. as an abused child under R.C. 

2151.031(B) and as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C) and placed her in the temporary 

custody of Grandmother. Mother appeals and raises two assignments of error. 

II 

Assignment of Error Number One 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PLAIN 

ERROR IN PERMITTING THE CASEWORKER TO TESTIFY AND 

EXPLAIN MOTHER’S DIAGNOSIS. 

{¶5} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred by allowing the 

caseworker to testify about Mother’s mental health diagnosis because she was not qualified as an 

expert witness. Even if Mother could convince this Court that the trial court erred in allowing 

this evidence, to establish reversible error, Mother must also demonstrate that she suffered 

prejudice as a result. In re L.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27792, 2015-Ohio-4164, ¶ 11, citing 

Lowry v. Lowry, 48 Ohio App.3d 184, 190 (4th Dist.1988). Although the caseworker briefly 

testified about Mother having a mental health diagnosis, Mother also testified that she had a 

history of mental health diagnoses and treatment. Moreover, Mother conceded that, during the 

incident in Grandmother’s vehicle, she “freaked out and started yelling” and then began to have 

flashbacks about her childhood. Mother further testified that when her “sense [was] coming 

back[,]” she realized that she had hit Grandmother and could not believe it. 
3 

 

{¶6} Mother presented the testimony of a friend who saw her immediately after the 

incident. The friend testified that Mother was “frantic[,]” that she had difficulty calming her 

down, and that she was afraid to leave Mother alone because she “was so out of it.” That witness 

further testified that Mother later overdosed on prescription medication in her presence. Mother 

also admitted that she had taken an overdose of her prescription medications and had to be 

hospitalized for medical and psychiatric treatment. 

{¶7} Because Mother has failed to demonstrate that she suffered any prejudice from the 

admission of the caseworker’s testimony, her first assignment of error is overruled. 

Assignment of Error Number Two 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PLAIN 

ERROR IN FINDING THAT E.B. IS AN ABUSED CHILD PURSUANT TO 

R.C. 2151.031(B) AND A DEPENDENT CHILD PURSUANT TO R.C. 

2151.04(C). 

{¶8} Mother’s second assignment of error is that the evidence at the adjudicatory 

hearing failed to support the trial court’s adjudication of E.B. as an abused child under R.C. 

2151.031(B) and as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C). R.C. 2151.031(B) defines an 

abused child as one who “[i]s endangered as defined in section 2919.22 of the Revised Code[,]” 

which prohibits the parent of a minor child from “creat[ing] a substantial risk to the health or 

safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.” R.C. 2151.04(C) defines 

a dependent child as one “[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the 

interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship[.]” 

{¶9} The trial court heard substantial evidence to support its conclusion that Mother 

created a substantial risk to the safety of E.B. through her attack against Grandmother in the 

vehicle in which E.B. was a passenger and that, based on Mother’s actions during and after that 

incident, the child’s environment warranted the state to assume guardianship of her. 
4 

 

Grandmother testified that, on June 19, 2015, she picked up Mother from a medical appointment 

with E.B. in her vehicle. Mother was upset after the appointment and, during their conversation 

in the vehicle, Mother’s emotions continued to escalate and she began screaming at 

Grandmother. Grandmother explained that, while she was driving on the highway, Mother 

threatened to jump out of the moving vehicle. 

{¶10} According to Grandmother, she pulled the vehicle off the highway onto a side 

street and, while she was still driving down the street, Mother began to strike her in the head and 

shoulder with her fists and a cane. Grandmother further explained that, because “blood was just 

everywhere” and she ducked down to protect her head from Mother’s repeated blows, she was 

unable to see where she was going. She was able to bring the vehicle to a stop without further 

physical injury to anyone. After she stopped the vehicle, Grandmother told Mother to get out of 

the car, which she did, and Grandmother drove away. Grandmother had dropped her cell phone 

during the scuffle but was able to call for help via her vehicle’s OnStar system. 

{¶11} Police and paramedics responded to the scene. The paramedics treated 

Grandmother’s injuries at the scene. The police took photographs of her injuries, which were 

introduced into evidence. According to Grandmother, she still had scars and bruises at the time 

of the hearing, two months after the incident. 

{¶12} The CSB intake caseworker testified that, when she met with Grandmother, her 

shirt was “completely bloody all over.” She explained that she found Grandmother another shirt 

to wear because she did not want E.B. to continue to see her in the bloody clothing. The 

caseworker expressed concern that E.B. had witnessed Mother repeatedly strike Grandmother in 

the vehicle and that the incident had occurred while Grandmother was driving E.B. in a moving 

vehicle. 
5 

 

{¶13} Mother’s argument focuses on her testimony that contradicted some of 

Grandmother’s testimony. Although she admitted that she struck Grandmother and that she had 

caused her to bleed, she denied that the vehicle was moving when she struck Grandmother. In 

addition to her inherent motive to defend herself, Mother’s own testimony gave the trial court 

reason to question its credibility. As Mother testified about the incident, she explained that she 

was extremely upset, started having flashbacks about her childhood, and was not even aware that 

she had hit Grandmother until she came back to her senses. 

{¶14} Moreover, it was for the trier of fact to assess the credibility of Mother and 

Grandmother and resolve conflicts in their testimony. See State v. Bennett, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 

12CA010286, 2014-Ohio-160, ¶ 59. It is apparent from the trial court’s adjudication that it 

found Grandmother’s testimony more credible, which was within its province as trier of fact. 

See id. Because Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s adjudication was not 

supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing, her second assignment of error is overruled. 

III 

{¶15} Mother’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 
6 

 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 BETH WHITMORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

MOORE, P. J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee. 

GINA D’AURELIO, Guardian ad Litem.