[Cite as In re T.B., 2013-Ohio-75.]

[Please see nunc pro tunc opinion at 2013-Ohio-1157.] 

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN RE: 

T.B., K.B., and N.B. 

 MINOR CHILDREN 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96, 12CA97 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2008-

DEP-00177, 2008-DEP-00178, 2008-DEP00179 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 10, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellee RCCS Appellant Father 

J. PETER STEFANIUK JOHN S. DILTS 

731 Scholl Road 28 South Park Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44907 Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Richland County, Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 2
Richland County, Case No. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 3

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Anthony Bishop appeals the decision of the Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, Richland County, which granted permanent custody of his 

three children to Appellee Richland County Children Services (“RCCS”). The relevant 

facts leading to this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} The children at the center of this case are T.B., born to Appellant and 

Paula Timko in 2002; K.B., born to Appellant and Paula Timko in 2004; and N.B., born 

to Appellant and Paula Timko in 2006. The mother of the children has separately 

appealed. 

{¶3} In September 2008, RCCS filed a complaint alleging that appellant’s 

aforesaid three children were dependent under R.C. 2151.04. In December 2008, the 

trial court adjudicated T.B., K.B., and N.B. as dependent children, with a disposition of 

protective supervision by RCCS. The concerns at various points in the case have 

included the mother’s mental health and anger issues, her substance abuse, her 

criminal activities, lack of suitable housing, and exposure of the children to men with 

domestic violence propensities. Appellant Bishop has served prison time and has had 

no significant involvement in the case plan services for the family. 

{¶4} On November 10, 2009, RCCS obtained temporary custody of T.B., K.B., 

and N.B. pursuant to an emergency shelter care order, following acts of domestic 

violence by appellant against the mother in the home. Appellant was subsequently 

convicted on three felony counts stemming from the incident and was sentenced to 

three years in prison. 
Richland County, Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 4

{¶5} On July 8, 2010, pursuant to a magistrate’s decision, the children were 

again placed in the temporary custody of RCCS. The magistrate’s decision was 

approved by the trial court on July 28, 2010. 

{¶6} On January 13, 2011, RCCS filed a dispositional motion requesting 

permanent custody of all three children to the agency. 

{¶7} Evidentiary hearings on the permanent custody motion were conducted 

before a magistrate on several days between May 3, 2011 and March 1, 2012. The 

magistrate issued a decision recommending permanent custody of the children to 

RCCS on March 14, 2012. 

{¶8} Both sides thereupon filed objections to the decision of the magistrate. On 

August 16, 2012, the trial court overruled the objections and approved and adopted the 

magistrate’s decision. 

{¶9} Appellant Bishop filed a notice of appeal on September 14, 2012. He 

herein raises the following sole Assignment of Error in each case: 

{¶10} “I. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE 12-MONTH OUT 

OF 22-MONTH TIME LIMIT IN O.R.C. 2151.413 REGARDING THE 12 MONTHS OUTOF-HOME PLACEMENT MEANS TWELVE (12) MONTHS, NOT 368 DAYS.” 

I. 

{¶11} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in 

relying on the “twelve of twenty-two” rule under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), supra.

1

 We 

disagree. 

 

1

 The text of appellant’s assigned error references R.C. 2151.413(D)(1), which posits 

the “twelve of twenty-two” rule in regard to when a children services agency must file for 

permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) uses similar language. The wording of the 
Richland County, Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 5

{¶12} One of the alternative criteria under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is whether 

“[t]he child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services 

agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive 

twenty-two month period * * *.” 

{¶13} The latter part of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) additionally states as follows: 

{¶14} “For the purposes of division (B)(1) of this section, a child shall be 

considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the 

date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the 

date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from home.” 

{¶15} Although the case plan in the matter sub judice was approved on 

November 20, 2008, the trial court relied on the most recent removal date of November 

10, 2009 as the starting point for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Sixty days from 

that date was January 9, 2010. The agency thus waited more than twelve months, 

specifically until January 13, 2011, to file its motion for permanent custody. During at 

least that twelve-month period, the children were in agency custody. We therefore find 

proper compliance with the “twelve of twenty-two rule,” and we find no merit in 

appellant’s assertion that only “full” months count toward the total. 

 

 

assigned error is somewhat confusing, as appellant’s actual argument is that the trial 

court should have recognized the twelve-month period as meaning twelve full calendar 

months. 
Richland County, Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 6

{¶16} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶17} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Division, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Farmer, J. 

Delaney, P. J., and 

Hoffman, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 

SGF/d 1227 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA95, 12CA96, and 12CA97 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN RE: : 

 : 

 T.B., K.B., and N.B. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 MINOR CHILDREN : Case Nos. 12CA95, 12CA96 

 and 12CA97 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Richland County, Ohio, is 

affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES