[Cite as In re G. McC., 2013-Ohio-5310.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN RE: : JUDGES: 

 : 

 G. McC. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2013CA00103 and 

 : 2013CA00106 

 : 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court 

 of Common Pleas, Family Division, 

 Case No. 2012 JCV 01245 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 2, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant Mother 

LISA A. LOUY STACY M. ZIPAY 

Stark County Department Stark County Public Defender 

of Job and Family Services 201 Cleveland Ave. SW, Suite 104 

300 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 

Canton, OH 44702 

 For Defendant-Appellant Father 

 

 RODNEY A. BACA 

 Schnars, Baca & Infantino, LLC 

 610 Market Avenue North 

 Canton, OH 44702 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellants K. McC. and D.J. nka McC. appeal from the April 26, 2013 

Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} G. McC. (DOB 10/16/12) is the biological child of appellant K. McC. 

(hereinafter “appellant father”) and appellant D.J. nka McC. (hereinafter “appellant 

mother”). On December 20, 2012, a complaint was filed by Stark County Department 

of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”) alleging that G. McC. was a neglected or 

dependent child. A shelter care hearing was held on December 21, 2012. Pursuant to 

a Judgment Entry filed on the same date, the trial court found probable cause and the 

child was placed in the temporary custody of her maternal aunt. After appellants 

refused to disclose the child’s location, appellants were placed in the custody of the 

Stark County Sheriff’s Department where they remained briefly until the child was 

located. 

{¶3} On March 14, 2013, a hearing was held before a Magistrate. At the 

hearing, Michele Fookes, a case worker with the Columbiana County Department of Job 

and Family Services, Children’s Services Division, testified that she started working with 

appellant mother in September of 2011 after appellant mother had given birth to an 

older child in July of 2011. Fookes testified that the agency had concerns that appellant 

mother was not bonding with such child, a son, and that she was homeless. A report 

indicated that appellant mother was saying that she was going to hurt her son by 

dropping him, that appellant had no diapers, bottles or clothing for her son and that 

appellant did not know what her plans were going to be. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 3 

{¶4} Fookes stated that the agency drew up a case plan for appellant mother 

that required her to complete a psychological examination, undergo individual 

counseling, start anger management, find stable housing and income, and attend 

parenting classes. She testified that appellant mother did not complete a psychological 

examination or receive counseling, never completed the anger management program, 

and completed parenting classes the week before the January 24, 2013 court hearing. 

Appellant mother also moved from place to place and did not have any source of 

income until she became involved with appellant father and relied on his income. 

Fookes also testified that she had a hard time getting hold of appellant mother because 

she had at least eight different residences and her telephone was not always working. 

Fookes was involved with the case in Columbiana County from September of 2011 until 

January of 2013. 

{¶5} Fookes also testified that she was able to set up visitation between 

appellant mother and her son, but that appellant mother did not consistently attend the 

visits. According to Fookes, appellant mother attended four out of ten visits scheduled 

by the agency. When temporary custody of the child was transferred to the eventual 

legal guardians, the Browns, in February of 2012, they supervised the visits. Fookes 

stated that she thought appellant mother attended three of such visits. The Browns, 

who were appellant mother’s half sister and her husband, were granted legal custody of 

appellant mother’s son on October 23, 2012. When the child at issue in this case was 

born, appellant mother was residing in Stark County, Ohio. 

{¶6} On cross-examination, Fookes testified that appellant mother stipulated to 

the change of legal custody of her son to the Browns and that G. McC., the child in this 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 4 

case, was never the subject of the Columbiana County case. She stated that when she 

saw appellant mother with G. McC , the child appeared to be healthy, was clean and 

that she had no concerns at that time. She also testified that when she visited appellant 

mother’s house after October of 2012, she had no concerns about safety. She further 

agreed that at the time of the final hearing in the Columbiana case in January of 2013, 

she did not have concerns with the child in this case being with appellant and did not 

make any referral to Stark County. 

{¶7} The next witness to testify was Lindsay DeHaas, an investigative worker 

assigned to G. McC.’s case after SCJFS received a referral on December 19, 2012. 

SCDJFS had concerns that appellant mother had lost custody of her son in Columbiana 

County and also concerns about the condition of the house because there allegedly 

were bed bug infestations, animal feces on the floor and a dead fish in a fish tank. The 

agency also had concerns about mental health issues. When DeHaas went to the 

house in December of 2012, she did not observe feces or dead fish, although the house 

was cluttered. Appellants admitted that there was a bed bug infestation, but would not 

allow DeHaas upstairs. Appellants denied that there were mental health issues and 

appellant mother told DeHaas that she was in parenting classes. When DeHaas told 

them that they would be asked to complete some services and agree to a voluntary 

safety plan, appellants refused to sign all releases or comply with a safety plan. 

Appellants were resistant to talking with DeHaas who believed that appellant father was 

attempting to control appellant mother’s responses to questions. 

{¶8} When asked about the risk to G. McC., DeHaas testified that appellant 

mother had failed to complete any case plan services in Columbiana County and had 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 5 

lost custody of her son in such case. She stated that there were no services in place to 

reduce the risk to G. McC. and also testified that after the trial court ordered that the 

child be placed into the temporary custody of SCJFS, appellants were uncooperative 

and refused to produce the child and gave false information about where she was 

located. DeHaas indicated that appellant father was aware of appellant mother’s case 

in Columbiana County because both appellants answered questions about such case. 

{¶9} On cross-examination, DeHaas testified that during the same visit, 

appellant mother had adequate supplies for G. McC. and that the child did not have 

observable marks or bruises on her and appeared to be happy and healthy. She 

testified that appellant mother seemed unsure how to handle the child, who was fussy, 

and that appellant father had to take over. DeHaas agreed that appellants had been in 

their current home for several months and that when she went to their home on 

December 19, 2012 for a home visit, she did not believe that the child needed to be 

removed from the home, but that a safety plan was needed. DeHaas testified that she 

had information that appellant father had unaddressed mental health issues, but was 

unable to verify the same and was not able to verify whether or not the bed bug 

infestation had been taken care of by appellants’ landlord because appellants would not 

sign a release for the landlord. 

{¶10} During cross-examination, De Haas also testified that appellant father had 

told her that he was receiving VA benefits to pay the landlord, but that she was unable 

to verify VA income or rental payments due to appellants’ refusal to sign releases. 

{¶11} At the hearing, appellant mother was called as if on cross. She testified 

that she married appellant father in January of 2013. Appellant mother testified that she 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 6 

did not complete the psychological examination in her Columbiana County Case, but 

had completed one since. She also testified that she had not completed counseling 

during the time of her case plan and was not in counseling. Appellant mother also 

stated that she went to one anger management class and completed a parenting class 

during her Columbiana County case plan. She indicated that she currently was in 

parenting classes through Incredible Years, Community Services, 1, 2, 3, 4 Parenting 

Class and was currently enrolled in Goodwill Parenting. Appellant mother testified that 

she voluntary enrolled in these classes and was not ordered to enroll in them. 

{¶12} Appellant mother also testified that although she was not employed, there 

was income through her husband. She admitted that when she was asked to sign 

releases in December of 2012, she did not do so and did not sign the safety plan that 

DeHaas asked her to sign. Appellant mother testified that she did not allow the case 

worker into the upper level of her house. 

{¶13} Jennifer Brown, appellant mother’s half sister, testified that she and her 

husband had received custody of appellant mother’s son through Columbiana County. 

She testified that they were supervising visits between appellant mother and such child 

from February of 2012 through May of 2012 and that about twenty (20) visits had been 

scheduled. She further testified that appellant mother did not attend all of them and that 

they stopped doing visits because appellant mother was “violent, aggressive, loud” 

towards Brown’s husband. Transcript of March 14, 2012 hearing at 43. At the time, 

appellant mother’s son was present. 

{¶14} Appellant mother also testified on direct. She testified that they were 

receiving cash assistance while G. McC. was in their home and were able to purchase 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 7 

supplies for her. She testified that they had been residing at the same location for 

seven months and had a telephone. Appellant mother indicated that she refused to sign 

the releases because she was overwhelmed that Children’s Services was at their house 

and did not understand the consequences of her refusal to sign. She testified that they 

did not allow DeHaas upstairs because they did not want her to get bit by bed bugs. 

According to her, the landlord resolved the bed bug issue a week or two later. 

{¶15} Appellant father testified that he was currently in the military and was in 

the reserves. He testified that he received schooling and other assistance, but was not 

enrolled in school. Appellant father testified that he received assistance with his rent 

starting in November of 2012. He stated that when DeHaas came over, he was scared 

because he was aware of appellant mother’s past history with Children’s Services. 

Appellant father further testified that he did not remember any discussion about any 

consequences or ramifications resulting from not signing the releases. 

{¶16} Appellant father also testified that he was gone more than one weekend 

per month for the reserves and that appellant mother took care of G. McC. when he was 

gone. He testified that he could be gone for a day to five days to two weeks a month 

depending on whether or not it was a reserve weekend. 

{¶17} Following the hearing, the Magistrate, in a decision filed on March 15, 

2013, found G. McC. to be a dependent child pursuant to R. C. 2151.04(B) and (C) and 

scheduled a disposition hearing for March 19, 2013. Both parties filed objections to such 

decision and the trial court scheduled an objection hearing for April 23, 2013. As 

memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on April 1, 2013, the trial court remanded the 

matter to the Magistrate for findings of fact. An Amended Magistrate’s decision was 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 8 

filed on April 18, 2013. The Magistrate, in such decision, found G. McC. to be a 

dependent child pursuant to R. C. 2151.04(C). The trial court approved and adopted the 

Magistrate’s Decision on the same date. 

{¶18} After the April 23, 2013 hearing, the trial court, pursuant to a Judgment 

Entry filed on April 26, 2013, approved and adopted the Magistrate’s Decision. 

{¶19} Appellant father now appeals from the trial court’s April 26, 2013 

Judgment Entry, raising the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶20} THE FINDING BY THE COURT THAT THE CHILD WAS DEPENDENT 

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND/OR BASED ON 

THE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW. 

{¶21} His appeal has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00103. 

{¶22} Appellant mother also appeals from the trial court’s April 26, 2013 

Judgment Entry, raising the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶23} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE STARK COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES PROVED BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT [G. Mc.] IS A DEPENDENT CHILD PURSUANT TO 

R.C. 2151.04(C). 

{¶24} Her appeal has been assigned Case No. 2013 CA 00106. 

{¶25} For purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the two appeals 

together. 

{¶26} Case No. 2013 CA 00103 and Case No. 2013 CA 2016 

{¶27} Appellants, in their respective assignments of error, challenge the trial 

court’s finding that G. McC. was a dependent child. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 9 

{¶28} As this Court stated in In re Pierce, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2008–

0019, 2008–Ohio–6716, a trial court's adjudication of a child as abused, neglected, or 

dependent must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.35. Clear 

and convincing evidence is that which produces “in the mind of the trier of fact a firm 

belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” In Re: Adoption of 

Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985), quoting Cross v. Ledford,

161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). When this Court reviews an adjudication to 

determine whether the judgment is supported by clear and convincing evidence, we 

must determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the 

clear and convincing degree of proof. In Re: Christian, 4th Dist. Athens No. 04CA10, 

2004–Ohio–3146, citations omitted. 

{¶29} Dependency is defined by R.C. 2151.04, which provides in pertinent part: 

{¶30} “As used in this chapter, ‘dependent child’ means any child: 

{¶31} “(C) Whose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the 

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

{¶32} The focus of a charge that a child is dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C) is 

on the child and his condition and not on the faults of the parents.” In Re Bishop, 36 

Ohio App.3d 123, 521 N.E.2d 838 (5th Dist.1987); In re: Bibb, 70 Ohio App.2d 117, 435 

N.E.2d 96 (1st Dist.1980); In re: Riddle, 79 Ohio St.3d 259, 680 N.E.2d 1227 (1977). 

{¶33} We find that the judgment finding the child in this case to be dependent is 

not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As is stated above, appellant mother, 

in her previous case in Columbiana County, did not complete her case plan services 

and lost custody of her son. She, in such case, did not complete anger management 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 10 

and parenting classes and did not obtain individual counseling. Michele Fookes 

testified that a report in the Columbiana County case indicated that appellant mother 

was saying that she was going to hurt her son by dropping him and appellant mother’s 

own half sister testified that appellant mother was violent, aggressive and loud during a 

visit with her son. With respect to the child in this case, there was testimony that 

appellant mother was unsure how to handle the child when she was fussy and handed 

her off to appellant husband who, by his own admission, was gone regularly. As a 

result, appellant mother was sometimes home alone with the child. 

{¶34} Moreover, both appellants, when asked to do so by DeHass, refused to 

sign releases of information to comply with a safety plan and refused to cooperate with 

the agency. When DeHaas visited their apartment in December of 2012, appellants 

refused her access to the upper floor. In addition, there was testimony that appellant 

father attempted to control what appellant mother said to DeHaas. Furthermore, after 

the shelter care hearing, both appellants were ordered to produce G. McC. Not only did 

they refuse to do so, but they gave false information to the court regarding her location. 

{¶35} Based on the foregoing, we find that sufficient, credible evidence existed 

to support the trial court's adjudication of the child as a dependent child. 

{¶36} Appellant father’s sole assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 00103 

and appellant mother’s sole assignment of error in Case No. 2013 CA 00106 are, 

therefore, overruled. 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00103 and 2013CA00106 11 

{¶37} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, 

Family Court Division, is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Farmer, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

 

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 

CRB/dr
[Cite as In re G. McC., 2013-Ohio-5310.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

 : 

 G. McC. : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : CASE NO. 2013CA00103 and 

 2013CA00106 

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

judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court Division is 

affirmed. Costs assessed to appellants. 

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

HON. JOHN W. WISE