[Cite as In re B.G., 2014-Ohio-409.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

B.G., P.G., & K.G. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : 

 : Case No. CT2013-0033 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

 Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 

 21230095, 21230096, 21230097 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 3, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant For MCCS 

JOHN D. WEAVER MOLLY L. MARTIN 

542 South Drexel Avenue 27 North Fifth Street 

Bexley, OH 43209 P.O. Box 189 

 Zanesville, OH 43702-0189 

 Guardian ad Litem 

 JEANETTE MOLL 

 803B Market Street 

 Zanesville, OH 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On June 14, 2012, appellee, the Muskingum County Children Services, 

filed a complaint for the temporary custody of B.G. born May 9, 2009, P.G. born April 7, 

2010, and K.G. born May 27, 2012, alleging the children to be abused, neglected, and 

dependent. Mother of the children is appellant, Ashley Emahiser; father is Cody 

Grandstaff. 

{¶2} An adjudicatory hearing was held on May 28, 2013 and all three children 

were found to be neglected. Following a dispositional hearing, legal custody of the 

three children was awarded to Tim and Mary Hazelton. The adjudicatory dispositional 

entry was filed on June 26, 2013. 

{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of errors are as follows: 

I 

{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION THAT THE CHILDREN WERE 

NEGLECTED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE." 

II 

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FAILING TO 

DESCRIBE IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT THE RELEVANT SERVICES PROVIDED BY 

THE AGENCY TO THE APPELLANT AND WHY THESE SERVICES DID NOT 

ENABLE THE CHILD[REN] TO RETURN HOME AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 

2151.419(B)(1)." 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 3 

III 

{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISON THAT THE AGENCY HAD MADE 

REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL IS NOT SUPPORED BY CLEAR 

AND CONVICNING EVIDENCE." 

II 

{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court erred in not entering findings of fact as 

required under R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). We agree. 

{¶8} R.C. 2151.419 governs hearings on efforts of agencies to prevent removal 

of children from homes. Subsection (A)(1) states the following: 

Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, at any hearing 

held pursuant to section 2151.28, division (E) of section 2151.31, or 

section 2151.314, 2151.33, or 2151.353 of the Revised Code at which the 

court removes a child from the child's home or continues the removal of a 

child from the child's home, the court shall determine whether the public 

children services agency or private child placing agency that filed the 

complaint in the case, removed the child from home, has custody of the 

child, or will be given custody of the child has made reasonable efforts to 

prevent the removal of the child from the child's home, to eliminate the 

continued removal of the child from the child's home, or to make 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 agency 

removed the child from home during an emergency in which the child 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 4 

could not safely remain at home and the agency did not have prior contact 

with the child, the court is not prohibited, solely because the agency did 

not make reasonable efforts during the emergency to prevent the removal 

of the child, from determining that the agency made those reasonable 

efforts. In determining whether reasonable efforts were made, the child's 

health and safety shall be paramount. 

{¶9} Subsection (B)(1) states the following: 

A court that is required to make a determination as described in 

division (A)(1) or (2) of this section shall issue written findings of fact 

setting forth the reasons supporting its determination. If the court makes a 

written determination under division (A)(1) of this section, it shall briefly 

describe in the findings of fact the relevant services provided by the 

agency 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. 

{¶10} The trial court's finding in its June 26, 2013 adjudicatory dispositional entry 

states in total: 

Finding: Based upon testimony presented, the Court finds that 

[B.G.], [P.G.] and [K.G.] are neglected children as defined in Section 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 5 

2151.03(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code. [B.G.], [P.G.] and [K.G.] are 

neglected children who lack adequate parental care because of the faults 

or habits of the children's parent/s, guardian or custodian. 

The Court further finds that continuation in the home would be 

contrary to the best interests and welfare of the children; placement is in 

the best interest of the children; the agency has made reasonable efforts 

to prevent placement. 

{¶11} In In re Kyle, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2008 AP 01 0002, 2008-Ohio5892, this court reviewed a similar case and reversed the trial court's decision, stating 

the trial court failed to address in writing the reasonable efforts of the agency as 

required by R.C. 2151.419. We find the same in the case sub judice. 

{¶12} Assignment of Error II is granted. 

I, III 

{¶13} Based upon our opinion in Assignment of Error II, these assignments are 

premature. 

 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0033 6 

{¶14} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, 

Juvenile Division is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded for findings pursuant 

to R.C. 2151.419(B)(1). 

By Farmer, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 

SGF/sg 117