[Cite as In re T.H., 2016-Ohio-5597.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

IN RE: T.H. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 28010 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. DN 14-09-573 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: August 31, 2016 

 

 MOORE, Presiding Judge. 

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

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that adjudicated her minor child dependent 

and placed the child in the temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board 

(“CSB”). This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Mother is the mother of T.H., born November 23, 2011. The child’s father 

(“Father”) did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶3} According to the record in this juvenile court case and the evidence adduced at the 

adjudicatory hearing, on September 3, 2014, the Akron Police Department executed a search 

warrant at the home of both parents, who were under investigation for heroin trafficking. In this 

juvenile dependency case, neither parent challenged the validity of the search of their home or 

their persons. 
2 

 

{¶4} The police searched the home and both parents. During a search of Mother’s 

person, she admitted that she had “dope” in her pants and that Father had told her to hide it there. 

Mother pulled a baggie out of her underwear, which contained approximately 1.5 grams of 

heroin, one Percocet pill, and “meth[.]” Mother admitted at the scene that the substance believed 

to be heroin was, in fact, heroin. Although the meth was initially confirmed by a field test to be 

methamphetamine, it was later determined to be methadone. Mother and Father were arrested at 

the scene and charged with felony drug offenses. 

{¶5} Because the narcotics unit had been investigating the parents’ home for several 

months, they were aware that the parents had a young child, but he was not with them at the time 

the search warrant was executed and the parents were arrested. The police asked the parents 

about the whereabouts of T.H., but they refused to tell them where he was. Police eventually 

located T.H. at the home of a relative and removed him from the legal custody of his parents 

pursuant to Juv.R. 6. CSB filed a complaint the next day to allege that T.H. was a dependent 

child. 

{¶6} The matter proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing before a magistrate, after which 

the magistrate decided that CSB had failed to prove that T.H. was a dependent child. The 

magistrate’s decision focused primarily on the fact that T.H. was not at home at the time of the 

search and the parents’ arrest and was later located at the home of a suitable relative. 

{¶7} CSB timely objected to the magistrate’s decision. Following a review of the 

evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court sustained CSB’s objection and 

adjudicated T.H. a dependent child. The trial court’s decision focused on the drug activity in the 

family home, the arrest of the parents on felony drug charges, and their failure to disclose the 

location of their child. T.H. was later placed in the temporary custody of the relative with whom 
3 

 

he was eventually found after the parents’ arrest. Mother appeals and raises three assignments of 

error, which will be consolidated and rearranged for ease of review. 

I. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT [CSB] WAS NOT 

REQUIRED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE 

CONTINUED REMOVAL OF T.H. FROM HIS PARENTS[’] HOME[.] 

{¶8} Mother’s second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in finding that 

CSB was not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of T.H. from the home 

because the record fails to support CSB’s request for a reasonable efforts bypass under R.C. 

2151.419(A)(2). Although CSB had filed a motion pursuant to R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) to excuse 

it from making reasonable reunification efforts in this case because Mother’s parental rights to 

older siblings of T.H. had been involuntarily terminated in prior juvenile cases, the trial court did 

not grant a reasonable efforts bypass in this case. Because Mother assigns error to a finding that 

the trial court did not make, her second assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE JUDGMENT ENTRY ADJUDICATING T.H. DEPENDENT FAILED TO 

COMPLY WITH []R.C. 2151.28(L). 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT 

FOUND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT T.H. WAS A 

DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER [R.C.] 2151.04(C). 

{¶9} These assignments of error will be addressed together because they are closely 

related. Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court failed to comply with the 

requirements of R.C. 2151.28(L), which provides: 

If the court * * * determines that the child is a dependent child, * * * [t]he court 

shall include * * * specific findings as to the existence of any danger to the child 
4 

 

and any underlying family problems that are the basis for the court’s 

determination that the child is a dependent child. 

Mother does not dispute that the trial court made specific factual findings about the basis of its 

dependency adjudication, but contends that those findings do not support an adjudication of 

dependency. Similarly, Mother’s third assignment of error is that the trial court’s adjudication of 

T.H. as a dependent child was not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. 

{¶10} The trial court adjudicated T.H. as dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C), which 

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[.]” An adjudication under 

R.C. 2151.04(C) “should concentrate on whether the children are receiving proper care and 

support and look to environmental elements that are adverse to the normal development of 

children.” In re D.H., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25095, 2010-Ohio-2998, ¶ 5, citing In re Bibb, 70 

Ohio App.2d 117, 120 (1st Dist.1980). 

{¶11} CSB presented the testimony of a police detective who executed the search 

warrant and arrested the parents. The caseworker who eventually located T.H. at his relative’s 

home also testified. The detective, a 23-year veteran of the Akron Police Department who had 

been in the narcotics unit for 12 years, testified that her unit had been investigating the parents’ 

home for more than two months before executing the search warrant on September 3. 

{¶12} Akron Police had searched the home on June 18 but had not found any drugs. 

The detective testified that, in her experience, the police will sometimes fail to find drugs in a 

suspected drug house because the residents are out of drugs or have a good hiding spot. Through 

Father’s cross-examination of the detective about whether the police had searched his home a 

second time because he had bragged on social media about the police “missing dope on him and 
5 

 

his wife” during the prior search, she agreed that Father’s social media bragging had been part of 

the reason for the second search, but that it was not the sole reason. 

{¶13} Through its ongoing investigation, the narcotics unit was aware that the parents 

had a young child and that Father had conducted drug deals from their home with the child 

present. The detective testified that the child had been present during some of the prior drug 

transactions. When Father asked the detective why the police had not removed the child during 

the prior drug activity, she responded that they had considered removing him from the home 

before but did not. 

{¶14} When the police executed the warrant on September 3, T.H. was not at the home 

and the parents refused to tell them where he was. The police attempted to locate T.H. for 

several hours and were eventually contacted by a relative late that night. The relative informed 

them that, although the child had been elsewhere, he was with her at that time. Because the 

relative was deemed to be a suitable custodian, the police allowed the child to remain with her 

overnight. They removed T.H. pursuant to Juv.R. 6 the following morning. 

{¶15} Mother does not dispute that the police found her in possession of heroin and 

other illegal drugs in her home, arrested her and Father, that they both remained incarcerated on 

felony drugs charges at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, or that they refused to disclose the 

location of T.H. when they were arrested. Instead, she asserts that CSB failed to prove that their 

drug activity had a detrimental impact on T.H. 

{¶16} First, Mother argues that T.H. was not at home at the time the police found the 

drugs or arrested the parents but was instead found at the home of a suitable relative. There was 

no evidence before the trial court that T.H. was living with the relative or that the parents had 

made arrangements for him to stay with her, however. In fact, the testimony was that T.H. was 
6 

 

at another, undisclosed location at the time of the parents’ arrest and that he later went to the 

relative’s home. Moreover, the parents refused to cooperate with the police in their efforts to 

locate T.H. It was not until the relative contacted the police that they learned of the whereabouts 

of T.H. 

{¶17} The “environment” at issue in this case was T.H.’s home, where he resided with 

Mother and Father. Police had been conducting an ongoing investigation of drug trafficking in 

the home and ultimately found Mother in possession of several illegal drugs in the family home 

and arrested both parents on felony drug charges. 

{¶18} Mother also argues that her admitted possession of heroin and other illegal drugs 

and her arrest on felony drugs charges did not establish a detrimental impact on T.H. She relies 

on two decisions from this Court, In re R.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21177, 2003-Ohio-1594 and 

In re D.H., 2010-Ohio-2998. Neither of these decisions supports her argument. 

{¶19} In In re R.S., CSB based its dependency allegations solely on the mother 

admitting to regularly using marijuana outside the presence of her children. In re R.S. at ¶ 6. 

CSB presented no evidence at the adjudicatory hearing that mother’s home or parenting ability 

were unsuitable or negatively affected by her marijuana use. Id. at ¶ 18-19. Moreover, her use 

and possession of “a minimal quantity of marijuana” would not subject her to potential 

incarceration. Id. at ¶ 21. Consequently, this Court reversed the trial court’s adjudication of 

dependency. Id. at ¶ 22. 

{¶20} Similarly, in In re D.H., although the police had conducted a search of the 

parents’ home for cocaine and other drugs, the only evidence before the trial court at the 

adjudicatory hearing was that the search uncovered a small quantity of marijuana in an 

unspecified location. In re D.H. at ¶ 8-9, 12. There was no evidence to demonstrate that the 
7 

 

marijuana was found in a location that was accessible by the children or that they were otherwise 

affected by the drug. Id. at ¶ 12. As in In re R.S., the condition of the home was otherwise 

suitable for children. In re D.H. at ¶ 16. 

{¶21} We agree with the trial court that this case is legally distinguishable from In re 

R.S. and In re D.H. In this case, there was evidence at the adjudicatory hearing that the police 

had been conducting an ongoing drug trafficking investigation; had observed drug sales 

occurring in the home while T.H. was present; ultimately found Mother in possession of heroin 

and other illegal drugs; arrested both parents on felony drug charges; and both parents remained 

incarcerated at the time of the adjudicatory hearing on those felony drug charges. Moreover, at 

the time of their arrest, the parents refused to disclose the location of their child. Until a relative 

came forward to assist them, the police were unable to check on the safety and well-being of 

T.H. 

{¶22} Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s adjudication of T.H. as a 

dependent child was not supported by the evidence or that the trial court’s factual findings upon 

adjudication were not sufficient to satisfy R.C. 2151.28(L). Mother’s first and third assignments 

of error are overruled. 

III. 

{¶23} 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. 
8 

 

 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. 

 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. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

WHITMORE, J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

AVIVA L. WILCHER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

LAWRENCE DELINO, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellee. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.