[Cite as In re G.J., 2015-Ohio-266.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

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

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

 : Case No. CT2014-0030 

 : 

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, Case 

No. 21330257 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 20, 2015 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant-Mother For Appellee 

 

ROSE M. FOX MOLLY L. MARTIN 

233 Main Street 27 North Fifth Street 

Zanesville, OH 43701 P.O. Box 189 

 Zanesville, OH 43702-0189 

For Father 

 Guardian Ad Litem 

SCOTT PATTERSON 

2609 Bell Street THOMAS A. McCARTY 

Zanesville, OH 43701 58 North Fifth Street 

 Zanesville, OH 43701 

For Sara Joseph 

SCOTT T. HILLIS 

401 Market Street 

Zanesville, OH 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On December 4, 2013, appellee, Muskingum County Children Services, 

filed a complaint for temporary custody of G.J., born August 27, 2010, alleging the child 

to be neglected and dependent due to domestic violence incidents within the home. 

Mother of the child is appellant, Jessica Covington; father is Michael Pullie. Appellant 

had legal custody of the child and they resided with appellant's husband, Andre 

Covington. 

{¶2} On February 5, 2014, Mr. Pullie filed a motion for legal custody of the 

child. 

{¶3} On February 25, 2014, the child was found to be neglected and dependent 

and was placed in the temporary custody of the child's maternal aunt, Sara Joseph. 

{¶4} A hearing on the legal custody motion was held on June 3, 2014. By entry 

filed June 5, 2014, the trial court granted legal custody of the child to Mr. Pullie. 

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

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED LEGAL CUSTODY 

WITHOUT MAKING A FINDING THAT REASONABLE EFFORTS HAD BEEN TAKEN 

TO PREVENT THE CONTINUED REMOVAL OF G.J.". 

II 

{¶7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT A 

CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S 

REPORT NOT BEING FILED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING." 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 3 

I 

{¶8} Appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding legal custody of the child 

to her biological father without a finding of reasonable efforts by appellee to reunite 

mother and child. We disagree. 

{¶9} On February 5, 2014, Mr. Pullie filed a motion for legal custody of the child 

while appellee's temporary custody complaint was pending. Thereafter, on February 

25, 2014, the child was found to be neglected and dependent and was placed in the 

temporary custody of her maternal aunt, Ms. Joseph. 

{¶10} Appellant argues the trial court violated R.C. 2151.419 by failing to make a 

finding on reunification efforts by appellee. 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 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 4 

removed the child from home during an emergency in which the child 

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. (Emphasis added.) 

{¶11} The hearing on the motion for legal custody falls squarely within R.C. 

2151.353(A)(3) which states the following in pertinent part: 

(A) If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent 

child, the court may make any of the following orders of disposition: 

(3) Award legal custody of the child to either parent or to any other 

person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting 

legal custody of the child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a 

complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to 

the proceedings. 

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing, a determination on reasonable efforts was 

required. Prior to the adjudication of neglect and dependency, appellant was the legal 

custodian of the child. The child was removed from appellant's custody and placed with 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 5 

the child's maternal aunt. We find R.C. 2151.419 controls over the award of legal 

custody to the biological father, a previous non-custodial party. 

{¶13} Although the trial court's June 5, 2014 entry does not specifically address 

what reasonable efforts were made, the trial court found appellant "has not completed 

her case plan, is unemployed and the concerns surrounding her husband, Andre 

Covington make it evident that Legal Custody to her is not appropriate." 

{¶14} Appellant continues to remain with Andre Covington. T. at 21. Mr. 

Covington was convicted of child abuse in Missouri. Id. He was currently facing 

charges of assault and violation of a protection order stemming from an incident that 

had occurred a month prior to the hearing. T. at 77. Appellant was dishonest with her 

caseworker, adamantly telling her caseworker she was pregnant when in fact she 

wasn't. T. at 19-20. This caused concern for the caseworker about appellant's "ability 

to be honest in the future regarding domestic violence incidents between her and her 

husband Andre" and therefore her ability to protect the child in the future. T. at 20. As a 

result, the caseworker amended the case plan for appellant to undergo a psychological 

evaluation. T. at 19. Appellant admitted to having her husband present in the home in 

violation of the safety plan in place. T. at 95-96. 

{¶15} We find the record supports a showing of reasonable efforts as 

demonstrated by the testimony presented during the hearing, the trial court's entry, and 

the report of the guardian ad litem. 

{¶16} Assignment of Error I is denied. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 6 

II 

{¶17} Appellant claims the trial court erred in not granting a continuance on the 

basis that the guardian ad litem filed his report less than seven days before the hearing. 

We disagree. 

{¶18} The grant or denial of a continuance rests in the trial court's sound 

discretion. State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981). In order to find an abuse of that 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). 

{¶19} Sup.R. 48(F)(1)(c) states a guardian ad litem shall file his/her report "no 

less than seven days before the dispositional hearing." In the case sub judice, the 

guardian ad litem filed his report the morning of the hearing date, June 3, 2014. 

{¶20} At the commencement of the hearing, appellant's attorney requested a 

continuance because of the late filing. T. at 1. The trial court denied the motion, but 

granted a recess to give the parties ample time to review the report. T. at 1, 13. 

Following the recess, no additional continuance requests or objections to the report 

were made. The guardian ad litem was present during the hearing and participated in 

questioning the witnesses. Appellant did not call the guardian ad litem to the witness 

stand to cross-examine him on his report. Appellant has not demonstrated any 

prejudice resulting from the late filing. 

{¶21} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the request for a continuance. 

{¶22} Assignment of Error II is denied. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0030 7 

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

Juvenile Division is hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Gwin, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

 

 

SGF/sg 108