[Cite as Delaware Cty. Job & Family Servs. Dept. v. Bagby, 2011-Ohio-3812.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DELAWARE COUNTY DJFS 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsDENA J. BAGBY 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 11 CAF 01 002 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of 

 Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 

 Case No. 10-09-2151-01/02-c 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 1, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant Mother 

KATHERYN MUNGER PAMELLA A. LAMMON 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 103 North Union Street 

140 North Sandusky Street Suite D 

Delaware, Ohio 43015 Delaware, Ohio 43015 

Guardian ad Litem for Minors 

JENNIFER MYERS 

THOMAS & COMPANY, LPA 

163 North Sandusky Street, Suite 103 

Delaware, Ohio 43015 

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant-Mother Dena J. Bagby appeals the decision of the Delaware 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which found her minor child, D.J., 

born in February, 2010, to be dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C). The relevant facts 

leading to this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} This case was initiated by Appellee Delaware County Department of Job 

and Family Services (“DJFS”) on September 9, 2010, when a complaint for neglect and 

dependency was filed in the Delaware County Juvenile Court. The complaint involved 

appellant-mother’s two children, L.B. and D.J., and was based primarily upon concerns 

about appellant's mental health, as further analyzed infra. 

{¶3} On November 22, 2010 an evidentiary hearing was held on the complaint. 

The trial court issued a judgment entry which was journalized on December 1, 2010. 

The court therein dismissed the complaint for neglect and dependency involving 

appellant’s older child, L.B., and dismissed the complaint for neglect and that portion of 

the dependency complaint filed under 2151.04(B) regarding the younger child, D.J. 

However, the court found dependency under 2151.04(C) had been proven by clear and 
convincing evidence regarding D.J. The court proceeded to disposition and awarded 

temporary custody of D.J. to her father, Christopher Jordan, who is now living separate 

and apart from appellant. 

{¶4} On January 3, 2011, Appellant-Mother filed a notice of appeal. She herein 

raises the following two Assignments of Error: 

{¶5} “I. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AN 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND [D.J.] DEPENDENT UNDER R.C. 

2151.04(C). 

{¶6} “II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT FINDING [D.J.] 

DEPENDENT UNDER R.C. 2151.04(C) WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF 

THE EVIDENCE.” 

I., II. 

{¶7} In her First and Second Assignments of Error, Appellant-Mother contends 

the trial court erroneously adjudicated D.J. a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C). 

We disagree. 

{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.35(A), a trial court must find that a child is an 

abused, neglected, or dependent child by clear and convincing evidence. In re Kasper 

Children (June 30, 2000), Stark App.No. 1999CA00216. As a general rule, the trier of 

fact is in a far better position to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh their 

credibility. See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212. As an 

appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. 

Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent and credible evidence 

upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries (Feb. 10, 
1982), Stark App. No. CA-5758, unreported. Accordingly, judgments supported by some 

competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be 

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley 

Construction (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 281, 376 N.E.2d 578. 

{¶9} Included in the Ohio statutory definition of a “dependent child” under R.C. 

2151.04 is any child “[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, 

in the interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship.” R.C. 2151.04(C). 

{¶10} The record in the case sub judice indicates that Delaware County DJFS 

was first referred to appellant's family in February 2010, shortly after the birth of D.J. 

The first referral focused on concerns with the proper care of D.J., who during birth had 

been injured and needed to have her arm pinned against her clothes. The department’s 

concern was that appellant had allowed the child's arm to remain unpinned at various 

times. The investigative caseworker, Julie Showalter, later classified the referral as 

unsubstantiated and indicated that the child’s arm had healed. See Tr. at 20-21. There 

was further concern that due to her pregnancy and desire to nurse D.J. after birth, 

appellant had gone off her mental health medications. There were also concerns about 

appellant holding the infant and falling asleep and that there were cats in the house that 

could access the crib. 

{¶11} The second referral DJFS received regarding appellant's care of D.J. 

occurred in July 2010. The concerns were that appellant was not taking her medication, 

that she had thrown clothing owned by D.J.'s father into a pond and had thrown a bowl 

of cereal across the room while the children were present. 
{¶12} The third referral involved concerns about appellant’s compliance with 

taking medication, as well as an incident where appellant had taken the baby into the 

woods and kept her there at night. Delaware County DJFS thereupon recommended 

temporary removal of both L.B. and D.J. from appellant's custody due to concerns about 

the continued instability of appellant-mother’s mental health. See Complaint, 

September 9, 2010. 

{¶13} Appellant presently contends that there were significant gaps in the 

agency’s proof of these referrals, and she maintains that there have always been 

secondary caregivers involved in providing care for the children. However, the record is 

replete with evidence that appellant’s failure to take her medications had led to repeated 

instances of angry or violent outbursts and volatile, bizarre behaviors unsuitable for 

parental coping with an infant. Appellant would “go off” in front of the children and would 

be very difficult to calm down, requiring warnings that law enforcement would be 

summoned. By the time of the adjudicatory hearing, appellant had been hospitalized for 

mental health reasons six times. Appellant had expressed her belief that people were 

watching her through the television set. She has demonstrated questionable decisionmaking skills and has acted out by biting at adult family members. On several 

occasions, she failed to re-diaper the baby after changing her, leading in one instance 

to the baby defecating on appellant inside a restaurant. In regard to the incident of 

taking D.J. into the woods at night, appellant told people either that she feared the 

father killing her or that it was an attempted cure for the baby’s constipation. 
{¶14} Upon review, we are not inclined to disturb the evidentiary determinations 

of the trial court as the fact finder in this instance, and we hold the evidence presented 

supports the conclusion that D.J. is a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C). 

{¶15} Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error are therefore 

overruled. 

{¶16} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Delaware County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Delaney, P. J., and 

Farmer, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 

JWW/d 0707 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DELAWARE COUNTY DJFS : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 
DENA J. BAGBY : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11 CAF 01 002 

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

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

affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES