[Cite as In re R.W., 2024-Ohio-2223.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

MARION COUNTY

IN RE: CASE NO. 9-23-45

 R.W.,

DEPENDENT CHILD.

O P I N I O N

[ROBBY W. - APPELLANT]

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court

Family Division

Trial Court No. 2022-AB-0002

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: June 10, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Eric J. Allen for Appellant

Charles R. Hall, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-23-45

-2-

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Father-appellant, Robby W. (“Robby”), appeals the judgment of the 

Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, adjudicating Robby’s 

daughter, R.W., an abused and dependent child. On appeal, Robby argues that the 

trial court’s findings were erroneous, specifically those finding that R.W.’s injuries 

were inflicted by non-accidental means. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Procedural History and Relevant Facts

{¶2} R.W. (YOB: 2018) is the biological child of Robby W. and Morgan E. 

(“Morgan”). On December 16, 2021, R.W., then three years old, was evaluated by 

Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio for injuries. The injuries 

included several healing fractures in her left hand and liver lacerations.

{¶3} On January 4, 2022, Marion County Children’s Services (“the 

Agency”) filed complaints in the trial court alleging that R.W. was a neglected child 

as defined in R.C. 2151.03(F), abused child as defined in R.C. 21515.031(C) and 

(D), and dependent child as defined in R.C. 2151.04(C). The impetus for the 

complaint was the discovery of a variety of injuries to R.W., including fractures in 

her left hand and liver lacerations. The complaint alleged that the history and 

timeline given by Robby and his live-in fiancée, Amber, were not consistent, which 

raised further concern.
Case No. 9-23-45

-3-

{¶4} On December 5, 2022, the parties appeared for an adjudication 

hearing. The Agency’s first witness was Dr. Kristin Crichton (“Dr. Crichton”), a 

pediatrician with the child assessment team at Nationwide Children’s 

Hospital. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 2-3). Dr. Crichton was qualified as an expert in child 

abuse pediatrics. (Id. at 8). Dr. Crichton testified that her team performed a full 

assessment of R.W. after she was admitted to Nationwide Children’s Hospital. (Id.

at 9). Dr. Crichton described R.W. as a three-year-old girl who came into the 

emergency department on December 16, 2021 with a left hand injury that had been 

identified at an outside hospital. (Id.). Further evaluation at Nationwide Children’s 

Hospital revealed R.W. had healing fractures to some of the bones in her hands, 

forearm, and wrist. (Id. at 10). R.W. also presented with bruising to her back, face, 

arms, and legs. (Id.). Additional testing also revealed a Grade Three laceration to 

her liver. (Id.). 

{¶5} Dr. Crichton testified she spoke to Robby who explained that he had 

not noticed any bruising or swelling to R.W.’s hand. (Id. at 11). Robby also told 

Dr. Crichton that R.W. “trips over everything” and plays rough with her younger 

siblings, but Robby did not recall any specific significant events. (Id.). Robby did 

report R.W. getting her hand stuck in her crib overnight going from Sunday, 

December 12, 2021 into Monday, December 13, 2021. (Id.). Robby relayed that 

he did not personally observe the injury, but learned about the crib injury through 

his live-in fiancée, Amber. (Id.). Dr. Crichton further reported there was some 
Case No. 9-23-45

-4-

confusion regarding the date of the injury. (Id. at 11-12). Specifically, the 

documentation from the emergency department indicated the injury occurred on 

December 10, 2021 but a social worker at the emergency room documented that the

injury happened on December 6, 2021. (Id. at 12). The discrepancy was significant 

because healing fractures were observed on the x-rays, but signs of healing cannot

be observed for approximately five to seven days following a 

fracture. (Id.). Therefore, the timing of the injuries was important to determining 

whether the injury was consistent with the history obtained from the family. (Id.).

{¶6} Dr. Crichton described R.W.’s liver laceration as not consistent with the 

history provided by the family. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 14). Dr. Crichton stated that 

they specifically asked Robby regarding any drops or falls that he observed or were 

reported to him. (Id. at 15-16). Dr. Crichton stated that the Grade Three liver injury 

would be a high-force mechanism such as a fall from a significant height or blunt 

impact to her abdomen that was significant enough to cause the liver to break 

because of the force. (Id. at 17-19). 

{¶7} Dr. Crichton also stated that R.W. had five healing fractures - fractures 

to three different bones in her hand, one bone in her wrist, and one bone in her 

forearm. (Id. at 26-27). Dr. Crichton stated that the wrist injury could have 

occurred with a fall landing on her wrist, which would typically be painful and 

would result in R.W. not using her hand. (Id. at 17, 34). However, Dr. Crichton 

stated that the metacarpal injuries were “unusual” because those bones are not 
Case No. 9-23-45

-5-

usually broken without some type of downward force being applied to the hand 

causing the bones to bend to the point that they break. (Id. at 34). Dr. Crichton 

opined that the metacarpal injuries would be the result of a “big injury” rather than 

a “small routine injury.” (Id. at 35). Dr. Crichton stated that the type of events 

resulting in the liver laceration and hand injuries would be the type of event that 

would be reported by the caregiver or parent because they indicate “something 

significant happened to [the] child’s body” that would “prompt someone to be 

concerned about her health and well-being.” (Id.).

{¶8} Regarding the family’s suggestion that R.W.’s injuries could have been 

caused by R.W. getting her arm caught in her crib, Dr. Crichton testified that she 

would not expect to observe fractures on R.W.’s hands, wrist, and arm as a result of 

that event. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 16). Dr. Crichton described cribs as “generally very 

safe” and that they typically would not cause “significant injury.” (Id. at 16, 34). 

{¶9} Dr. Crichton testified that, in her opinion, R.W. was an abused 

child. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 21, 37). Dr. Crichton stated that there was evidence that 

R.W.’s injuries were inflicted by non-accidental means. (Id. at 19-20). Dr. Crichton 

stated that her diagnosis of physical abuse was the result of R.W.’s extensive injuries 

to multiple parts of her body that were not explained by non-accidental means. (Id.

at 19). 

{¶10} On cross-examination, Robby’s trial counsel asked Dr. Crichton to 

opine whether R.W.’s injuries could be caused by a much larger child falling down 
Case No. 9-23-45

-6-

stairs while carrying a three-year-old. (Id. at 27-28). Dr. Crichton stated that the 

history of a larger child falling with R.W. was not consistent with the history that 

was provided to her and that she would need specific information regarding the 

nature of the stairs and the mechanics of how the larger child fell and landed. (Id.

at 28). Dr. Crichton stated that such an injury was “possible” but “not very 

probable” because that history was not provided to her at the time of the 

evaluation. (Id.). Dr. Crichton admitted the history is given by the parents and 

subject to memory; however, her team asks very specific questions to jog the 

family’s memory and elicit any events that could have resulted in the child’s 

injury. (Id. at 29-30). Specifically, Dr. Crichton stated that a Grade Three liver 

laceration is “extreme” and is consistent with a “significant injury” that she would 

not typically expect someone to forget. (Id. at 30-31). 

{¶11} Rebecca Alshire (“Alshire”), R.W.’s caseworker testified that she 

became involved with the family when she received some concerns that R.W. was 

found to have several healing fractures in her hand. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 43). Alshire 

stated that one of the concerns was that the family provided three different timelines 

and variations regarding the origin of the injury. (Id. at 45, 49-50). Based on her 

training and experience, Alshire described it being “peculiar” for the manner of the 

reported injury to be inconsistent. (Id. at 53).

{¶12} Alshire stated that S.W., R.W.’s half-brother, was 16 years old and 

was living in Robby’s home at the time of R.W.’s injury. (Id. at 47-49). Alshire 
Case No. 9-23-45

-7-

testified that Robby initially did not provide an explanation for R.W.’s liver 

laceration. (Id. at 50). Eventually, Robby stated that Amber told him she observed 

S.W. carry R.W. sideways down the stairs and fall on top of her. (Id. at 51). Alshire 

stated that she spoke to S.W. regarding this allegation and S.W. denied that the 

incident occurred. (Id.).

{¶13} Robby testified that, at the time of R.W.’s injuries, Robby was living 

with his fiancée, Amber, and his children R.W., S.W., A.W., and M.W. (Dec. 5, 

2022 Tr. at 58, 60-61, 84-85). Robby stated that he did not know who caused R.W.’s 

injuries, but that he has put forth different possibilities. (Id. at 61-62). One of the 

possibilities included his son, S.W., falling while carrying R.W. down the stairs and 

landing on top of her. (Id. at 62, 84-86). Robby stated that he did not personally 

observe this event, but rather, he learned about it through Amber. (Id. at 64-

65). Robby described S.W. as being almost 5 feet 11 eleven inches tall and 

weighing 287 pounds. (Id. at 85-86). Robby stated that he had observed S.W. carry 

R.W. down the stairs in the past and had asked him not to do that again due to his 

fear of S.W. falling and injuring R.W. (Id. at 101-104).

{¶14} Robby stated that R.W. would “constantly” get her hand stuck in the 

crib and that he observed R.W.’s hand stuck in the crib on approximately three to 

four occasions. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 59, 89-92, 99). Robby also provided the 

possibility that R.W.’s injuries were caused by a slip on the front porch steps that 

occurred a few weeks prior to the December 16, 2021 date. (Id. at 66-67).
Case No. 9-23-45

-8-

{¶15} Robby conceded that R.W.’s injuries would have occurred while she 

was living in his home. (Id. at 64-65). He also conceded that at the time of the 

evaluation he did not provide health care providers with the possibility that R.W.’s 

injuries had been caused by S.W. falling while carrying R.W. down the stairs and 

landing on top of her. (Id. at 101, 105). However, Robby explained, he was not 

taking his medication for his severe ADHD and was exhausted from working long 

hours at the time of his interview with the child abuse evaluation team at Nationwide 

Children’s Hospital. (Id. at 101-102, 106).

{¶16} Finally, Amber testified and described an incident in which S.W. fell 

down the stairs while carrying R.W. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 120-121). She stated that 

in the beginning week of December 2021, she observed S.W. carrying R.W. 

sideways down the stairs “being silly” when he slid on his back heel and fell 

down. (Id. at 121-122). When S.W. fell down, he slipped back on his heel causing 

R.W. to hit the stairs with her abdomen with S.W. landing on the bottom part of 

R.W.’s body. (Id. at 121-122, 128, 131-132). Amber stated that R.W. did not cry,

only “fussed a little bit” before getting up to play. (Id. at 121-122, 127-128). 

{¶17} In a magistrate’s decision filed on December 12, 2022, the magistrate 

found by clear and convincing evidence that R.W. was an abused and dependent 

child. However, the magistrate did not find that R.W. was a neglected child as 

alleged in the complaint. In a judgment entry filed on January 4, 2023, the trial 

court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Case No. 9-23-45

-9-

{¶18} On January 14, 2023, Robby filed objections to the magistrate’s 

decision. That same day, Robby filed a motion asking the trial court to consider his 

objections. In the motion, Robby’s trial counsel stated that he had attempted to file 

his objections via fax on December 26, 2022. His counsel stated that although the 

fax was successfully sent, the filings were not filed in the electronic filing 

system. On January 20, 2023, the Agency filed its objection to Robby’s motion to 

file objections to the magistrate’s decision.

{¶19} On January 30, 2023, the trial court granted Robby’s motion to extend 

the time to file objections. The trial court found that although the trial court has 

never accepted filings via fax, Robby’s late filing does not prejudice the 

Agency. The trial court also granted Robby leave to supplement his existing 

objections and file the transcript of the hearing.

{¶20} Robby filed his amended objections on March 17, 2023. First, Robby 

raised a “general objection” to the conclusions of law that R.W. was an abused and 

dependent child. Second, Robby objected to the finding that R.W.’s injuries were 

caused by non-accidental means. Third, Robby objected to the finding that he was 

unable to identify how and when the injuries were caused. Fourth, Robby objected 

to the finding that it was unclear whether he had knowledge of the injuries, or the 

extent thereof, until the medical diagnosis of the injuries, and that Robby’s delayed 

knowledge created an environment warranting the Agency assuming guardianship 
Case No. 9-23-45

-10-

of R.W. The Agency filed its response to Robby’s objections. On March 27, 2023, 

the trial court overruled Robby’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. 

{¶21} A disposition hearing was held on May 19, 2023. In a judgment entry 

filed on May 30, 2023, the trial court continued R.W. in the temporary custody of 

her mother under the Agency’s protective supervision with Robby receiving 

visitation as arranged by the Agency. The judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s 

decision was filed on June 26, 2023. 

{¶22} On July 11, 2023, Robby filed a notice of appeal. He raises a single 

assignment of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error

The trial court erred when it determined that R.W. was an abused 

and dependent child pursuant to R.C. 2151.03.

{¶23} In his assignment of error, Robby argues that the trial court erred by 

overruling his objections and determining that R.W. was an abused and dependent 

child pursuant to R.C. 2151.03. Specifically, Robby opines that the weight of the 

evidence established that R.W.’s injuries occurred by accidental means.

R.C. 2151.04 sets forth the definition of “dependent child”, and provides:

As used in this chapter, “dependent child” means any child:

(A) Who is homeless or destitute or without adequate parental care, 

through no fault of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian;

(B) Who lacks adequate parental care by reason of the mental or 

physical condition of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian;
Case No. 9-23-45

-11-

(C) Whose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, 

in the interests of the child, in assuming the child’s guardianship;

(D) To whom both of the following apply:

(1) The child is residing in a household in which a parent, guardian, 

custodian, or other member of the household committed an act that 

was the basis for an adjudication that a sibling of the child or any 

other child who resides in the household is an abused, neglected, or 

dependent child. 

(2) Because of the circumstances surrounding the abuse, neglect, or 

dependency of the sibling or other child and the other conditions in 

the household of the child, the child is in danger of being abused or 

neglected by that parent, guardian, custodian, or member of the 

household.

Relevant to this appeal, R.C. 2151.031 defines “abused child” and provides:

As used in this chapter, an “abused child” includes any child who:

(C) Exhibits evidence of any physical or mental injury or death, 

inflicted other than by accidental means, or an injury or death which 

is at variance with the history given of it. * * *

(D) Because of the acts of his parents, guardian, or custodian, suffers 

physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child’s 

health or welfare.

R.C. 2151.031(C), (D) (Aug. 3, 1989) (current version at R.C. 2151.031(D), 

(E) (Oct. 3, 2023)).

{¶24} A trial court’s determination that a child is dependent pursuant to R.C. 

2151.04 must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.L., 3d Dist. 

Union Nos. 14-15-07 and 14-15-08, 2016-Ohio-5000, ¶ 11, citing In re B.B., 3d 

Dist. Defiance No. 4-10-17, 2012-Ohio-2695, ¶ 32, citing R.C. 2151.35. “Clear and 

convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere 
Case No. 9-23-45

-12-

‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required 

‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind 

of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be 

established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the 

syllabus. “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and 

convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier 

of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” Id.

at 477.

{¶25} A determination of dependency pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C) focuses 

on the child’s condition or environment, and not on the parent’s fault, although a 

court may consider a parent’s conduct insofar as it forms part of the child’s 

environment. In re O.M., 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-22-08 and 5-22-09, 2023-Ohio341, ¶ 30. 

{¶26} Based on the foregoing legal standards and the record in this matter, 

we find that the trial court’s adjudication finding R.W. a dependent and abused child 

was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence.

The magistrate’s decision stated as follows:

The evidence presented in Court established that [R.W.] presented to 

Nationwide Children’s Hospital after having suffered numerous 

fractures including fractures to her hand, wrist and arm. Additionally, 

she was found to have a grade three laceration to her liver. All these 

injuries were found to be “healing” in nature meaning they had 
Case No. 9-23-45

-13-

occurred more than seven to ten days prior to presentation. Upon 

further investigation by staff at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, the 

explanations given for how the child had been injured were 

inconsistent with the nature of the injuries. The father presented 

testimony that the child may have been injured by a fall down a flight 

of stairs while being carried by a sibling. A possibility which he 

admits he did not disclose at the time of the hospital staff’s 

investigation. Father’s fiancée testified that she witnessed such an 

incident but did not observe any injury and the child immediately 

afterward continued to play with other children. There was no 

evidence that the child’s injuries were consistent with that evidence 

or that the child’s reaction to such an injury was consistent with that 

type of injury. Other than possibilities, the father was unable to say 

how, where, why, who or what caused the injury. In fact, it is unclear 

if father had knowledge that any injury had occurred until the medical 

diagnosis of the injuries. These facts create an environment which 

warrants the state’s assuming the guardianship of the child.

(Doc. No. 81). The trial court overruled Robby’s objections and adopted the 

magistrate’s recommendation. 

{¶27} In support of his argument that that the Agency failed to prove its case

by clear and convincing evidence, Robby contends the evidence supported his 

argument that R.W.’s injuries were accidental. Furthermore, he argues that the 

Agency could not definitively state, let alone prove, how R.W.’s injuries occurred. 

We disagree.

{¶28} At the adjudication hearing, Dr. Crichton, an expert in child abuse 

pediatrics gave her opinion that R.W.’s injuries were not inflicted by accidental 

means and that R.W. was an abused child. In support of her assertion, Dr. Crichton 

pointed to the severity of the injuries, the fact that multiple parts of R.W.’s body 
Case No. 9-23-45

-14-

were injured, and the family’s inability to give a history consistent with the nature 

and extent of R.W.’s injuries. 

{¶29} Robby’s argument relies heavily on the possibility that R.W.’s injury 

could have been caused by S.W. falling down the stairs while carrying R.W. and 

falling on top of her. However, this argument is unpersuasive. Robby argues that 

Dr. Crichton admitted, “it was possible” that R.W.’s injuries could have occurred as 

a result of the fall. (Appellant’s Brief at 6). However, when asked by Robby’s 

counsel whether the injuries could be caused by a much larger child falling down 

the stairs while holding a three-year-old, she stated that such an injury was 

theoretically “possible” but “not very probable.” (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 27-28). Dr. 

Crichton stated that to render an opinion, she would need to know more information 

regarding the nature of the stairs and the mechanics of how the fall occurred and 

how the children landed. Furthermore, the possibility of R.W.’s injuries being 

caused by such a fall was not provided in the history given by the family. Dr. 

Crichton indicated that the significant injuries she observed would have caused

“extreme” pain and would not be of the type that the caregiver or family would 

forget and that she and her team asked specific questions to jog the family’s memory 

and to help elicit any possible explanation for the injury, such as a fall. 

{¶30} Amber testified that when the alleged fall happened, R.W. quickly 

returned to playing with her younger sister and continued to act normally for the 

remainder of the day, including playing with her siblings and eating dinner. Such 
Case No. 9-23-45

-15-

testimony undermines Robby’s argument that the fall down the stairs was of such a 

serious nature that it caused significant injury to R.W.’s body. Additionally, R.W. 

presented with bruises on various parts of her body, including the back of her arms. 

The doctor testified such bruising was typically non-accidental and raised further 

concern that R.W. was physically abused. 

{¶31} Robby also argues that the Agency was unable to demonstrate how the 

injury occurred. However, the Agency was not required to establish a specific cause 

for each injury in order to prove R.W. was an abused and dependent child. Rather, 

Dr. Crichton repeatedly stated her opinion that the array of R.W.’s injuries were 

caused by non-accidental means and that R.W. was physically abused.

{¶32} Thus, we find that the Agency proved by clear and convincing 

evidence that R.W. was an abused and dependent child. Accordingly, Robby’s 

assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶33} For the foregoing reasons, Robby’s assignment of error is overruled. 

Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned 

and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, 

Family Division.

Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.