Court Opinion

ID: 9895845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:09:53.246218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:15.657248
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re L.D., 2023-Ohio-4052.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

IN RE: B.D.                                           C.A. Nos.     30705
       L.D.                                                         30706
                                                                    30742
                                                                    30743

                                                      APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
                                                      COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
                                                      CASE Nos. DN 21 03 0179
                                                                 DN 21 03 0180

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: November 8, 2023

        CARR, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellants, H.D. (“Mother”) and L.D. (“Father”), appeal from a judgment of the

Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that placed their two minor children

in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). This Court

affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}     Mother and Father have been married for many years and are the biological parents

of L.D., born February 27, 2011; and B.D., born May 27, 2016. The family has a lengthy history

with CSB, including one prior case in which L.D. was adjudicated neglected and dependent; and

later cases in which L.D. was adjudicated abused, neglected, and dependent, and B.D. was
                                                2

adjudicated abused and dependent. Only cursory details about CSB’s prior cases with this family

are included in the record.

       {¶3}    The record does reveal that the parents have historically had problems maintaining

a safe and sanitary home and meeting their children’s significant medical and developmental

needs. Both children have been diagnosed with Sox2 anophthalmia syndrome, a rare genetic

disorder that causes developmental delays and abnormal development of the eyes and other parts

of the body. The disorder will impair the children throughout their lives and require ongoing

treatment by various medical specialists and developmental therapists. Additionally, B.D. has

been diagnosed with epilepsy, which requires ongoing treatment by a neurologist and that his

caregivers regularly administer and monitor his seizure medication and symptoms. Both children

have also been diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders and will require ongoing

counseling for the foreseeable future to address their mental health and resulting behavioral

problems. Throughout the children’s lives, however, the parents have not been consistent in

getting them to their required appointments.

       {¶4}    Mother has numerous mental health diagnoses, including major depressive

disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and borderline personality disorder, which impair her

ability to care for herself and her children. Mother has a pattern of engaging in mental health

treatment for a while, but later withdrawing from treatment and becoming unable to care for herself

or her children. While not engaged in mental health treatment, Mother would admittedly stay in

bed for days or weeks at a time. She also suffers from significant knee, hip, and ankle problems

that limit her mobility and ability to care for her two active children. Mother has not followed up

with consistent medical treatment to address her physical problems. Father has attempted to help

care for Mother and the children but has been unable to consistently meet their needs.
                                                  3

       {¶5}     The parents also have a history of struggling to meet their financial needs. Neither

parent has been employed throughout CSB’s involvement with this family. The family’s only

sources of income were the disability benefits received by Mother and both children. In addition

to their limited financial means, the parents often spent their money unwisely. For example, Father

is a collector of movie memorabilia and sometimes spent a significant portion of their limited

financial resources to build his collection, rather than paying for necessities including the family’s

monthly rent.

       {¶6}     This family’s first juvenile case predated the birth of B.D. L.D. was removed from

the parents’ custody for approximately one year, and the court later returned him to their home and

closed the case. During the children’s 2018 cases, it is unclear from the record whether only L.D.

or both children were removed from their home, but the family worked on another case plan and

those cases were eventually closed with both children in their parents’ custody.

       {¶7}     During December 2019, CSB again began working with the family on a voluntary

basis because the home was filthy, Mother was sleeping most of the day, and neither parent was

regularly getting the children to school or their frequent appointments with their medical and

developmental specialists. After more than one year working on a voluntary case plan, the home

continued to be filthy and filled with bugs and animal feces, the children continued to miss crucial

medical and therapy appointments, and Mother was not addressing her mental or physical health

problems. Service providers worked with the parents to develop a reasonable budget, but the

family continued to struggle financially.

       {¶8}     The children were removed from the home pursuant to Juv.R. 6 and CSB filed

complaints to commence this case on March 17, 2021, alleging that both children were neglected

and dependent. After the parties agreed that CSB would dismiss the allegations of neglect and the
                                                  4

parents would waive their rights to a contested hearing, the trial court adjudicated L.D. and B.D.

as dependent children. The trial court later placed the children in the temporary custody of CSB.

In its dispositional order, although the trial court referred to the case plan that CSB filed and began

implementing, the trial court did not explicitly adopt the case plan as an order of the court.

Nevertheless, no one raised this omission during the trial court proceedings and all parties

proceeded as if they were bound by the case plan that CSB had filed.

       {¶9}       During the first year of the case, both parents worked on the reunification goals

intermittently.    Upon CSB’s motion, the trial court granted a first six-month extension of

temporary custody. During the extension period, however, Father stopped cooperating with CSB

to work toward reunification. Mother changed mental health providers multiple times, sometimes

by choice and sometimes because the provider terminated her for missing too many appointments.

They also missed many scheduled visits with the children. Mother told the caseworker that

transportation was sometimes a problem, or they overslept, or simply forgot about scheduled visits

or appointments.

       {¶10} The parents also failed to maintain clean and safe housing or demonstrate that they

could meet the family’s basic needs. Although Father had received a $7,000 inheritance, he spent

that financial windfall on movie memorabilia, including a hearse that he planned to convert into a

Ghostbuster’s vehicle. The parents had no other vehicle at that time and owed a substantial balance

to their landlord for several months of unpaid rent.

       {¶11} CSB eventually moved for permanent custody of both children. Mother and Father

moved for legal custody or, alternatively, for a second six-month extension of temporary custody.

The final dispositional hearing was held before a visiting judge on February 16 and 17, and March

31, 2023. After the hearing concluded, the trial court terminated parental rights and placed L.D.
                                                    5

and B.D. in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother and Father separately appealed and their

appeals were later consolidated for review. Mother raises three assignments of error and Father

raises two.

                                                    II.

                            MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

        THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO THE
        PREJUDICE OF THE MOTHER WHEN IT FAILED TO JOURNALIZE ANY
        CASE PLAN AT THE ORIGINAL DISPOSITIONAL HEARING, THUS
        DEPRIVING HER OF COURT ORDERS TO FACILITATE STATUTORILY
        MANDATED REUNIFICATION EFFORTS.

        {¶12} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred by failing to journalize

a case plan in the initial dispositional decision. See R.C. 2151.353(E) and 2151.412(E) (both

requiring the trial court to journalize a case plan in its initial dispositional order after adjudication).

A review of the record reveals that, although the trial court emphasized in its dispositional order

that CSB had developed and begun implementing a case plan in each child’s dependency case, it

did not actually adopt or journalize the case plan as a court order.

        {¶13} During the trial court proceedings, however, Mother did not bring this error to the

attention of the trial court, nor did any other party. Had Mother raised a timely objection, the trial

court would have had the opportunity to promptly remedy its error by journalizing the case plan.

In re S.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27676, 2015-Ohio-2623, ¶ 11. Throughout this two-year case,

neither parent raised this error at any time before or during the permanent custody hearing.

Consequently, Mother has waived all but plain error. Id. Although Mother includes the term

“plain error” in her stated assignment of error, she has not developed a plain error argument. See

In re J.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 30258, 2022-Ohio-3638, ¶ 38. In fact, she has not argued or

demonstrated that the trial court’s failure to adopt the case plan caused her to suffer any prejudice.
                                                 6

The record demonstrates that CSB provided Mother with all the reunification services that were

set forth in the case plan.

        {¶14} According to the record before this Court, the parties and the trial court were under

the apparent impression that the trial court had adopted the original and amended case plans. See

In re S.C., 2015-Ohio-2623, at ¶ 24-26. Both parents participated in the first semi-annual review

(“SAR”) of the case plan in August 2021. Of relevance to Mother’s reunification services, the

SAR form indicates that CSB had connected her with a counseling provider and another service

provider for parenting classes.    Although Mother had missed some appointments, she was

engaging in those services. Mother informed the caseworker that she valued her counseling

sessions and was taking her psychiatric medications as prescribed. At that time, the parents had

lost their housing and were living in a hotel. CSB was working with them to secure other housing

that would be suitable for the children. CSB also indicated that both parents had been cooperative

with the agency and were working to resolve their parenting problems.

        {¶15} After a review hearing in January 2022, the magistrate journalized more details

about CSB’s reunification efforts and the parents’ compliance with the goals of the case plan. The

magistrate explained that Father had “significantly improved his interactions” with L.D. and that

Mother had switched to a different agency for mental health treatment. At the next SAR of the

case plan, CSB noted the progress that the children were making through their involvement in case

plan services and explained the progress made by the parents, in their attempts to comply with the

reunification goals of the case plan. CSB later moved for, and was granted, a first six-month

extension of temporary custody “to allow for further case plan progress and for the parents to

demonstrate they are able to meet the children’s needs.”
                                                 7

       {¶16} During the following months, however, the parents made only sporadic progress on

their reunification goals, but CSB continued to work with them toward reunification. At the

permanent custody hearing, all parties questioned witnesses about the parents’ compliance with

specific goals of the case plan and the agency’s efforts to help them meet those goals. Each parent

testified about their attempts to comply with the case plan and/or offered explanations for why

they had not fully complied with the case plan. There was no evidence before the court to suggest

that anyone believed that the case plan was not binding.

       {¶17} A thorough review of the record reveals that all parties proceeded through this two-

year case as if they were bound by the requirements of CSB’s original and amended case plans.

Because Mother does not argue, nor does the record demonstrate, that the trial court’s failure to

journalize the case plan resulted in any prejudice to the parties, Mother’s first assignment of error

is overruled.

                         MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN, REVERSIBLE [ERROR] TO THE
       PREJUDICE OF MOTHER WHEN IT REFUSED HER REQUEST TO MODIFY
       THE COURT’S ORDER OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY AS PERMITTED BY
       R.C. §2151.415(F)(2).

                          FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED PLAIN
       AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT MISSTATED THE LAW THAT
       PARENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO FILE FOR A SECOND SIX-MONTH
       EXTENSION.

       {¶18} This Court will address the parents’ second assignments of error together because

they allege the same error. They contend that the trial court erred by denying their request for a

second six-month extension of temporary custody because the trial court erroneously found that

the parents lacked standing to request the extension under R.C. 2151.415(D)(2).
                                                   8

       {¶19} During a discussion at the hearing, the visiting trial judge questioned whether either

parent had standing to request an extension of temporary custody because the statute refers only

to the agency making a request for a second extension of temporary custody.                 See R.C.

2151.415(D)(2). The visiting trial judge, who had apparently presided over juvenile courts outside

this appellate district, noted that the law in another appellate district is that only the agency has

standing to request an extension of temporary custody. The judge ultimately concluded that the

parents lacked standing to request an extension.

       {¶20} Both parents argue that the judge’s conclusion on the standing issue is erroneous

and, therefore, the denial of their request for an extension of temporary custody must be reversed.

Although the trial judge initially stated that the parents lacked standing to request an extension of

temporary custody, by the time the hearing concluded and the court issued its final judgment, the

trial court explicitly concluded that the standing issue had become moot because it lacked statutory

authority to order another extension of temporary custody due to time constraints.

       {¶21} R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) and R.C. 2151.353(G) provide that the juvenile court “shall

not order an existing temporary custody order to continue beyond two years after the date on which

the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, whichever date is earlier[.]”

CSB filed the complaints pertaining to L.D. and B.D. on March 17, 2021, and the hearing

concluded on March 31, 2023, more than two years later. Consequently, even if the trial court

incorrectly reasoned that the parents lacked standing to request an extension of temporary custody,

any error in that reasoning was harmless. The parents’ second assignments of error are overruled.

                         MOTHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

       THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT VIOLATED R.C.
       §2151.[4]15(D)(4) AND CONTINUED THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY
       CUSTODY TO [CSB] PAST MARCH 17TH, 2023, WHEN THE COURT LOST
       THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE SUCH AN ORDER.
                                                  9

       {¶22} Mother’s final assignment of error is that the trial court violated R.C.

2151.415(D)(4) by continuing the order of temporary custody beyond the two-year sunset date of

March 17, 2023. As quoted above, R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) provides that the juvenile court “shall not

order an existing temporary custody order to continue beyond two years after the date on which

the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, whichever date is earlier[.]”

(Emphasis added.) In this case, the trial court did not issue an “order” that temporary custody

would continue beyond March 17, 2023. The last temporary custody “order” issued in this case

was on March 8, 2022, when the trial court granted CSB’s request and ordered that temporary

custody continue for another six months. That order, on its face, would appear to expire in

September 2022, long before the two-year sunset date.

       {¶23} Instead, the March 8 temporary custody order continued pursuant to the explicit

terms of R.C. 2151.353(G). That statute provides that “upon the filing of a motion pursuant to

section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the temporary custody order shall continue and not

terminate until the court issues a dispositional order under that section.” Before the expiration of

the first six-month extension of temporary custody, CSB filed its motion for permanent custody

pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A)(4).          Consequently, temporary custody to CSB continued by

operation of law, not by an order of the trial court, until the trial court ruled on the pending motion

for permanent custody. See In re T.H., 9th Dist. No. Summit No. 28833, 2018-Ohio-1143, ¶ 8.

Because Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court violated R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) or lost

statutory authority to rule on the permanent custody motion beyond the two-year sunset date, her

third assignment of error is overruled.

                           FATHER’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED PLAIN
       AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY
                                                10

       TO [CSB] AND DENIED FATHER’S MOTION FOR RETURN OF CUSTODY
       AS THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
       WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
       CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

       {¶24} Father’s final assignment of error is that the trial court erred in placing the children

in the permanent custody of CSB rather than in his legal custody. Before a juvenile court may

terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency, it

must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the

child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12

months of a consecutive 22-month period; the child or another child of the same parent has been

adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent three times; or that the child cannot be placed with

either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) that the grant of permanent

custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C.

2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S., 75 Ohio

St.3d 95, 98-99 (1996). Clear and convincing evidence is that which will “produce in the mind of

the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” (Internal

quotations omitted.) In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), quoting Cross v.

Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

       {¶25} In considering whether the juvenile court’s judgment is against the manifest weight

of the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the

credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment]

must be reversed and a new [hearing] ordered.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the evidence,

this Court “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.
                                                   11

       {¶26} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was satisfied

in this case for two alternative reasons: L.D. and B.D. had been in the temporary custody of CSB

for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; and L.D. had been adjudicated abused,

neglected, and/or dependent three times. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and (e). Father does not

challenge either finding on appeal, and both findings are fully supported by the record.

       {¶27} Father asserts that it was in his children’s best interest to be returned to his legal

custody, rather than to be placed in the permanent custody of CSB. This Court has repeatedly

emphasized “that if permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, legal custody to a relative

necessarily is not.” In re M.S., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 30506 and 30515, 2023-Ohio-1558, ¶ 26.

Consequently, this Court will review the trial court’s decision that permanent custody was in the

best interest of the children. This Court’s best interest review focuses on the best interest factors

set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D). In making its best interest determination, the trial court was required

to consider the statutory best interest factors, which include: the interaction and interrelationships

of the child, the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, the child’s need for

permanence and whether that can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and whether

any of the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply.1 R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); see

In re R.G., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 24834 and 24850, 2009-Ohio-6284, ¶ 11.

       {¶28} The interaction between Father and the children was limited to supervised or

monitored visits throughout this case. Father missed many visits with the children and, when he

did visit, the visits were chaotic. Mother and Father usually came together and could not control

       1
           The trial court did not find that any of those provisions applied to the facts of this case.
                                                  12

the children’s outbursts because they usually disagreed about how to redirect the children’s

misbehavior.

       {¶29} Several witnesses testified that Father did not appear to be bonded to either child,

especially L.D. Father admitted that his relationship with L.D. was not close. He testified at the

hearing that, after L.D. was removed from the parents’ custody in the first case several years ago,

he emotionally distanced himself from the child because he was afraid of being hurt again. Father

admitted that, at the time, he did not realize that he was placing his own needs ahead of those of

his child or that, by avoiding a close relationship with L.D., he had caused emotional damage to

the child. Father further testified that, through marriage counseling over the past 5 years, he had

begun to realize the mistakes he had made in his relationships with Mother and the children and

was “still working” on repairing those relationships.

       {¶30} Mother and Father planned to remain married and continue living together. When

anyone expressed concern that Mother’s limited mobility and mental health issues affected her

ability to help care for the children, both parents would respond that Father will provide most of

the hands-on care for the children. In addition to concerns that Father tended to spend more time

caring for Mother than the children, the parents admitted that they have different parenting styles

and often fought about how to parent their children. Mother testified that, through marriage

counseling, she and Father were “working towards” learning how to parent the children as a team.

She admitted that they still needed to improve their communication with each other to get “on the

same page” about how to parent the children. The testimony of both Mother and Father implied

that they needed more time to learn how to jointly care for their children, not that Father was

prepared to take legal custody of the children.
                                                 13

       {¶31} The interaction between the two siblings, on the other hand, was positive. They are

closely bonded and L.D. can communicate with B.D., who is nonverbal and communicates only

through gestures. Both children are placed together in the same foster home, where all their needs

are being met. The foster mother is bonded with both children and ensures that they attend all

their required appointments and reinforces the techniques that they learn in therapy. The foster

mother may consider adopting both children but, because she planned to get married soon, she was

waiting for input from her future husband, who was then living in another country.

       {¶32} The children’s wishes were expressed through their appointed counsel and the

guardian ad litem. Although Father argues on appeal that both children had expressed their wishes

to return to his custody, the record does not support his argument. Separate counsel had been

appointed to represent the children several months earlier because they had expressed a desire to

return home to live with Mother. By the time of the hearing, however, several witnesses testified

that neither child was bonded with Father and that L.D. had repeatedly expressed that he did not

like Father and did not want to spend time with him. B.D. was nonverbal and the guardian ad

litem testified that he had been unable to ascertain his wishes.

       {¶33} The guardian ad litem opined that permanent custody was in the best interest of

both children because the parents were unable to meet the basic or significant medical,

developmental, or emotional needs of these children, as demonstrated through three cases with

CSB. He emphasized that Mother could not take care of herself, let alone two high-needs children,

and that Father has failed to demonstrate that he could take care of the needs of his family.

       {¶34} The custodial history of the children has included more than two years living in the

temporary custody of CSB during this case. L.D. had spent another year living outside their

custody in the agency’s first case with this family. It is unclear whether both children were also
                                                 14

removed from their parents’ custody during the 2018 case. What is clear from the record is that

these children have significant physical, mental health, and developmental needs, and, when they

did live in the custody of Mother and Father, the parents did not adequately meet those needs, or

even the children’s basic needs for a safe and stable home.

       {¶35} When reviewing the children’s custodial histories, this Court has emphasized that

it must consider not only the time period itself but also the reasons for the children’s placements

outside their parents’ custody and the implications that those placements had on the children. In

re A.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 30056, 2022-Ohio-276, ¶ 12. CSB had repeatedly opened new cases

with this family and has worked with the parents on multiple case plans over a period of several

years. Nevertheless, the parents continued to struggle with the same parenting problems that have

plagued this family for many years. These children, particularly L.D., have repeatedly been left

in a state of custodial limbo. The fact that all the children’s medical, emotional, and developmental

needs were met during periods outside their parents’ custody, while the parents failed to resolve

their parenting problems, tilts the custodial history factor in favor of permanent custody. See id.

       {¶36} During the voluntary case in 2019, the parents failed to consistently get the children

to their scheduled medical and therapy appointments. They also missed 9 or 10 months of

appointments for B.D. with the child’s pediatric neurologist and failed to follow through with

additional testing and treatment that the neurologist had recommended. The neurologist testified

that Father did not seem to understand the significance of the child’s epilepsy diagnosis. He

explained that B.D.’s epilepsy could result in his death if the child’s seizures and medication are

not carefully monitored by a medical provider and his caregiver.

       {¶37} Another witness, who had worked on parenting instruction with Father, testified

that Father did not understand his children’s developmental delays and had unrealistic expectations
                                                 15

about what each child could do. That witness further testified that the home continued to pose a

safety hazard to the children, as it was excessively cluttered and filled with filthy items as well as

cockroaches and rodent feces. The witness worked with the family for more than one year, yet

she saw no improvement in the safety or cleanliness of the home. That witness further testified

that, due to Mother’s poor physical and mental health, Father spent most of his time caring for her

and not the children.

       {¶38} These children have significant needs, which have not been met by their parents.

CSB has opened three cases with this family and, many years later, the parents still have not

demonstrated that they can provide the children with a safe and stable home and/or consistently

meet their needs. These children need stability and CSB had been unable to find any relatives who

were willing to provide them with a suitable permanent home. The children had developed

stability in their current foster home. Although the foster mother was still uncertain about whether

she wanted to adopt the children, CSB planned to place the children together. The trial court

reasonably concluded that a legally secure permanent placement would be achieved by placing the

children in the permanent custody of CSB with a goal of adoption.

       {¶39} Father has failed to demonstrate that the trial court lost its way by concluding that

permanent custody was in the best interest of L.D. and B.D. See Eastley at ¶ 20. Father’s first

assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 III.

       {¶40} The parents’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

                                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
                                                16

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       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 Appellants equally.

                                                     DONNA J. CARR
                                                     FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JASON WALLACE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ALEXANDRA HULL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and MARRETT W. HANNA, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

NOWAR KATIRJI, Guardian ad Litem.