Preview
CS
to, 12D \FeB
mo, de FILED
Be AUG 2 9 2022
SMG
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF:
BROOKLYN DAY Case No. 15-01-0056-AB
IRELAND DAY 15-01-0057-AB
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEPARTME! SECOND MOTION TO TERMINATE
tment of
The above captioned cases come before the Court on the Delaware County Depai
2:1 Hd 9-930 zi02
8
Job and Family Services' Second Motion to Terminate.
I Procedural History
These matters began with the filing of complaints alleging that the children were
dependent. The complaints were filed by the Guardian ad Litem on January 14, 2015. A shelter
care hearing was held before Magistrate Kari Childs. At the hearing, the GAL indicated that the
custodians, Heather and Adam May would be leaving within four days to move to Boston,
Massachusetts, and that they had ‘vacillated' on whether on whether or not they would be able to
take the children with them. The Court was informed that custody had been given to Mr. and
Mrs. May by a court in Kentucky, where mother had previously lived and that the Mays had
received no financial support from either parent. The Department expressed a willingness to
facilitate a transfer of the case to Illinois, where mother was then living. The Mays, as
custodians, entered admissions to dependency, and the Court placed the children in the
temporary custody of DCDJFS and the matter was set for further hearing.
a Mother failed to appear for the next hearing and service was perfected on father by
publication. The matters came before the Court for Trial on March 4, 2015. Mother was present
and entered admissions. Testimony was taken as to father. The Mays filed a request for
reunification with them. The children were adjudicated dependent, ordered to remain in the
temporary custody of the Department and a hearing was scheduled on the request to place the
* children with the Mays in Massachusetts,A pretrial on the Mays' motion was held on March 31, 2015. The Court made Mr. and
Mrs, May parties to the cases, left the children in their foster placement, scheduled an in-camera
interview with the children and transferred the matters to the docket of Magistrate Lynne
Schoenling as mother had been accepted into the Adult Treatment Court, which she presided
over.
Following a pre-trial hearing, trial was conducted over two days- June 8, 2015 and July 2,
2015. The Magistrate issued a decision on August 27, 2015. In her trial decision, the Magistrate
ordered that the children remain in the temporary custody of the DCDJFS, but with placement of
the minor children with Mr, and Mrs. May pending completion of the ICPC home study, She
further ordered that the State of Ohio should maintain jurisdiction over the dependency matters
until such time as Massachusetts could approve the ICPC and accept jurisdiction.
On September 10, 2015, the Delaware County Department of Job and Family Services
objected to the Magistrate's Decision on the grounds that a juvenile court is without authority to
dictate a specific placement once a child is placed in the temporary custody of a children's
services agency. They further asked that the Court specify a best interests finding, which thee
alleged was stated on the record but not reduced to writing. 8 och
Oo b2
nD rar
Sor py
~@ Bago
m= ofe
VIil. Best Interests _ 255
= oa
nm =<
a
The paramount responsibility of a juvenile court in any case is to do what is in the best
interests of the child. In the instant situation, Juv.R. 14(C) specifically demands that the Court
order only that which is in the best interests of the child or children involved when ruling on a
termination, The Court must, then, consider what is in the best interests of the two children who
remain subject to these cases,
The Department, the Mays, the Guardian ad Litem, and Counsel for the Children have all
agreed, at all times in these matters, that it is in the best interests of these children to remain with
Mr. and Mrs. May. They are familiar with the home and well adjusted there. Their friends and
schools are there, They are living with loving family members who have demonstrated an ability
and willingness to provide care for them. They have indicated through their court appointed
counsel that they wish to remain there.
How, then, may this Court effectuate their continued placement with Mr. and Mrs. May?
The Court may not grant further extensions of temporary custody in these matters. The decisions
2 See R.C. 5103,15(A)
16and positions of the parties, the terms of the ICPC and the incongruous language used in the
custody statutes of the three states at issue in these convoluted cases have forced this Court into
having one, and only one, possible order at this juncture that would permit the children to remain
in the care and ‘permanent custody’ of Mr. and Mrs. May.
Tf the Court may not extend and may not reunify, may not make a new legal custody
order, and the parties who could file for permanent custody will not do so, the Court is left with
only one available procedural option that retains the placement and custody that is in the bas
om
m RSS
interests of the children. ao Daz,
1 isp.
an car
ares
= Mo
TX. Conclusion = eee
= 645
nN
oo
It is in the best interests of Brooklyn and Ireland Day that they remain in the physical
and legal custody of their aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. May. Because this Court has no viable
legal option under Ohio law to make a new order to that effect, and because termination of all
Ohio orders will cause a reversion to the Kentucky order of ‘permanent custody'- an order that
would require a showing of a change in circumstances in order for the chiidren to later be
removed from the home of Mr. and Mrs. May pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E), an order terminating
these cases in their entirety is in the best interests of the children in this matter.
xX. Orders
This Department's second motion to terminate the above captioned cases is hereby
granted. Any and all other pending motions are rendered moot. This case is closed, This is a
final and appealable order.
Date: December 6, 2017 LMI,
ye HEJMANOYSKI, JUDGE
JUVENILE COURT
State of Ohlo, Delaware County.
7 J cartify this to be a trua copy of tha ‘
original filed In this court.
David A. Hejmanowski, Judge
BY Aihaeyzers DEPUTY CLERK
Preview
CS to, 12D \FeB mo, de FILED Be AUG 2 9 2022 SMG IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF: BROOKLYN DAY Case No. 15-01-0056-AB IRELAND DAY 15-01-0057-AB JUDGMENT ENTRY DEPARTME! SECOND MOTION TO TERMINATE tment of The above captioned cases come before the Court on the Delaware County Depai 2:1 Hd 9-930 zi02 8 Job and Family Services' Second Motion to Terminate. I Procedural History These matters began with the filing of complaints alleging that the children were dependent. The complaints were filed by the Guardian ad Litem on January 14, 2015. A shelter care hearing was held before Magistrate Kari Childs. At the hearing, the GAL indicated that the custodians, Heather and Adam May would be leaving within four days to move to Boston, Massachusetts, and that they had ‘vacillated' on whether on whether or not they would be able to take the children with them. The Court was informed that custody had been given to Mr. and Mrs. May by a court in Kentucky, where mother had previously lived and that the Mays had received no financial support from either parent. The Department expressed a willingness to facilitate a transfer of the case to Illinois, where mother was then living. The Mays, as custodians, entered admissions to dependency, and the Court placed the children in the temporary custody of DCDJFS and the matter was set for further hearing. a Mother failed to appear for the next hearing and service was perfected on father by publication. The matters came before the Court for Trial on March 4, 2015. Mother was present and entered admissions. Testimony was taken as to father. The Mays filed a request for reunification with them. The children were adjudicated dependent, ordered to remain in the temporary custody of the Department and a hearing was scheduled on the request to place the * children with the Mays in Massachusetts,A pretrial on the Mays' motion was held on March 31, 2015. The Court made Mr. and Mrs, May parties to the cases, left the children in their foster placement, scheduled an in-camera interview with the children and transferred the matters to the docket of Magistrate Lynne Schoenling as mother had been accepted into the Adult Treatment Court, which she presided over. Following a pre-trial hearing, trial was conducted over two days- June 8, 2015 and July 2, 2015. The Magistrate issued a decision on August 27, 2015. In her trial decision, the Magistrate ordered that the children remain in the temporary custody of the DCDJFS, but with placement of the minor children with Mr, and Mrs. May pending completion of the ICPC home study, She further ordered that the State of Ohio should maintain jurisdiction over the dependency matters until such time as Massachusetts could approve the ICPC and accept jurisdiction. On September 10, 2015, the Delaware County Department of Job and Family Services objected to the Magistrate's Decision on the grounds that a juvenile court is without authority to dictate a specific placement once a child is placed in the temporary custody of a children's services agency. They further asked that the Court specify a best interests finding, which thee alleged was stated on the record but not reduced to writing. 8 och Oo b2 nD rar Sor py ~@ Bago m= ofe VIil. Best Interests _ 255 = oa nm =< a The paramount responsibility of a juvenile court in any case is to do what is in the best interests of the child. In the instant situation, Juv.R. 14(C) specifically demands that the Court order only that which is in the best interests of the child or children involved when ruling on a termination, The Court must, then, consider what is in the best interests of the two children who remain subject to these cases, The Department, the Mays, the Guardian ad Litem, and Counsel for the Children have all agreed, at all times in these matters, that it is in the best interests of these children to remain with Mr. and Mrs. May. They are familiar with the home and well adjusted there. Their friends and schools are there, They are living with loving family members who have demonstrated an ability and willingness to provide care for them. They have indicated through their court appointed counsel that they wish to remain there. How, then, may this Court effectuate their continued placement with Mr. and Mrs. May? The Court may not grant further extensions of temporary custody in these matters. The decisions 2 See R.C. 5103,15(A) 16and positions of the parties, the terms of the ICPC and the incongruous language used in the custody statutes of the three states at issue in these convoluted cases have forced this Court into having one, and only one, possible order at this juncture that would permit the children to remain in the care and ‘permanent custody’ of Mr. and Mrs. May. Tf the Court may not extend and may not reunify, may not make a new legal custody order, and the parties who could file for permanent custody will not do so, the Court is left with only one available procedural option that retains the placement and custody that is in the bas om m RSS interests of the children. ao Daz, 1 isp. an car ares = Mo TX. Conclusion = eee = 645 nN oo It is in the best interests of Brooklyn and Ireland Day that they remain in the physical and legal custody of their aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. May. Because this Court has no viable legal option under Ohio law to make a new order to that effect, and because termination of all Ohio orders will cause a reversion to the Kentucky order of ‘permanent custody'- an order that would require a showing of a change in circumstances in order for the chiidren to later be removed from the home of Mr. and Mrs. May pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E), an order terminating these cases in their entirety is in the best interests of the children in this matter. xX. Orders This Department's second motion to terminate the above captioned cases is hereby granted. Any and all other pending motions are rendered moot. This case is closed, This is a final and appealable order. Date: December 6, 2017 LMI, ye HEJMANOYSKI, JUDGE JUVENILE COURT State of Ohlo, Delaware County. 7 J cartify this to be a trua copy of tha ‘ original filed In this court. David A. Hejmanowski, Judge BY Aihaeyzers DEPUTY CLERK