Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
IN THE MATTER OF: K.H. (DOB: 01/31/2008)
from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee GERALD V. ANDERSON, II.
Defendant-Appellee BRIAN W. BENBOW.
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E.
Wise, Jr., J.
1} Appellant, Bret Dean Snow, appeals the August 21, 2017
judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum
County, Ohio, Juvenile Division, dismissing his complaint.
Appellee is Muskingum County Children Services.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} On August 16, 2017, appellant filed a complaint seeking
temporary and legal custody of K.M., a juvenile. According to
the complaint, K.M.'s father is deceased and K.M.'s
mother is incarcerated, serving a fifteen year sentence. K.M.
is currently in foster home placement. Appellee is involved
with K.M., and a case plan is in effect.
3} Appellant is not blood-related to K.M. However, he alleged
K.M. lived in his residence every other weekend during the
first two years of life. He alleged he stood in loco parentis
to K.M., and qualified as a custodian to K.M. under Ohio
Adm.Code 5101:2-38-05(E) for purposes of participating in the
case plan. Appellant alleged K.M. appeared to be a dependent
and abused child.
4} According to the complaint, appellee stated appellant was
never treated as a party to the case plan. Appellant disputes
this and attaches to his complaint a portion of a purported
case plan which shows that he made some progress toward the
case plan goals. Appellant alleged he was an active
participant in the case plan, and attended meetings and
underwent a psychological evaluation at the direction of the
5} On August 17, 2017, appellee filed a motion to dismiss,
claiming there is a pending case before the court wherein
K.M. was adjudicated neglected, abused, and dependent in
December 2016 (Case No. 21630145) while living in
appellant's residence, and the case is continuing. By
judgment entry filed August 21, 2017, the trial court granted
the motion, finding the motion to be well taken and was in
the best interest of the child.
6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before
this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as
7} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN
DISMISSING APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR BY GIVING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND TO THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN VIOLATION OF
THE JUVENILE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THE OHIO REVISED CODE.
THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL ALSO VIOLATED THE OHIO AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS IN THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S ...