from the Perry County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, Case No. 2018C180
Plaintiff-Appellee EMILY STRANG TARBERT
Defendants-Appellants TINA KINGSOLVER, pro se STEVE
KINGSOLVER, pro se
JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin,
J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
Appellants assign as error the decisions of the Perry County
Juvenile Court regarding appointment of a guardian ad litem,
prohibiting their attendance at an ex parte hearing, placing
the children in shelter care and prohibiting contact between
the appellants and the children. Appellee is the Perry County
OF FACTS AND THE CASE
Appellants' statement of facts is difficult to interpret
and a statement of the case is not provided. While we
recognize that Appellants are acting pro se, pro se litigants
are presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct legal
procedures so that they remain subject to the same rules and
procedures to which represented litigants are bound.
Carskadon v. Avakian, 5th Dist. No. 11 CAG020018,
2011-Ohio-4423, ¶ 33 quoting Kilroy v. B.H.
Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E.2d 171
(8th Dist.1996). They are not given greater rights than
represented parties, and must bear the consequences of their
mistakes. Id. We also note that Appellants have not
provided a transcript of the hearings before the trial court
or a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(c).
Although we make some allowances for pro se litigants, we
cannot change the fundamental requirement that Appellant, as
the party asserting that there was an error in the trial
court, bears the burden in the court of appeals to
demonstrate error by reference to matters made a part of the
record. Knapp v. Edward Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio
St.2d 197, 199.
Appellee also chose not to provide a statement of the case or
facts, choosing to aver that Appellants' brief is so
insubstantial and noncompliant that it should be disregarded.
Appellee does conclude by requesting that we remand this case
for a hearing on Appellants' pending motion to withdraw
their pleas of admission to the allegations of dependency.
The lack of a transcript or any agreement regarding the facts
of this case would normally prevent a review of the
assignments of error, but we find that the documents within
the record allow us to come to a legal conclusion.
On July 25, 2018, Appellee filed an action in the trial court
seeking temporary custody. An ex parte order was issued on
July 25, 2018 and later on that same date, a shelter care
hearing was conducted with appellant Tina Kingsolver in
attendance. She denied the allegations of dependency and the
adjudication of the complaint was scheduled for August 29,
2018. Appellants filed a motion requesting appointment of
counsel and the motion was granted on August 1, 2018.
Counsel for appellant Tina Kingsolver filed a motion
requesting the appointment of guardian ad litem. On September
5, 2018 the trial court addressed this motion and stated
"the parties agreed to an in-camera interview, shall
occur by Judge Cooperrider. (sic) The in-camera interview
shall occur on October 3rd, (sic) 2018 at 11:30 AM."
On October 3, 2018 the adjudicatory hearing occurred with
counsel and appellants in attendance. The trial court found
the juvenile dependent and scheduled a dispositional hearing
for December 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM. On October 26, 2018
Appellants submitted a written document to the court
requesting that they be permitted to withdraw their plea
admitting the dependency of the children. On November 2, 2018
appellants filed their notice of appeal of the judgment entry
of October 3, 2018. On November 6, 2018 counsel for appellant
Tina Kingsolver filed a motion for leave to withdraw as
counsel and said motion was granted the same day.
On November 28, 2018 the trial court issued an order ...