D. R.: Case Study

In re D.R., 2014-Ohio-832

Court That Heard The Case: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County

Facts of the Case: On February 23, 2013, at approximately 11 p.m., D.R. broke into the home of Mr. Ted Ziolkowski carrying a loaded gun. The juvenile gained entry into the home by prying open the rear door with a pry bar and a screwdriver. Home alone, Ziolkowski heard someone at his back door and the sound of wood falling hitting the ground. As Ziolkowski eased towards the door to see what was going on the door flew open. Ziolkowski shot the intruder. He immediately dialed 911 when D.R. collapsed to the ground. Police arrived on the scene and D.R. was by the back door laying on the ground with a gunshot wound to his

Did the trial court make an error when it adjudicated D.R. guilty of delinquency and then dismissed the complaint under Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(d) in the best interest of the child and the public?

2. Is the trial court prohibited from dismissing the complaint under Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(d)?

3. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion when it dismissed the complaint under Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(d) even though the record was contrary to the best interest of the public and the child?

Conclusion: The Eighth Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed the case. In addition, the court ordered that appellee grant relief of appropriate costs to appellant.

Rules Utilized: Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(d) and R.C. 2945.67(A) In re N.I.; In re

's health deteriorated as a direct result of the shot to his chest. He had emergency surgery which lead to a narrowing of the aortic valve opening, aortic stenosis. Thus causing D.R. to have poor circulation in his lower extremities and an increase of pressure that could only be relieved surgically. An infection developed in the bone after his second surgery. It required the amputation of his leg below the right knee during his third surgery. However, it did not improve his poor circulation and as a result became bound to a wheelchair. The Chief Medical Director, Dr. John Bradley, for the Ohio Department of Youth Services ("ODYS") testified during the court’s dispositional hearing that D.R. 's medical concerns demand extensive attention. To improve his circulation major cardiovascular surgery was essential. In addition, D.R. must undergo another operation to mend the damage done to his abdominal wall. Dr. Bradley testified that D.R. would need approximately nine months to a year of medical care. Although the child’s record was defiant, Juv.R. 29(F)(2)(d) clearly defines the dispositions within the power of the juvenile court to remove any conflict between the lawful dispositions and those authorized by rule. Given the cost for ODYS to house the child, plus their incapability to care for his medical conditions, and the safety risks involved the trial court determined that a dismissal to be in the best interest of the child’s safety and the public