 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re S.J.9/21/2005
the findings in that Report. The guardian ad litem testified:
"The Interstate administrator of Ramsey County, Minnesota refused a 90-day trial placement and denied permanent placement for the following reasons: The first being serious mental health issues of [Ms. Morris, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Lehman's 16-year-old son]. "* * * [Four paragraphs elaborate on these mental health issues.] "Housing was an issue. The workers in Minnesota felt the issue of privacy, with two bedrooms and the adults sleeping on a sleeper sofa in the living room, that this presented an issue of privacy. However the couple recently extended their lease on this apartment * * *. "* * * "I am not qualified nor capable sight unseen of overriding the denial of permanent placement as issued by Ramsey County [Minnesota] CSB. I do not feel qualified to do that."
{ } After questioning the guardian ad litem, Ms. Morris sought to introduce certain documents into evidence, including the complete version of the Report. She cited Juv.R 34 and Evid.R. 106 as authority. However, the magistrate refused to admit the Report, stating: "I will decline to admit these documents into evidence given the fact then that [Ms. Morris] has already rested [her case]."
{ } Before proceeding with our analysis, we pause to brand this particular ruling as clearly erroneous. Under such a view, Evid.R. 106 would be available only to defendants because the State (in a criminal case) or a plaintiff (in a civil case) will always rest its case before the defendant puts on any evidence. Therefore, the State or plaintiff would forever be prohibited from invoking Evid.R. 106. This is an unreasonable limitation. The proper view, in accord with fairness, sound legal reasoning and a plain reading of both the rule and commentary, is that Evid.R. 106 is equally available to all parties to the action regardless of the order in which they present their case. It is just as available to the State as it is to the criminal defendant; it is as available to the plaintiff as it is to the civil defendant; and it is equally available to every party in a multi-party case such as this one. As such, Ms. Morris properly invoked Evid.R. 106 and the magistrate's refusal on the basis that she had already rested her case was clearly erroneous.
{ } However, the trial court ultimately upheld the magistrate's ruling. As certain ancillary issues will warrant analysis below, it is worth following the course of this ruling. Foremost, it is evident that the magistrate's decision relied on the recitation from the Report, as the magistrate stated:
"An interstate compact was completed through officials in the state of Minnesota. That interstate compact raises concerns with regard to the mother's mental health issues, the mother's paramour's mental health issues, and the paramour's child's mental health issues. There are also concerns with regard to income issues and a domestic violence history that the mother has experienced with the father and with other men. The mother is diagnosed with major depression and post traumatic stress disorder. She also exhibits some symptoms of bipolar disorder. The interstate compact recommends not placing the child in the Legal Custody of the mother."
Under "Findings of Fact and Law," the magistrate's decision stated:
"Given the mother's history even to this date of abandonment of this child, this court finds that it is not in the best interest of the child to be placed into her legal custody. The mother's mental health issues as illustrated by the Interstate Compact report from the state of Minnesota also served to exacerbate the situation."
The magistrate then ordered that legal custod
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|