COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68380 IN THE MATTER OF: : SUSETTA HILL : : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND [Appeal by State of Ohio, Cuyahoga : OPINION Support Enforcement Agency] : : Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Appeal from Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. 9471386 JUDGMENT Reversed and remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For Appellant State of For Appellee: Ohio Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency: Lloyd Thorne 21 Brandy Wine Square STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Euclid, Ohio 44143 Cuyahoga County Prosecutor SHARON HAWK, Assistant Susetta Hill Prosecuting Attorney 1337 East 90th Street P.O. Box 93894 Cleveland, Ohio 44104 Cleveland, Ohio 44101-5894 - 2 - JAMES M. PORTER, P.J., Appellant State of Ohio Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA") appeals from the Juvenile Court's order dismissing it from participating in a determination of child support. For the reasons and on the authorities hereinafter cited, we reverse and remand. On July 1, 1994, the CSEA, pursuant to the administrative process provided by R.C. 3111.22, determined that the amount of child support to Susetta Hill from her father, Lloyd Thorne, should be $430.58 per month. Mr. Thorne at the time was earning $34,800 per year from R.T.A. The father objected to the determination and pursuant to R.C. 3111.22(C) filed an application in Juvenile Court requesting the court to determine child support. Although not advised of the action or the hearing date, CSEA filed an answer to the application on September 26, 1994. At a hearing on November 16, 1994, the referee recommended that the answer and appearance of CSEA be stricken, noting that CSEA was "not a named party," was "not required to be a party and did not move to intervene." On December 7, 1994, the trial court adopted the report of the referee which reduced the child support to $260 per month. From its exclusion from the child support proceedings before the Juvenile Court, CSEA filed a timely appeal. No appellee's brief has been filed. - 3 - CSEA's two assignments of error state as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING CSEA WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REMOVING CSEA AS A PARTY WHEN THE STATE OF OHIO IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether CSEA has standing to participate in child support determination proceedings before the Juvenile Court when its own determination is at issue. The statutes of this State as well as the recent decisions of this and other appellate courts have clearly established CSEA's right to participate. State of Ohio, CSEA ex. rel. v. Lamier (Aug. 24, 1995), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 67637, 67638, 67640, 67655, 67660, unreported; State of Ohio, CSEA ex. rel. Graham v. Graham (June 22, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67962, unreported; State of Ohio, CSEA v. Lozada (June 29, 1995), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 67463/67553/67639/67654/67659, unreported; Minter v. Copes (June 15, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67614, unreported; Harris v. Whaley (May 12, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65913, unreported. As to the issues of the removal of the CSEA as a party, Lamier, Graham and Lozada sustained appellant's assignments of error. The Graham Court at p. 2 explained "CSEA's pecuniary interest in child support cases makes it a real party in interest." The Court in Lozada at p. 23, after lengthy reasoning and analysis, stated: From a thorough reading of Chapters 3111. and 3113., together with the mandates of Title IV- - 4 - A and Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, we find that the general assembly intended that the child support enforcement agencies be proper parties to all actions for the collection of child support; any other result would hinder the legitimate state interest spelled out by the general assembly for the enforcement of child support orders as well as the mandates of Title IV-A and Title IV-D, supra. The court further stated, "the dismissal of the CSEA in all of the actions presented before this Court was improper as it was against the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions." Appellant's two assignments of error are sustained. The order dismissing CSEA from the case is reversed and vacated. The case is remanded for a new hearing with CSEA's participation and proceedings consistent with this opinion. - 5 - It is ordered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KARPINSKI, J., and JOHN V. CORRIGAN, J.* CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER PRESIDING JUDGE (*Judge John V. Corrigan, Retired, Eighth District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment) N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which .