COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68973 STATE OF OHIO, CUYAHOGA CHILD : SUPPORT ENDORCEMENT AGENCY : : Relator : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CONNELL SHERRILL : : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : DECEMBER 14, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Juvenile Court : Case No. 9471837 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: SHARON HAWK, ESQ. CONNELL SHERRILL, PRO SE Assistant County Prosecutor 604 Upson, Apt. 6 P.O. Box 93894 Akron, OH 44305 Cleveland, OH 44101 DANIELLE SHERRILL, PRO SE 2407 Woodmere Drive Cleveland, OH 44106 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. The Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) brought this action to determine the support obligations of respondent-father Connell Sherrill. CSEA alleged respondent neglected his duty to support two minor children in the custody of relator-mother Danielle Sherrill. The complaint further alleged the mother is a recipient of public assistance and CSEA has assumed the responsi- bility to collect support. CSEA asked the court to order the father to reimburse it for past support provided to the children, order continuing child support, and order the father to provide health insurance and pay medical expenses. The court referred the matter to a referee who recommended CSEA be dismissed pursuant to our decision in In re Owens (June 23, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66452. Although child support guidelines mandated a yearly payment of $4,200, the referee found the mother had acknowledged the father made direct contributions for the childrens' activity fees, music lessons, instrument rental, summer camp and clothes. The referee recommended the father pay $600 per year. The juvenile court approved the referee's report without opinion. CSEA appeals and assigns errors challenging its dismissal, the court's adoption of the referee's recommendation to deviate from established support guidelines, and the court's failure to issue a separate order requiring the father to provide health insurance. - 3 - We find the juvenile court erred by adopting the referee's recommedation to dismiss CSEA. CSEA, as an agency of the Department of Human Services, is a proper party in actions by the state seeking to recoup from a child's natural father state funds paid for a child's welfare. In re Harris (May 12, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65913, unreported. R.C. 5107.04(C) sets forth CSEA's standing to bring an action for recovery of funds paid as a consequence of another person's failure to support a child: "***Whenever aid has been furnished to a recipient for whose support another person is responsible such other person shall, in addition to the liability otherwise imposed, as a consequence of failure to support such recipient, be liable for all aid furnished to such recipient. The value of the aid so furnished may be recovered in a civil action brought by the county department." We have repeatedly held that CSEA is entitled to assert a cause of action pursuant to R.C. 5107.04(C), a proposition we affirm again today. See Vance v. Banks (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 475; In re Krumins (Oct. 26, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68824, unreported; State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Support Enforcement Agency v. Lozada (June 29, 1995), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 67463, 67553, 67639, 67654, 67659, unreported; State ex rel. Graham v. Graham (June 22, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67962, unreported. See, also, Crittendon v. Crittendon (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 484, 489. The juvenile court's reliance on Owens, supra, is misplaced. In Owens, we found CSEA lacked statutory authority to bring an action seeking an award of child support from Owens since Owens and - 4 - his wife were married, did not dispute parentage and had not received public assistance. Id., unreported at 3. In the present case, CSEA alleged the mother is a recipient of public assistance, the mother had assigned responsibility for collection of support to CSEA, and the father had failed to support his children. Owens is inapplicable. The first assignment of error is sustained. The remaining assignments relate to the amount of child support ordered and the juvenile court's failure to issue a separate order relating to health insurance. Because CSEA did not have an opportunity to be heard on the merits of its complaint, we remand the action for a determination of child support and health care in accordance with law. Reversed and remanded. - 5 - This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said relator recover of said respondent its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. DAVID T. MATIA, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .