In re J.Z.

[Cite as In re J.Z., 2026-Ohio-3667.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY In re J.Z. Court of Appeals No. {62}OT-25-029 Trial Court No. 20232278 DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: September 18, 2026 ***** James VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecutor, and Barbara Gallé, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Adam H. Houser, for appellant. ***** SULEK, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, J.Z., appeals from the August 8, 2025 judgment of the Ottawa County Juvenile Court terminating the stay of his commitment to the custody of Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) and committing him to DYS’s custody for an indefinite term of a minimum of six months and a maximum period not to exceed J.Z.’s 21st birthday. J.Z.’s single assignment of error contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating the stay of his commitment because his mother did not appropriately supervise him and therefore he could not comply with the terms of the court’s order imposing the stay. Because J.Z. did not complete the conditions required to maintain the stay of his commitment to DYS custody, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} A complaint alleging that J.Z. committed rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and (B), a first-degree felony if committed by an adult, was filed in the Ottawa County Juvenile Court on July 12, 2023. The complaint stemmed from an incident in the early morning hours of June 15, 2023 in which J.Z., who was 14 years old and under the influence of alcohol at the time, engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl, also 14 years old, while she was intoxicated and unconscious. {¶ 3} J.Z. later pleaded guilty to and was found delinquent of attempted sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2907.03(A)(2), a fourth-degree felony if committed by an adult. The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on February 27, 2024, and ordered that J.Z. be committed to the custody of DYS for an indefinite term of at least six months and not to exceed his 21st birthday. The court stayed J.Z.’s commitment on the following conditions: (1) successful completion of treatment at the Juvenile Residential Center of Northwest Ohio (JRC), including sex-offender treatment; (2) successful completion of all recommendations resulting from a sex-specific diagnostic assessment; and (3) placement on probation and successful completion of the terms of probation. 2.  {¶ 4} J.Z. subsequently began residential treatment at JRC. Following several hearings reviewing J.Z.’s placement, the State moved to terminate the stay on J.Z.’s DYS commitment on July 14, 2025. On August 4, 2025, the juvenile court held a hearing on the State’s motion. That same day, J.Z. filed a motion to modify the terms of his probation so that he could reside in a residential group home. In support, J.Z. alleged that his mother’s actions resulted in his violations of the conditions of the stay of his DYS commitment, and he could successfully comply with those conditions if he resided in a residential group home rather than with his mother. {¶ 5} During the hearing, Michael Reynolds, the Juvenile Probation Officer assigned to J.Z., and Montana Crawford, Director of JRC, testified on behalf of the State. Reynolds testified that J.Z. entered JRC, a locked residential facility, in February 2024, and began treatment including sex-specific treatment, substance abuse treatment, a Thinking Error Program, and individual and family counseling. Reynolds initially had concerns that J.Z. had issues with aggression, alcohol, and drugs, as well as “problems with appropriate sexual behavior.” {¶ 6} Crawford testified that J.Z. was placed with JRC for approximately 19 months, significantly longer than the six to twelve months that juveniles typically need to complete the program at JRC. Crawford explained that J.Z. was initially resistant to treatment, but after several months he began to authentically engage in his treatment. Indeed, J.Z. successfully completed the written portions of his program at JRC, including workbooks and school material, and he attended and participated in group sessions as 3. required by JRC. As he did so, he was granted progressively longer off-ground visits during which he was supervised by his mother, K.Z. When they leave JRC’s locked facility and enter the community, JRC residents are subject to several conditions, including strictly following a written itinerary, and they are expected to apply the coping and decision-making skills they learned while in treatment. {¶ 7} J.Z., however, violated JRC’s rules repeatedly during his off-ground visits. According to Reynolds, many of these violations involved “replicating the behavior” that led to J.Z.’s delinquency. Although J.Z. was prohibited from using a phone, someone in J.Z.’s home gave him a phone to use during his visits. He used the phone for several purposes, including attempting to reach out to JRC staff members via social media, receiving photos of a female via Snapchat, and frequently viewing pornography. J.Z. also admitted to taking a drink of his mother’s alcohol on one occasion. When he left JRC, J.Z. was given an itinerary of places where he could go, but J.Z. went to places that were not on the itinerary, usually while driven by his mother. Like Reynolds, Crawford noted that J.Z. began experiencing problems once he started off-grounds visits, as follows: … [J.Z.] was discovered to have been using a cell phone, which is not permitted. He was on social media. [J.Z.] has admitted to pornography use on almost every off grounds for the overnight visits. There were friends over at the house on one or two occasions. And he was also violating. So as part of off grounds, they’re required to fill out exactly where they’ll be on off grounds. Something, it was a mix, mom was permitting stops at places on the way home and back to the facility, but then there [were] often times [when J.Z.] sort of initiated 4.  leaving the home. One example I can think of is where he attended an open mat wrestling session. {¶ 8} Neither J.Z. nor his mother reported the violations as they occurred. Instead, JRC staff only discovered the violations when J.Z. began coming back late after his visits. In response to staff questioning, J.Z. initially only admitted to smaller violations. He finally admitted to more significant violations when he was told that he would have to undergo a polygraph. Crawford testified that J.Z. ultimately underwent the polygraph, and he was found to be deceptive when he denied that he was engaging in sexual behavior while off grounds. {¶ 9} Crawford also testified that JRC staff learned through J.Z.’s peers in the facility that J.Z. told his peers that he had been texting with a female staff member and received nude photos of her. Just before he was administered the polygraph, J.Z. admitted that was false. JRC had to conduct an internal investigation of the employee, including questioning the employee and searching her, before the employee was eventually cleared of wrongdoing. {¶ 10} Because of J.Z.’s many violations, Reynolds questioned J.Z.’s “actual absorbing and utilizing [the] material” he completed while in treatment at JRC. Crawford similarly explained that [J.Z.] is not behaviorally resistant to treatment. He will attend counseling sessions. He will attend group. It’s the, the follow through, the internalization piece that’s missing. Both Crawford and Reynolds concluded that J.Z. was unable to apply the material to real- life situations, which was what Crawford meant by internalizing his treatment. In 5. addition, Reynolds continued to have concerns about J.Z.’s issues with aggression, alcohol, drugs, and appropriate sexual behaviors. Accordingly, Reynolds and Crawford each opined that J.Z. had not successfully completed treatment at JRC despite a significantly longer than typical placement there, nor could he be safely managed in a community-based setting. {¶ 11} As to a group home placement specifically, both Crawford and Reynolds testified such a placement would be inappropriate for J.Z. Because group homes provide significantly less supervision and boundaries than JRC— they are not locked facilities and do not provide the same level of treatment as JRC—Reynolds expressed concern that J.Z. could pose a threat to the safety of the community and to other minor residents of the group home if he were placed in such a setting. Reynolds explained that typically in a group home setting, three to four adults supervise up to twelve kids, so kids often have access to drugs, phones, and other prohibited items. Crawford said the kids who reside in group homes have frequent and regular access to the community, including attending school and after care in the community, just as any other youth would. J.Z. had already demonstrated an inability to follow the terms of his probation in his mother’s home, another setting with little supervision, so Reynolds concluded that J.Z. would similarly be unsuccessful in a group home setting. Crawford echoed Reynolds’s objections, stating that because of J.Z.’s most recent actions while in the community, the lower degree of supervision in group homes would be 6. inappropriate for him. She explained, “He’s not been able to demonstrate through the off-grounds progression that he’s willing to follow … guidelines and rules and safeguards.” {¶ 12} Instead, because J.Z. had not successfully completed the JRC program, Reynolds testified that the best placement for J.Z. would be commitment to DYS. Reynolds pointed out that DYS had similar treatment programs as JRC, including intensive sex-specific and substance abuse programs, and DYS had the resources necessary to rehabilitate J.Z. Crawford likewise concluded that the best placement for J.Z. would be one in which he had, at minimum, the same level of supervision as he had while in JRC. {¶ 13} When asked whether J.Z.’s mother, K.Z., was the cause of J.Z.’s problems, Crawford agreed that K.Z. did not provide appropriate supervision for J.Z. on his off-site visits, routinely lying to JRC staff about J.Z.’s activities while he was off-grounds, driving him to places that were not on his itinerary, and lying about confiscating J.Z.’s phone. Crawford testified that K.Z. expressed to JRC staff that J.Z. should not be prohibited from doing something if the activity was not “illegal.” Crawford explained that the primary concern with permitting J.Z. to continue off-grounds visits—an essential component of the JRC program—was K.Z.’s unwillingness to follow the rules for those visits and hold J.Z. accountable. Crawford maintained that J.Z. also shared responsibility for his violations while off grounds, explaining that “[J.Z.’s] old enough that he’s able to make decisions and knows right from wrong and can tell you what rules he’s supposed to 7. be following.” She further explained, “the entire point of JRC is that youth learn how to make integrity-based decisions and to hold themselves accountable,” even in circumstances in which parents do not provide adequate supervision. {¶ 14} Following Reynolds’s and Crawford’s testimony, the State rested. J.Z. did not present any witnesses on his own behalf. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the juvenile court ruled as follows: [T]he question before the Court is whether there is sufficient evidence … that [J.Z.] either successfully or unsuccessfully completed the terms of his probation. It’s clear to me there is certainly that evidence before the Court that he failed to complete the [JRC] program successfully. … So, there is clearly a finding of a violation of probation. {¶ 15} Based on that finding, the juvenile court moved to the dispositional stage of the hearing. The State argued that because J.Z. had not successfully completed his treatment at JRC, he had not complied with the juvenile court’s February 27, 2024 order imposing conditions on staying his commitment to the custody of DYS, and the stay should be terminated. The State also maintained that the victim in this case had requested that J.Z. be committed to DYS due to the seriousness of J.Z.’s offense against her. The State acknowledged that the juvenile court’s goal is to rehabilitate J.Z., but given J.Z.’s inability to complete the JRC program, the seriousness of his sexually-based offense, and J.Z.’s continued issues with aggression, alcohol, and sexual behavior, the only option for J.Z. was commitment to DYS. {¶ 16} J.Z. argued that he was compliant with treatment while he resided at JRC, but he experienced problems because of his mother’s lack of appropriate supervision, and 8. he maintained that without appropriate supervision outside of JRC, he was set up to fail. J.Z. noted that he eventually admitted his violations and was willing to participate in the treatment at JRC to address his problems. He also read a letter to the court apologizing and expressing remorse for his actions and stating his desire to improve his life. {¶ 17} The court engaged in a discussion with J.Z. concerning his actions. During that exchange, the court noted that J.Z., while he was in the custody of the Erie County Detention Facility prior to his placement with JRC, locked a female staff member into a closet as a “joke.” The court connected J.Z.’s behavior in committing sexual battery, locking the female staff member into a closet, and spreading untrue rumors about a female JRC staff member sending nude photos of herself, and concluded that J.Z. had demonstrated a pattern in his behavior with females. {¶ 18} The court ultimately granted the State’s motion to lift the stay and ordered that J.Z. be committed to the custody of DYS. J.Z. timely appealed. II. Assignment of Error {¶ 19} J.Z. asserts the following assignment of error for review: The trial court[] abused its discretion when it revoke[d] appellant’s probation and sentenced appellant to the Department of Youth Services. III. Law and Analysis {¶ 20} In support of his assignment of error, J.Z. does not dispute that he violated the conditions of the juvenile court’s order staying his commitment to DYS. Instead, he alleges that while he resided at JRC, he was successfully undergoing treatment, and it was only when he was granted off-site visitation with his mother that he began to violate 9. the conditions. He contends that his violations occurred because his mother “encouraged” them and she was not adequately supervising him. He maintains that if he were placed in a residential group home rather than in the custody of his mother, he would be able to comply with the conditions of the court order. Accordingly, he argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating the stay of his commitment. {¶ 21} “Juvenile courts have broad discretion to craft dispositions in order to ensure that a delinquent child is rehabilitated.” Matter of E.J.L., 2022-Ohio-2846, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.). Accordingly, a “juvenile court’s disposition for a child adjudicated delinquent [is reviewed] under an [abuse-of-discretion] standard.” In re G.T., 2025- Ohio-3253, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.), quoting In re L.R., 2020-Ohio-2990, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.), citing In re D.S., 2006-Ohio-5851, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1993). {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.19(A)(4) grants juvenile courts broad discretion to craft appropriate dispositions “because the juvenile court ‘has the opportunity to see and hear the delinquent child, to assess the consequences of the child's delinquent behavior, and to evaluate all the circumstances involved.’” In re D.H., 2022-Ohio-1972, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), quoting In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St.3d 156, 160-61 (1996). The court must exercise its discretion within the confines of R.C. 2152.01(B), which requires dispositions to be “reasonably calculated[ ] to achieve certain statutory purposes[, including] to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to this 10. chapter, protect the public interest and safety, hold the offender accountable for the offender’s actions, restore the victim, and rehabilitate the offender.” In re D.S. at ¶ 6, quoting R.C. 2152.01(A). {¶ 23} The juvenile court stayed J.Z.’s commitment to the custody of DYS on the condition that he, among other things, successfully complete treatment at JRC and comply with the terms of his probation. Despite a significantly longer placement at JRC than typical, J.Z. did not successfully complete his treatment there. J.Z. repeatedly violated JRC’s rules and the terms of his probation, engaging in the same type of behavior that led to his delinquency. J.Z. attributes his violations to his mother’s enabling behaviors. Certainly, his mother’s supervision was problematic. Nonetheless, J.Z. was required to show he could be successful in the community as part of his treatment at JRC, and he did not do so. As Crawford testified, the point of the JRC treatment program is to equip youths with the tools to make good decisions in real-life situations, and J.Z. failed to do so when he was in situations without significant supervision. Moreover, not all of J.Z.’s violations occurred while he was under his mother’s supervision. While at JRC, J.Z. started a rumor of a sexual nature regarding a JRC staff member that required an internal investigation. Finally, J.Z.’s unwillingness to admit to his actions until a polygraph was imminent demonstrates a lack of accountability. 11.  {¶ 24} After reviewing the record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the stay of J.Z.’s commitment to DYS. J.Z.’s assignment of error is found not well-taken. IV. Conclusion {¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Ottawa County Juvenile Court is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, costs of this appeal are assessed to J.Z. Judgment affirmed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/. 12.