In re C.H.

2025 Ohio 1838

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 114663
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re C.H., 2025-Ohio-1838.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE C.H. : No. 114663 A Minor Child :

[Appeal by Father, C.S.] :

:

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 22, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD23905859

Appearances:

David S. Bartos, for appellant.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee CCDCFS.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

Appellant-father C.S. appeals the juvenile court’s decision to grant

permanent custody of child C.H., d.o.b. May 13, 2023, to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “agency”). For the reasons

that follow, we reverse and remand.

On May 16, 2023, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that C.H. was

abused and dependent and requesting a disposition of temporary custody to the

agency. On that same date, the trial court placed the child in the emergency custody

of CCDCFS. In August 2023, the child was adjudicated abused and dependent and

was placed in the temporary custody of the agency. On November 15, 2023, CCDCFS

filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody.1 Appellant

moved for legal custody in May 2024. After a series of continuances, the matter

proceeded to trial before a magistrate on November 6, 2024.

On November 7, 2024, the magistrate issued her decision, in which she

recommended that the child be placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS. On

November 12, 2024, well within the 14-day time period allotted to file objections,

appellant filed his objections to the magistrate’s decision along with a request for a

transcript of the proceedings. On November 20, 2024, the trial court granted

appellant’s request for a transcript. Just two days later, and before appellant was

able to file the transcript, the trial court issued an entry in which it overruled

appellant’s objections and ordered the child be placed in the permanent custody of

CCDCFS. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

1 The record reflects that the child’s mother died in November 2023. On appeal, appellant raises three assignments of error. See Appendix.

The agency concedes that the first assignment of error is dispositive of the appeal.

In the first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court

erred by overruling his objections before he had the opportunity to provide the court

with a transcript of the proceedings.

An objecting party must file a transcript or affidavit within 30 days after

filing objections. Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii). The magistrate issued her written decision

on November 7, 2024, in which she recommended the child be placed in the

permanent custody of the agency. The record shows that appellant timely filed his

objections to the magistrate’s decision within the 14-day period permitted under

Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b). Appellant also filed a request for a transcript, which the court

granted. Two days later, on November 22, 2024, the trial court overruled appellant’s

objections and ordered the child placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time this court has addressed this

issue. In In re A.J., 2024-Ohio-953 (8th Dist.), this court found that the juvenile

court abused its discretion by prematurely adopting the magistrate’s decision

without waiting for the appellant to submit the transcript so that the trial court could

“conduct the independent review required by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d).” Id. at ¶ 9.

See also In re A.C., 2019-Ohio-5127 (8th Dist.) (holding that because the trial court

was alerted that the mother intended to obtain the transcript to support her

objections and had granted her motion to obtain the transcript, the court should not

have ruled on the objections until the expiration of the 30 days pursuant to the juvenile rules); In re R.C., 2010-Ohio-4690, ¶ 7, fn. 1 (8th Dist.) (finding that the

juvenile court, which adopted the magistrate’s decision the same day it ordered the

transcript prepared, “could not purport to conduct an independent review of the

evidence when it knew that there was a transcript of the trial being prepared”).

Thus, we once again find that the juvenile court abused its discretion

by prematurely adopting the magistrate’s decision without waiting for the transcript

to be submitted in order to conduct the independent review required by

Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). See In re A.J. at id.

The appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained. The second and

third assignments of error, in which appellant challenges the timing of the filing of

the motion for permanent custody and the manifest weight and sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the trial court’s decision, are moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

We reverse the juvenile court’s judgment and remand the matter to

the juvenile court with instructions for the court to permit appellant to file the

requested transcript and to then conduct the independent review required by

Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) regarding father’s objections.

Judgment reversed; case remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

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.

_______________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR Appendix – Appellant’s Assignments of Error

I. In an action to terminate parental rights the trial court committed reversible and prejudicial error and violated father’s right to due process under Article [I], Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution by failing to undertake an independent review of the magistrate’s decision after granting appellant time to obtain a transcript to file supplemental objections and then overruling the appellant’s objections and adopting the magistrate’s decision only [two] days after granting appellant time to obtain the transcript under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii).

II. The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to the CCDCFS under R.C. 2151.414(d) is patently erroneous and as the CCDCFS had temporary custody [of the] child for less than twelve (12) months when the CCDCFS filed their motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody on November 15, 2023.

III. Whether the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to the CCDCFS and in denying father’s motion for legal custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.