[Cite as In re O.F.A., 2025-Ohio-117.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: O.F.A., G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., : M.A. : : C.A. No. 30204 : : Trial Court Case Nos. C-2023-001881- : 0G; C-2023-1880-0E; C-2023-001879- : 0E; C-2023-001878-0E; C-2023- : 001877-0E : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- Juvenile Division)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on January 17, 2025
ALANA VAN GUNDY, Attorney for Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
.............
EPLEY, P.J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted temporary custody of O.F.A. to
Montgomery County Job & Family Services – Children Services Division (MCCS) and -2-
overruled Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s grant of protective supervision over
G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. to MCCS. Mother claims that the trial court erred in
concluding that she had waived her right to counsel at the September 1, 2023 hearing on
MCCS’s motion for protective supervision. For the following reasons, this appeal will be
dismissed as moot.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} Mother is the parent of five children – O.F.A. (born 2006), G.J.A. (born 2007),
N.A. (born 2008), L.C.A. (born 2008), and M.A. (born 2009). In January 2023, MCCS
became involved with the family after two domestic violence incidents by Mother against
O.F.A.; Mother was intoxicated when these incidents occurred. In April 2023, MCCS
filed dependency complaints for the five children. It sought, as preferred dispositions,
that O.F.A. be placed in the temporary custody of her adult brother and that MCCS have
protective supervision over the other four children. The magistrate appointed counsel
for Mother due to her indigency.
{¶ 3} After an adjudication hearing on July 11, 2023, the magistrate concluded that
the children were dependent. Mother promptly sought to have the magistrate’s order set
aside. While that motion was pending, a dispositional hearing was conducted. On
August 21, 2023, the magistrate granted MCCS six months of protective supervision of
G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., beginning on the hearing date (August 14) and expiring
on March 14, 2024, unless extended or terminated early; MCCS received temporary
custody of O.F.A. for six months. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and
Mother objected. -3-
{¶ 4} On August 30, 2023, MCCS filed a motion for interim protective supervision
of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., and for interim temporary custody of O.F.A. Mother
appeared for a September 1, 2023 hearing regarding G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., but
her attorney did not. Mother told the magistrate, “I was informed that there would be an
attorney for me.” When the magistrate asked if someone had called Mother or if Mother
had called, Mother replied, “I’m not going to be treated like that” and left the courtroom,
leaving papers behind. The magistrate did not appoint another attorney to represent
Mother at that hearing, and the hearing proceeded without her. After the magistrate
orally granted interim protective supervision, Mother re-entered the courtroom, and the
magistrate informed her of the decision. When asked if she anything to say, Mother
responded, “I feel that I did not get notice that I would not have an attorney and that I
wasn’t able to be represented, so I feel that this is crap.” On September 20, 2023, the
magistrate filed an entry granting the motion for interim protective supervision and
scheduling a dispositional hearing for a later date.
{¶ 5} Three days later, Mother moved to set aside the interim order, arguing that
she had been unlawfully denied the assistance of counsel at the September 1 hearing.
MCCS opposed the motion, asserting that Mother’s behavior at the hearing amounted to
a constructive waiver of her right to counsel. Mother subsequently moved to terminate
protective supervision over the four children. In November 2023, MCCS also moved to
terminate protective supervision on the ground that Mother’s conduct precluded it from
ensuring the well-being and safety of the children.
{¶ 6} In separate decisions issued on March 15, 2024, the trial court agreed with -4-
the magistrate’s determination that the five children were dependent and further
concluded that Mother had constructively waived her right to counsel at the September
1, 2023 hearing. Regarding the right to counsel, the trial court acknowledged that
Mother’s counsel had informed the magistrate prior to the hearing that he would not be
available. However, it found that “mother did not properly invoke her right to counsel and
constructively waived her right to counsel by leaving the courtroom without testimony
regarding efforts for counsel.” The court therefore overruled Mother’s motion to set aside
the September 20, 2023 interim order and adopted the order as its own. On March 18,
2024, the trial court overruled Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s order granting
protective supervision of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. By its terms, the order of
protective supervision had expired four days prior. On April 12, 2024, the trial court
terminated the interim protective supervision.
{¶ 7} Mother appealed the trial court’s March 18, 2024 judgment. However, we
dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. In re O.F.A., G.J.A., N.A.,
L.C.A., M.A., No. 30112 (2d Dist. May 8, 2024).
{¶ 8} On June 7, 2024, the trial court issued an amended judgment entry,
overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s August 21, 2023 decision granting
MCCS six months of protective supervision of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. The trial
court noted that the protective supervision had expired and that MCCS had since received
interim temporary custody of the four children.
{¶ 9} Mother appeals from the trial court’s June 7, 2024 judgment.
II. Mootness -5-
{¶ 10} In her sole assignment of error, Mother claims that the trial court erred in
concluding that she had waived her right to counsel at the September 1, 2023 hearing on
MCCS’s motion for interim protective supervision. In its response, MCCS similarly
questions the juvenile court’s determination that Mother had waived her right to counsel
at the September 1, 2023 hearing. However, the agency argues that the issue is moot
because MCCS now has temporary custody of the four children. Before we address the
merits of Mother’s assignment of error, we must consider whether her appeal is moot.
{¶ 11} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue
judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970); State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8 (2d
Dist.). Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases where an
actual legal controversy no longer exists between the parties. Id., citing In re A.G., 2014-
Ohio-2597, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical significance and, instead,
present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v. Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, ¶ 30
(2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-Ohio-3529, ¶ 55.
{¶ 12} R.C. 2151.353 authorizes the juvenile court to place a child who has been
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re O.F.A., 2025-Ohio-117.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: O.F.A., G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., : M.A. : : C.A. No. 30204 : : Trial Court Case Nos. C-2023-001881- : 0G; C-2023-1880-0E; C-2023-001879- : 0E; C-2023-001878-0E; C-2023- : 001877-0E : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- Juvenile Division)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on January 17, 2025
ALANA VAN GUNDY, Attorney for Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
.............
EPLEY, P.J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted temporary custody of O.F.A. to
Montgomery County Job & Family Services – Children Services Division (MCCS) and -2-
overruled Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s grant of protective supervision over
G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. to MCCS. Mother claims that the trial court erred in
concluding that she had waived her right to counsel at the September 1, 2023 hearing on
MCCS’s motion for protective supervision. For the following reasons, this appeal will be
dismissed as moot.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} Mother is the parent of five children – O.F.A. (born 2006), G.J.A. (born 2007),
N.A. (born 2008), L.C.A. (born 2008), and M.A. (born 2009). In January 2023, MCCS
became involved with the family after two domestic violence incidents by Mother against
O.F.A.; Mother was intoxicated when these incidents occurred. In April 2023, MCCS
filed dependency complaints for the five children. It sought, as preferred dispositions,
that O.F.A. be placed in the temporary custody of her adult brother and that MCCS have
protective supervision over the other four children. The magistrate appointed counsel
for Mother due to her indigency.
{¶ 3} After an adjudication hearing on July 11, 2023, the magistrate concluded that
the children were dependent. Mother promptly sought to have the magistrate’s order set
aside. While that motion was pending, a dispositional hearing was conducted. On
August 21, 2023, the magistrate granted MCCS six months of protective supervision of
G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., beginning on the hearing date (August 14) and expiring
on March 14, 2024, unless extended or terminated early; MCCS received temporary
custody of O.F.A. for six months. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and
Mother objected. -3-
{¶ 4} On August 30, 2023, MCCS filed a motion for interim protective supervision
of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., and for interim temporary custody of O.F.A. Mother
appeared for a September 1, 2023 hearing regarding G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., but
her attorney did not. Mother told the magistrate, “I was informed that there would be an
attorney for me.” When the magistrate asked if someone had called Mother or if Mother
had called, Mother replied, “I’m not going to be treated like that” and left the courtroom,
leaving papers behind. The magistrate did not appoint another attorney to represent
Mother at that hearing, and the hearing proceeded without her. After the magistrate
orally granted interim protective supervision, Mother re-entered the courtroom, and the
magistrate informed her of the decision. When asked if she anything to say, Mother
responded, “I feel that I did not get notice that I would not have an attorney and that I
wasn’t able to be represented, so I feel that this is crap.” On September 20, 2023, the
magistrate filed an entry granting the motion for interim protective supervision and
scheduling a dispositional hearing for a later date.
{¶ 5} Three days later, Mother moved to set aside the interim order, arguing that
she had been unlawfully denied the assistance of counsel at the September 1 hearing.
MCCS opposed the motion, asserting that Mother’s behavior at the hearing amounted to
a constructive waiver of her right to counsel. Mother subsequently moved to terminate
protective supervision over the four children. In November 2023, MCCS also moved to
terminate protective supervision on the ground that Mother’s conduct precluded it from
ensuring the well-being and safety of the children.
{¶ 6} In separate decisions issued on March 15, 2024, the trial court agreed with -4-
the magistrate’s determination that the five children were dependent and further
concluded that Mother had constructively waived her right to counsel at the September
1, 2023 hearing. Regarding the right to counsel, the trial court acknowledged that
Mother’s counsel had informed the magistrate prior to the hearing that he would not be
available. However, it found that “mother did not properly invoke her right to counsel and
constructively waived her right to counsel by leaving the courtroom without testimony
regarding efforts for counsel.” The court therefore overruled Mother’s motion to set aside
the September 20, 2023 interim order and adopted the order as its own. On March 18,
2024, the trial court overruled Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s order granting
protective supervision of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. By its terms, the order of
protective supervision had expired four days prior. On April 12, 2024, the trial court
terminated the interim protective supervision.
{¶ 7} Mother appealed the trial court’s March 18, 2024 judgment. However, we
dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. In re O.F.A., G.J.A., N.A.,
L.C.A., M.A., No. 30112 (2d Dist. May 8, 2024).
{¶ 8} On June 7, 2024, the trial court issued an amended judgment entry,
overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s August 21, 2023 decision granting
MCCS six months of protective supervision of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. The trial
court noted that the protective supervision had expired and that MCCS had since received
interim temporary custody of the four children.
{¶ 9} Mother appeals from the trial court’s June 7, 2024 judgment.
II. Mootness -5-
{¶ 10} In her sole assignment of error, Mother claims that the trial court erred in
concluding that she had waived her right to counsel at the September 1, 2023 hearing on
MCCS’s motion for interim protective supervision. In its response, MCCS similarly
questions the juvenile court’s determination that Mother had waived her right to counsel
at the September 1, 2023 hearing. However, the agency argues that the issue is moot
because MCCS now has temporary custody of the four children. Before we address the
merits of Mother’s assignment of error, we must consider whether her appeal is moot.
{¶ 11} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue
judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970); State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8 (2d
Dist.). Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases where an
actual legal controversy no longer exists between the parties. Id., citing In re A.G., 2014-
Ohio-2597, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical significance and, instead,
present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v. Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, ¶ 30
(2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-Ohio-3529, ¶ 55.
{¶ 12} R.C. 2151.353 authorizes the juvenile court to place a child who has been
adjudicated dependent in protective supervision. R.C. 2151.353(A)(1). No later than
one year after the earlier of the date the complaint was filed or the child was first placed
in shelter care, a party may ask the court to extend an order for protective supervision for
six months or to terminate the order. R.C. 2151.353(H)(1). The court may also extend
or terminate the order on its own motion, with notice to the parties. Id. Prior to the
termination of the extension, a party may request an additional six-month extension. -6-
R.C. 2151.353(H)(2).
{¶ 13} In this case, the magistrate’s August 21, 2023 decision granted MCCS
protective supervision of G.J.A., N.A., L.C.A., and M.A., beginning on August 14, 2023,
and expiring on March 14, 2024, unless extended or terminated early. The September
1, 2023 hearing was held to address MCCS’s motion for interim protective supervision
over the children pending the trial court’s consideration of Mother’s objections to the
magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 14} At this juncture, MCCS no longer has protective supervision over G.J.A.,
N.A., L.C.A., and M.A. The interim order of protective supervision was terminated, the
order of protective supervision expired without extension, and, due to new allegations,
MCCS now has interim temporary custody of the children. Consequently, even if we
were to agree with Mother that she had a right to counsel at the September 1, 2023
hearing, there is no remedy we could provide her. It would be futile to remand for a new
hearing on MCCS’s motion for interim protective supervision. Therefore, Mother’s
appeal is moot. See In re J.H., 2023-Ohio-3183, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.).
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} The appeal will be dismissed as moot.
TUCKER, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.