In re S.G.

Ohio Court of Appeals

In re S.G.

2020 Ohio 4060

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 13, 2020

Docket108711

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2020 Ohio 4060 (In re S.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re S.G., 2020 Ohio 4060 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as In re S.G., 2020-Ohio-4060.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE S.G., ET AL. : : No. 108711 Minor Children : : [Appeal by N.G., Mother] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 13, 2020

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD18906135 and AD18906136

Appearances:

Scalise Legal Services, L.L.C., and Stephanie Scalise, for appellant.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

Appellant N.G., the mother of S.G. and A.G., (“Mother”) appeals from

the juvenile court order awarding legal custody of S.G. and A.G. to T.R., the

biological father of S.G. and an interested individual to A.G.

Mother’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which

she asserted that following her examination of the record there are “no meritorious appellate issues that can be raised.” This court held the motion in abeyance and

afforded Mother an opportunity to file a pro se brief. Mother has failed to avail

herself of that opportunity. Following an independent review, this court grants

appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and we dismiss this appeal.

Factual Background and Procedural History

On May 10, 2018, appellee Cuyahoga County Division of Children and

Family Services (“CCDCFS” or the “agency”) filed a complaint for neglect and

temporary custody of S.G. (d.o.b. December 29, 2012) and A.G. (d.o.b. June 13,

2015). The complaint alleged that at approximately 7:30 p.m. on May 9, 2018,

Mother had left the children without appropriate supervision or food in the home,

that the children were found outside of the home, alone, at approximately 10:00

p.m. and that Mother did not return to the home until 3:00 a.m. The agency also

filed a motion for predispositional temporary custody.

The court conducted a hearing on the issue of predispositional

temporary custody as Mother denied the allegations and objected to a finding of

probable cause. The court granted the motion and committed the children to the

temporary care and custody of CCDCFS.

An amended complaint was filed on August 7, 2018 wherein the

allegations were amended to reflect that, on May 9, 2018, Mother had left the

children in the home with an inappropriate caregiver and that Mother was in need

of parenting classes to improve her parenting skills and judgment. In September 2018, the juvenile court adjudicated the children

neglected. The matter was continued for a dispositional hearing. On January 11,

2019, CCDCFS filed a motion to amend the dispositional prayer from temporary

custody to CCDCFS to legal custody to T.R., the biological father of S.G. and

interested individual to A.G.

On April 4, 2019, the dispositional hearing was held before the

magistrate. Rosalyn Bailey, an extended service social worker with CCDCFS,

testified at the hearing. She stated that she had been assigned to the case since May

or June 2018. According to Bailey, the initial case plan for each of the fathers was

to establish paternity and to bond with and support his child. The initial case plan

for Mother included parenting classes and, due to a history of substance abuse,

submission to a urine screen to determine whether she had a need for substance

abuse services.

Bailey testified that Mother failed to comply with the case plan even

though accommodations were made for her, at her request. She refused to submit

to a urine screen and did not attend all of her parenting classes. On September 26,

2018, during visitation with the children at the West Side Community Collab,

Mother took the children and left. It was not until 9:00 p.m. that night, after police

tracked Mother’s phone, that the children were located at the home of a cousin of

Mother. Mother was not present. Following that incident, Mother’s case plan was

amended to include a mental health assessment. Mother failed to complete any of

the case plan requirements and, after the incident, failed to meet with or contact Bailey. Because Mother did not make herself available, Bailey could not state

whether Mother’s home was appropriate for the children.

Bailey testified that paternity had been established for both children.

Bailey stated that T.R., the father of S.G., had completed his case plan and had

bonded with both S.G. and A.G. Bailey stated that T.R. had informed her that he

wanted A.G. to stay with her sister, “that he didn’t see any difference in them” and

that he was prepared to provide a permanent home for both S.G. and A.G. She

indicated that both T.R. and his wife, D.M., submitted to background checks and

were approved by CCDCFS for placement. The children were placed with T.R. in

December 2018 or January 2019.

Bailey stated that, at the time of the hearing, Al.G., the father of A.G.,

was incarcerated at the Mansfield Correctional Institution and that no appropriate

relative had been identified as a possible care provider for A.G.

Bailey testified that she believed it was in the children’s best interest

to remain together and be placed in the legal custody of T.R. Although Bailey stated

that she believes Mother loves the children, Mother could not care for them or meet

their basic needs. Bailey stated that T.R. was employed, that his home was

appropriate, that the children were doing well in his home and that he was able

provide for their basic needs on a permanent basis.

The guardian ad litem recommended that legal custody of the

children be granted to T.R. On April 8, 2019, the magistrate issued her decision, recommending

the termination of predispositional temporary custody to the agency and that legal

custody of S.G. and A.G. be granted to T.R. The magistrate also recommended that

Mother be granted supervised visitation with the children every Sunday from 2:00

p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.

In June 2019, following a review of the court file, the magistrate’s

decision and Mother’s objections, the juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections

and approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision.

Law and Analysis

Anders Standard

Anders outlines the procedure that counsel must follow to withdraw

due to the lack of any meritorious grounds for appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that

if appointed counsel, after a conscientious examination of the case, determines an

appeal to be wholly frivolous, he or she should advise the court of that fact and

request permission to withdraw. Id. This request, however, must be accompanied

by a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal.

Id. Counsel must also provide the client with a copy of the brief and allow the client

sufficient time to file his or her own brief. Id.

Once the appellant’s counsel satisfies these requirements, this court

must fully examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious

issues exist. Id. If the court determines that the appeal is wholly frivolous, the court may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id.; see also State

v. Sims, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI