In re S.J.
This text of 2015 Ohio 4921 (In re S.J.) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as In re S.J., 2015-Ohio-4921.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
IN RE: : CASE NOS. CA2015-07-132 S.J., et al. : CA2015-07-133
: DECISION 11/30/2015 :
:
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. JN2012-0467 and JN2012-0469
Anne Lucas, 215 East Ninth Street, Suite 500, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, attorney for child
Liza A. Kotlarsic, 8050 Beckett Center Drive, Suite 130, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for appellant, M.J.
Andrew M. Temin, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, guardian ad litem
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee, Butler County Department of Job and Family Services
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of
the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and upon a brief filed by appellant's
counsel. Butler CA2015-07-132 CA2015-07-133
{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, M.J., has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of
the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial
to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one
potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744; (3) requests that this
court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from
prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests
permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly
frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been
served upon appellant.
{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having
been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to
appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant
requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that
it is wholly frivolous.
PIPER, P.J., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2015 Ohio 4921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sj-ohioctapp-2015.