In re S.P.

2024 Ohio 3405

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 5, 2024
• Docket: 113647 113993
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re S.P., 2024-Ohio-3405.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE S.P., ET AL. : : Nos. 113647 and 113993 Minor Children : : [Appeal by CCDCFS] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 5, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD23914206, AD24903137, AD24903138, AD24903139, and AD24903140

Appearances:

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

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Britta Barthol, Assistant Public Defender, for appellees.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J.:

Appellant Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services

(“CCDCFS”) brings the instant interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s

identical decisions in two separate child custody matters ordering CCDCFS to

disclose confidential records to opposing counsel without first reviewing the records in camera. Appellees concede the error, and as such, this court vacates the decision

of the trial court and remands for the trial court to perform an in camera review of

the confidential records.

The factual history is of no consequence to the instant appeal. Both

cases involve child custody cases that are only in the discovery phase. In both cases,

CCDCFS filed a motion for in camera review of confidential records and asked the

trial court to determine whether exculpatory evidence that is material to the defense

exists before providing that information to the defense. In both cases, a magistrate

reviewed the motions and denied them, instead ordering CCDCFS to “comply with

Juvenile Rule 24” and “disclose to Opposing Counsel any exculpatory or

contradictory evidence, contained in but not limited to, the [CCDCFS] Caseworker’s

File that would be beneficial to the opposing party’s defense,” and to “redact any

confidential referent information to resolve any concern made by Counsel for

[CCDCFS].”

In both matters, CCDCFS filed a motion to set aside that portion of the

magistrate’s order, arguing that the trial court is required to conduct an in camera

review of CCDCFS’s records prior to ordering their disclosure. The trial court denied

the motions to set aside the respective portions of the magistrate’s order, and

CCDCFS filed the instant appeals, which were consolidated for review based on the

identical issue presented in both. CCDCFS assigns the following error for our

review: The trial court erred as a matter of law by ordering CCDCFS to disclose confidential agency records to opposing counsel without first reviewing said records in camera as is required by law.

Civ.R. 26(B)(1) provides that discovery may be obtained “regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Juv.R.

24(A) provides that the parties providing discovery when requested shall “to the

extent not privileged, produce promptly for inspection, copying, or photographing

the . . . information, documents, and material in that party’s custody, control, or

possession[.]”

In this appeal, the discovery specifically pertained to caseworker files

kept by CCDCFS, nearly all of which are deemed “confidential” pursuant to the

following relevant statutory sections. R.C. 5153.17 provides that records “of

investigation of families, children, and foster homes, and of the care, training and

treatment afforded children [and] other records as are required by the department

of job and family services. . . shall be confidential.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 5101.131

provides that information contained in the SACWIS system utilized by CCDCFS to

store its case management files “is confidential. . . .” R.C. 2151.421, that governs

reports of child abuse or neglect, provides, with some exceptions, that “[a] report

made under this section is confidential” and that “no person shall permit or

encourage the unauthorized dissemination of the contents of any report made under

this section.” R.C. 2151.421(I)(1); 2151.421(I)(2)(a).

It is undisputed, however, that this confidentiality is not absolute. See

Vaughan v. Shaker Hts., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106449 at 11 (N.D. Ohio July 30, 2013) (collecting cases). To this end, numerous Ohio courts have acknowledged

that, where appropriate, the records must be made available to the trial court for an

in camera inspection before they are disclosed. Vaughan at id.

In particular, this court’s precedent mandates the use of

an in camera examination of the agency records to determine whether: (1) the records are relevant and necessary to the pending action (2) whether the individual seeking disclosure has demonstrated good cause; and (3) whether admission of the records outweighs the statutory confidentiality considerations.

State v. McCutchen, 2023-Ohio-368, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), citing In re C.A., 2015-Ohio-

4768, ¶ 80 (8th Dist.); State v. Sahady, 2004-Ohio-3481, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.); Child

Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500, ¶ 11-13 (8th Dist.);

Johnson v. Johnson, 134 Ohio App.3d 579, 585 (3d Dist. 1999).

“Good cause” requires the trial court to consider whether the due

process rights of the accused are implicated, whether it is in the best interest of the

child, and whether the records are material to the defense or fair trial considerations

are at stake. Johnson at 583.

As this court has previously stated, “where, as here, a request is made

for confidential documents that may contain information material to the defense of

an accused, the trial court must balance the due process rights of an accused against

the privacy rights at issue” and this requires the trial court to “examine the

documents, in camera, to determine if they contain evidence material to the defense

of the accused.” In re C.A. at id. Here, the trial court refused to review records that are confidential

pursuant to the cited statutes herein. This was error, as the appellees concede based

on the precedent of this court that requires an in camera review when confidential

records are at issue in child custody matters.

Accordingly, this court vacates the judgment entries of the court

denying such review and the portions of the entries ordering disclosure of the

confidential documents without review. We remand for the trial court to conduct

an in camera inspection of the documents pursuant to the guidance in this opinion,

and then make a determination as to whether any of the documents require

disclosure to appellees.

Judgment vacated and remanded.

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

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution. Case

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR