[Cite as In re D.J., 2014-Ohio-2778.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101180

IN RE: D.J.

A Minor Child

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the 

 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. AD 10919208 

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., S. Gallagher, P.J., and Rocco, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 26, 2014 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Michelle A. Myers 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

C.C.D.C.F.S. 

3955 Euclid Avenue, Room 305E 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE J.-B. 

Martin J. Keenan 

Buckeye Legal Center 

11510 Buckeye Road 

Cleveland, Ohio 44104 

For John Doe 

John Doe 

c/o Office of Clerk 

Juvenile Division 

9300 Quincy Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44106 

For J.H. 

J.H. 

#510-487, Lebanon Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 56 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036

Carla L. Golubovic 

Guardian Ad Litem 

P.O. Box 29127 

Parma, Ohio 44129 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services 

(“CCDCFS”) appeals from the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Division Court’s decision 

denying its motion to modify temporary custody of child D.J. to permanent custody and 

ordering that temporary custody continue. We dismiss for lack of a final appealable 

order. 

{¶2} In In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86, 2007-Ohio-4840, 873 N.E.2d 886, the 

Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court order denying the motion of a 

children-services agency to modify temporary custody to permanent custody and 

continuing temporary custody is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) 

or (2). This is the precise procedural posture of the case presently before this court. 

{¶3} CCDCFS argues that amendments to R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) and 

2151.353(F) enacted after the court’s decision in Adams that placed a two-year limitation 

on a juvenile court’s ability to extend temporary custody have undermined Adams’ 

authority going forward. The Ohio Supreme Court explained the underpinning of the 

Adams decision in In re C.B.,129 Ohio St.3d 231, 2011-Ohio-2899, 951 N.E.2d 398, as 

follows: 

The rationale for our conclusion in Adams was that the order denying 

permanent custody of the child to the children-services agency did not 

determine the action or prevent a judgment under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). 

Rather, the parties were subject to further court orders because the 
temporary-custody order remained in place and the status quo was thus 

maintained. Moreover, the children-services agency was not foreclosed 

from seeking a different dispositional order, such as returning the child to a 

parent, placing the child in the legal custody of a relative, or renewing a 

request for permanent custody. 

We also concluded in Adams that a children-services agency does not have 

a substantial right in the permanent custody of a child based on the fact that 

the agency has temporary custody of the child. In contrast, a parent does 

have a substantial right in the custody of his or her child. * * * 

(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 10-11. 

{¶4} CCDCFS argues that the trial court’s extension of temporary custody 

beyond the limitations of R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) takes this case outside the holding of 

Adams and renders the juvenile court’s denial of its permanent custody motion a final 

appealable order. We disagree. While we need not address the legality of the trial 

court’s temporary custody extension we find the above rationale for the court’s decision 

in Adams remains applicable even in light of the statutory amendments. 

{¶5} Furthermore, we note that this court has previously considered the 

continued viability of Adams after the relevant amendments limiting extensions of 

temporary custody beyond two years and reiterated that the denial of a motion to modify 

temporary custody to permanent custody is still not a final appealable order. State ex 

rel. C.C.D.C.F.S. v. Sikora, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93572, 2009-Ohio-5969, ¶ 11. 

{¶6} In Sikora, this court dismissed writs of procedendo, mandamus and 

prohibition filed by CCDCFS against a judge who denied a motion to modify temporary 
custody to permanent custody and ordered temporary custody to continue beyond the 

period set forth in R.C. 2151.415(D)(4). CCDCFS argued that it was without an 

adequate remedy of law because the order was not a final appealable order pursuant to 

Adams. While we agreed that Adams continued to apply to this fact pattern, we denied 

the writs because, as in Adams, CCDCFS retained the ability to file additional motions to 

modify temporary custody. Id. at ¶ 13. We did note, however, that if additional 

motions produced the same outcome from the trial court, we would be less likely to find 

such remedy constitutes an adequate remedy at law. Id. at ¶ 13. 

{¶7} In accordance with all of the foregoing, the order denying the motion of 

CCDCFS to modify temporary custody to permanent custody and continuing temporary 

custody is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) or (2). 

{¶8} Appeal dismissed. 

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

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. 

 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR