[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-Ohio4768, ¶ 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