[Cite as In re Adoption of C.L.T., 2012-Ohio-5706.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

Nos. 98686 and 98687

IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L.T. AND K.R.T.

(APPEAL BY FOSTER PARENTS)

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Probate Division 

Case Nos. 2012 ADP 07759 and 2012 ADP 07760 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Sweeney, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 6, 2012 
 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

Lawrence J. Rich 

Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A. 

55 Public Square 

Fourth Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE, 

CUYAHOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Steven W. Ritz 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

3955 Euclid Avenue, Room 305E 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} In this consolidated appeal, we are asked to determine whether the 

probate court abused its discretion in denying two petitions for adoption. 

The probate court based its ruling on evidence contained in confidential 

Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”) 

records, which the probate court inspected in camera. The petitioners did 

not have access to the records nor were they provided with notice and an 

opportunity to be heard on the information contained in those records. On 

these facts, we conclude that the probate court abused its discretion in 

denying the adoption petition. Accordingly, we reverse the probate court’s 

final judgment and remand for a new hearing. 

{¶2} S.T. and T.W.T. (collectively “the petitioners”) filed pro se 

petitions to adopt C.L.T. and K.R.T. (collectively “the children”) on March 1, 

2012. CCDCFS consented to the adoption. An issue arose as to the child 

welfare history of the petitioners, and the probate court ordered CCDCFS to 

provide the court with records for its in camera inspection. CCDCFS 

complied. A preliminary hearing took place on April 12, 2012, but because 

there is no transcript, what was discussed at that hearing is not a part of the 
record on appeal. On June 19, 2012, the probate court held a formal hearing 

to determine whether the adoption would be in the best interest of the 

children. A transcript of this hearing is part of the record on appeal. 

{¶3} At the hearing the petitioners testified as to the length of their 

marriage (Tr. 6, 16); the circumstances giving rise to their fostering the 

children (Tr. 9-12, 16-17); their other biological children (Tr. 8, 17); and their 

involvement with the children’s schools and other intervention programs (Tr. 

13, 18-19). 

{¶4} Petitioners began fostering C.L.T. when he was three days old. 

He was four years old at the time of the hearing. C.L.T. was born drug 

dependant and required special care for his developmental delays. 

Petitioners ensured that he received the appropriate interventions, and 

C.L.T. is now developmentally on target for his age (Tr. 10). K.R.T. is 

C.L.T.’s biological sister. She was also placed with the petitioners as an 

infant after being discharged from the hospital, and she also had 

developmental delays. Petitioners similarly ensured that C.L.T. received all 

appropriate interventions. 

{¶5} T.W.T. testified about concerns that had been raised regarding 

past reports of neglect and abuse with her biological children. 1 T.W.T. 

 1

These reports were what had initially prompted the probate court to order 
explained that during that time, she was in a volatile relationship with 

another man who was no longer in the picture (Tr. 14). She also testified 

that these children no longer lived in the home because they were all now 

adults, but that she has good relationships with these children (Tr. 14-15). 

{¶6} Avis Hall (“Hall”), CCDCFS case manager, testified that she had 

interacted with the petitioners and the children dozens of times over the last 

two-plus years, that the petitioners were well-suited for the children, and 

that, in her opinion, the adoption was in the best interest of both children (Tr. 

at 20-23). 

{¶7} Amy Filippi (“Filippi”), CCDCFS resource manager, also testified 

and stated that she had similarly interacted with the petitioners and the 

children dozens of times since 2009. Filippi stated that “[b]oth children are 

completely bonded,” that she “would never even think that the [children] were 

not [petitioners’] own children,” and that “[a]ll [the children’s] needs are met * 

* * [m]edical appointments, therapies, schools.” Filippi testified that, in her 

opinion, the adoption was in the best interest of both children (Tr. at 23-25). 

{¶8} The probate court asked only one line of questions during the 

proceedings. The questions were directed to T.W.T. and involved the status 

of her legal name. T.W.T. explained that she had legally changed her name 

 

CCDCFS to provide the confidential records for in camera inspection. 
with the social security office after she was married, but she had not yet 

changed her name with the Department of Motor Vehicles because she had a 

commercial driver’s license and wanted to wait until it was about to expire 

before she incurred the expense of a new commercial driver’s license (Tr. at 

25-27). 

{¶9} On June 26, 2012, the probate court issued its judgment entry 

denying the petition for adoption. In making its final determination, the 

probate court mainly relied on the confidential documents supplied by 

CCDCFS which the probate court had inspected in camera. The probate 

court did not ask any questions of the witnesses related to the documents 

contained in the CCDCFS records, nor were these records otherwise discussed 

during the hearing. The information contained in the CCDCFS records that 

the probate court relied upon was based on prior events from years past that 

did not involve C.L.T. or K.R.T. The probate court also relied on discussions 

that took place during the April 12, 2012 preliminary hearing, a hearing 

where no transcript was prepared. 

{¶10} The petitioners filed a notice of appeal setting forth two 

assignments of error for our review. CCDCFS sought leave to file an amicus 

brief. We granted the motion, and the agency set forth one additional 

assignment of error for our review: 
I. The probate court erred and abused its 

discretion in denying the Petitions for 

Adoption. 

II. The probate court erred and abused its 

discretion in considering matters that were not 

of record in its decision. 

III. The probate court erred when it did not 

issue a notice and provide an opportunity to be 

heard on the court’s concerns based upon the 

information in the child welfare records and 

the record of this matter does not indicate that 

any testimony was taken on this issue. 

Essentially, all three assignments of error point to the same issue: whether 

the probate court abused its discretion in relying on evidence reviewed by the 

probate court in camera, without providing petitioners a notice and 

opportunity to be heard on that evidence. Accordingly, we examine the three 

assignments of error together. 

{¶11} We review a probate court’s decision to grant or deny an adoption 

petition under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In Re Adoption of Ridenour, 

61 Ohio St.3d 319, 320, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). The probate court has 

exclusive, original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. In re Adoption of 

Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332, 2006-Ohio-4572, 853 N.E.2d 647, ¶9. Adoption 

is a two-step process, consisting of both consent and a consideration of the 

child’s best interests. In re Adoption of Jordan, 72 Ohio App.3d 638, 645, 
595 N.E.2d 963 (12th Dist.1991). In the present case, consent was not an 

issue because CCDCFS provided its consent for the adoption per R.C. 

3107.06(C).2 

{¶12} In making the determination as to whether the adoption was in 

the best interest of the children, the probate court ordered CCDCFS to 

provide records for its in camera inspection. Although CCDCFS records are 

confidential per state law, the confidentiality is not absolute. Sharpe v. 

Sharpe, 85 Ohio App.3d 638, 641-642, 620 N.E.2d 916 (11th Dist.1993). In 

some circumstances the trial court has the inherent power to order disclosure 

of these records and is entitled to examine the records in camera. Johnson v. 

Johnson, 134 Ohio App.3d 579, 584-585, 731 N.E.2d 1144 (3d Dist.1999). 

The parties do not dispute that the probate court had the authority in this 

case to order the records and to review them in camera. The court’s interest 

in reviewing the CCDCFS records was based on the child welfare history of 

T.W.T. 

{¶13} While such concerns are valid, after the probate court reviewed 

the CCDCFS records, it should have notified the petitioners, in advance of the 

hearing, as to what areas of the CCDCFS records were of concern. This 

 2

CCDCFS is statutorily permitted to provide consent. R.C. 2151.011(B)(32) 

(public agency’s permanent custodian status includes the right to consent to 

adoption). 
protocol would ensure that the petitioners had an opportunity to respond at 

the hearing to the probate court’s concerns. 

{¶14} We find that such notification and opportunity to be heard is 

necessary due to the unique nature of adoption cases. In such cases, the 

litigation involves only the court and the petitioner for adoption. Due to the 

confidential nature of the child welfare records, the petitioner does not have 

guaranteed access to the CCDCFS records, even if he or she is the subject of 

those records. See Johnson at 583-584. As a result, a petitioner cannot 

adequately respond to the contents of the CCDCFS records until the probate 

court informs him or her as to what areas of the CCDCFS records are 

creating cause for concern. 

{¶15} Further, with regard to the contents of CCDCFS records, there is 

no appeal right afforded to a person who receives a dispositional finding that 

abuse or neglect was “indicated” or “substantiated.” Ferren v. Cuyahoga Cty. 

Dept. Of Children & Family Servs., 8th Dist. No. 92294, 2009-Ohio-2359.3 

Because a petitioner does not have the opportunity to appeal the disposition, 

it becomes even more important that he or she has an opportunity to present 

his or her side of the story at the adoption hearing. Otherwise, the probate 

 3

CCDCFS investigates allegations of child abuse, neglect, and dependency, 

and at the conclusion of each investigation, the agency issues a disposition of 

“substantiated,” “indicated,” or “unsubstantiated.” Ferren at ¶4. 
court bases its decision on one-sided records that a petitioner has never seen 

nor had an opportunity to contest. 

{¶16} In the instant case, the probate court’s final judgment entry 

indicates that the decision to deny the petition for adoption was based largely 

on information contained in the confidential CCDCFS files. But the hearing 

transcript does not demonstrate that the probate court provided the 

petitioners with notice and an opportunity to respond to the evidence 

contained in the CCDCFS files. These files were reviewed by the court in 

camera and were not available to the petitioners. Further, the petitioners 

were not provided with an opportunity to appeal the dispositional findings 

contained in these records. The only questions that the probate court asked 

on the record pertained to T.W.T.’s legal name, but the final judgment 

denying the adoption petition points to a number of other factors that the 

probate court asked nothing about at the hearing. 

{¶17} In light of the aforementioned special circumstances, we conclude 

that when a probate court is inclined to base its adoption ruling on evidence 

contained in confidential CCDCFS records, it must first provide the 

petitioners with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the information 

that the probate court finds relevant to the adoption petition. 
{¶18} We find further support for our holding in light of our decision in 

Child Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 8th Dist. No. 92294, 

2003-Ohio-6500. In Harris, the appellant lost her license to operate a 

daycare facility based on information contained in confidential CCDCFS 

records setting forth two past instances with her natural child where neglect 

had been “indicated” and “substantiated.” Id. at ¶1-2. After an 

administrative decision revoked the appellant’s license, the trial court upheld 

the decision. The trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the 

CCDCFS records, did not allow appellant’s counsel to review any records that 

were material to the court’s determination, and did not hear testimony from 

any CCDCFS caseworkers with actual knowledge of the substance of the 

neglect investigations. Id. at ¶10. 

{¶19} We reversed the trial court because it had not afforded the 

appellant any opportunity to present a defense to the evidence relied on 

against her. We held that it was an abuse of discretion to uphold the 

administrative decision when the trial court relied on an “in camera 

inspection, when the court did not allow defense counsel an opportunity to 

review material evidence, and where no testimony from a knowledgeable 

witness was presented.” Id. at ¶15. 
{¶20} We determined that “the confidentiality considerations of 

encouraging citizens to report child abuse and neglect, and professional 

personnel to speak or write freely about these cases, are outweighed by 

[Appellant’s] due process rights that are at stake.” Id. at ¶14. Similar 

concerns are present in the case at bar. The record does not reflect that 

petitioners had adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the contents of 

the CCDCFS records.4 

{¶21} Finally, our ability to adequately review the soundness of a 

probate court’s final decision is hindered where there is no testimony in the 

hearing transcript about the issues in the CCDCFS record that caused the 

probate court’s concern. Although the record on appeal may contain the 

CCDCFS records under seal, the record is still incomplete when it does not 

provide the petitioner’s side of the story with respect to the contents of those 

files. 

{¶22} We do find it worth noting that the hearing transcript indicates 

that: 1. all of the CCDCFS witnesses at the hearing had been in regular 

contact with petitioners and the children over the course of more than two 

years and were in complete support of the adoption; 2. the children in 

 4

The petitioners did not make a motion to the probate court to examine the 

CCDCFS files, so we are not asked to evaluate whether they had the right to 

examine the files before the hearing.
question have special needs to which the petitioners have tended; and 3. the 

children have been with the petitioners since they were newborns. 

{¶23} The probate court’s order is reversed. On remand the probate 

court shall issue a notice as to its concerns based on the information in the 

CCDCFS records and shall elicit testimony on these issues before rendering a 

final judgment as to whether to grant or deny the petitions for adoption. 

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

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

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. 

____________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR