[Cite as In re J.R., 2021-Ohio-3673.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE J.R., ET AL. : 

 : Nos. 110397 and 110398 

Minor Children : 

 : 

[Appeal by J.R., Father] : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 14, 2021 

 

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case Nos. AD18903882 and AD19902969 

 

Appearances: 

Mary Jo Hanson L.L.C., and Mary Jo Hanson, for 

appellant. 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.: 

In these consolidated appeals, appellant J.R. (“appellant”), the 

biological father of minor children J.R. and K.F.W., appeals the decision of the 

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court denying his motions for visitation and his motion 
to vacate.1 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental 

rights and determining that he lacked standing to have visitation rights after 

permanent custody had been awarded to the Cuyahoga County Department of 

Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “agency”). After a thorough review, we 

affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. 

I. Factual Background and Procedural History 

Appellant is the biological father of minor children J.R. and K.F.W. The 

record on appeal reflects that the children had been placed in the temporary custody 

of CCDCFS in 2018. The agency subsequently moved for permanent custody of both 

children. Following trial on the agency’s request, the court awarded permanent 

custody of the children to CCDCFS, and all parental rights were terminated, 

including those of appellant. 

Appellant did not appeal this judgment. Two months after the 

expiration of the time to appeal, appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment in each 

case and later filed motions to set visitation. A magistrate’s decision was issued in 

each case, recommending dismissal of the motion for visitation on the grounds that 

appellant lacked standing due to the termination of his parental rights. Appellant 

filed objections to these decisions, which were overruled by the court. The court also 

denied appellant’s motions to vacate. 

1 While the juvenile court denied appellant’s motions to vacate in both of the 

underlying cases, it appears that he has only appealed one of the denials. 
Appellant then filed the instant appeals, raising two assignments of 

error for our review: 

1. The Juvenile Court abused its discretion by terminating [appellant]’s 

parental rights and removing [appellant]’s standing to have parental 

rights, as the decision denied [appellant]’s substantive right of due 

process, which is a bedrock right grounded in custody law. 

2. The Juvenile Court abused its discretion by failing to acknowledge 

that there was evidence favorable to [appellant], and the Juvenile Court 

further abused its discretion by not considering this evidence. 

II. Law and Analysis 

Prior to considering any of appellant’s assignments of error, we must 

first address the issue raised by CCDCFS as to whether appellant’s assignments of 

error are properly before this court. 

Within his assigned errors, appellant challenges the judgment of the 

trial court in granting permanent custody of the minor children to CCDCFS and 

terminating his parental rights. However, appellant did not file a timely appeal of 

that judgment entry. Instead, appellant has appealed the subsequent orders of the 

juvenile court denying his motion to vacate and his motions for visitation. 

Consequently, appellant is attempting to employ the procedure of 

“bootstrapping” through his appeal by challenging the trial court’s denial of his 

motion to vacate and dismissal of his motions for visitation, which was a final 

appealable order from which appellant filed a timely appeal. 

“Bootstrapping” is “the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly 

and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.” 

State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135, 

¶ 9. Such attempt is “procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with 
the appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the 

order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result 

of that order” and is disfavored. Williamson, citing State v. Church, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838 (Nov. 2, 

1995); Bd. of Health v. Petro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104882, 2017-

Ohio-1164, ¶ 12 (noting this court’s consistent declination to consider 

bootstrapped claims). 

State v. Bhambra, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105283, 2017-Ohio-8485, ¶ 12. 

Our review in this appeal must be limited to the trial court’s denial of 

his motion to vacate and dismissal of his motions for visitation. However, 

appellant’s merit brief raises no arguments of any kind relating directly to the denial 

of his motion to vacate and motions for visitation. Appellant instead attempts to 

bootstrap arguments, raising time-barred assigned errors pertaining to the 

termination of his parental rights. 

The claimed errors are beyond the scope of the appeal, and appellant is 

attempting to bootstrap claims that are time-barred; accordingly, we are without 

jurisdiction to consider them. See Bhambra at ¶ 13, citing State v. Cottrell, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 95053, 2010-Ohio-5254, ¶ 20, and App.R. 4. 

III. Conclusion 

Appellant’s assignments of error are outside of the jurisdiction of this 

court. The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and 

LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR