[Cite as In re M.S., 2022-Ohio-1843.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE M.S. :

:

: Nos. 110955 and 110956

 :

[Appeal by GAL, Melanie Giamaria] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 2, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Juvenile Division

Case Nos. AD21902787 and AD17919329

Appearances:

Melanie Giamaria, pro se. 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Katherine E. Mullin, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

In this consolidated appeal, appellate appointed counsel and guardian 

ad litem (“GAL”), Melanie Giamaria (“Giamaria”),1 appeals orders of the juvenile 

1 Although the notice of appeal states that M.S. and Z.G. respectively, filed the 

instant appeal by and through their GAL and appointed counsel (Giamaria), the record 

reflects that Giamaria, and not M.S. or Z.G., is prosecuting this consolidated appeal and 
court denying her motions for extraordinary fees in two separate cases. For the 

reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Procedural and Factual History

In re Z.G.

On December 26, 2017, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and 

Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency”) filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga 

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, for abuse, neglect, dependency, and 

for protective supervision to the agency. In the complaint, CCDCFS alleged, among 

other things, that K.G. (“Mother”) had engaged in excessive and inappropriate 

discipline towards her son, Z.G., born December 4, 2009. Further, Z.G. had special 

needs that Mother was not appropriately addressing by failing to administer Z.G.’s 

medications, which was causing him to display aggressive and impulsive behavior.

On May 26, 2020, following years of litigation, the juvenile court 

granted Mother’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and issued an order 

appointing Giamaria as Mother’s new counsel. The order stated that upon 

completion of Giamaria’s services, she must submit an original itemized motion for 

appointed counsel fees and two copies of the services rendered in preparation for 

trial or other disposition of the case as well as other documentation required by the 

Assigned Counsel and GAL Fee Policy and Loc.R. 14 of the Cuyahoga County Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“Cuyahoga C.P. Loc.Juv.R.”).

is the interested party. Neither M.S. nor Z.G. challenge the dispositions in the underlying 

matters and are not parties to this appeal.
On September 29, 2021, Giamaria filed a motion for extraordinary fees. 

The motion stated that Giamaria expended a total of 65.8 hours, which included 

59.9 out-of-court hours and 5.9 in-court hours, representing Mother. 

In her brief in support, Giamaria stated that 

[t]he case had been going on for approximately three years with several 

attorneys having tried to work with the client. The last attorney asked 

to be removed and I was asked to represent her. As a licensed attorney 

and licensed independent social worker supervisor in the State of Ohio, 

I used many different skills in order to help this client. After several 

motions for permanent custody, client had custody returned to her with 

court ordered supervision — a disposition most did not see possible. I 

worked very hard on this case with the goal of keeping a child out of the 

system and with a mother that loves him.

Giamaria attached an itemized fee statement detailing the days of 

service and hours worked. Giamaria requested a total of $2,691 in extraordinary 

fees for her services as appointed counsel for Mother.

On October 7, 2021, the juvenile court journalized an entry denying 

Giamaria’s motion for extraordinary fees. The journal entry stated: “Upon review 

of the Motion, the Court finds said Motion is not well-taken.” The juvenile court 

approved a total of $800 in fees for Giamaria’s services as appointed counsel for 

Mother.

In re M.S.

On April 8, 2021, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect and for 

temporary custody of M.S., born January 1, 2007, to the agency. The complaint 

alleged that M.S. had diabetes and has had several hospitalizations due to elevated 

sugar levels and that the mother had failed to ensure that M.S.’ condition was 
properly managed. Additionally, M.S. had been diagnosed with depression and 

treatment had been recommended, but the mother minimized the importance of 

treatment of the child’s mental health.

On April 13, 2021, the juvenile court issued an order appointing 

Giamaria as M.S.’ GAL. The order provided that Giamaria could inspect, and copy 

records related to M.S., shall be notified of any hearings and proceedings concerning 

M.S., and shall comply with the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio. 

The order stated that upon the completion of Giamaria’s services, she must submit 

an itemized statement of her services and “all other documentation” pursuant to the 

Assigned Counsel and GAL fee policy and Cuyahoga C.P. Loc.Juv.R. 15(D).

 On September 20, 2021, Giamaria filed a motion for extraordinary 

fees. The motion stated that Giamaria expended a total of 36.2 hours, which 

included 30.2 out-of-court hours and 6 in-court hours, representing M.S. 

In her brief in support, Giamaria stated that 

[t]his case has unique facts that require a GAL with the willingness to 

go over and above what is typically required. The child struggles with 

Juvenile Diabetes and behavioral issues that continually put her life in 

jeopardy. As a licensed attorney and licensed independent social 

worker supervisor in the State of Ohio, GAL used many different skills 

in order to help the child with an array of traumas while intensely 

working with a team of medical professionals at the Cleveland Clinic 

and trying to make recommendations in the child’s best interest with 

very few resources available.

Giamaria attached an itemized fee statement detailing the days of 

service and hours worked. Giamaria requested a total of $2,172 in extraordinary 

fees for her services as GAL for M.S.
On October 7, 2021, the juvenile court journalized an entry denying 

Giamaria’s motion for extraordinary fees. The journal entry stated: “Upon review 

of the Motion, the Court finds said Motion is not well-taken.” The juvenile court 

approved a total of $1,000 in fees for Giamaria’s services as M.S.’ GAL.

Giamaria now appeals both orders and assigns the following two 

errors for review:2

Assignment of Error No.1

The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award 

Appellant/GAL extraordinary fees due to the complexity of the case 

which required the specialized experience and skill set of

Appellant/GAL. 

Assignment of Error No. 2

The trial court misled Appellant/GAL to believe that she would be fully 

compensated when she agreed to undertake this complex case at the 

specific request of the trial court.

Law and Analysis

For ease of discussion and because of their common basis in fact and 

law, we will address the assignments of error together. Also, although one order 

involves appointed counsel’s fees and the other GAL’s fees, the legal analysis will be 

the same. Collectively, Giamaria argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion 

when it failed to award extraordinary fees for her services in the respective cases.

2 Except for the reference to the capacity in which Giamaria provided services in 

the respective matters — appointed counsel or GAL — the assignments of error are 

identical. Therefore, we will list only one set.
We review a juvenile court’s order regarding compensation to a GAL

for abuse of discretion. In re I.A.G., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103656, 2016-Ohio3326, ¶ 22; Robbins v. Ginese, 93 Ohio App.3d 370, 372, 638 N.E.2d 627 (8th 

Dist.1994). “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that 

would support that decision.” AAAA Ents. Inc. v. River Place Community Urban 

Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990); see also Ockunzzi v. 

Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102347, 2015-Ohio-2708, ¶ 9 (“‘Abuse of discretion’

is a term of art, describing a judgment neither comporting with the record, nor 

reason.”). When applying this standard, a reviewing court is precluded from simply 

substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. 

Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993).

Preliminarily, and applicable to the first of the two orders, Cuyahoga 

C.P. Loc.Juv.R. 14(D) addresses the compensation of assigned counsel in juvenile 

cases. It provides, in relevant part:

(1) Assigned counsel shall be compensated in accordance with the Fee 

Bill Policy and Fee Schedule in effect at the time the attorney was 

appointed upon the filing of a Motion for Appointed Counsel Fees 

(Form OPD-206R and Form OPD1026R) and shall be compensated at 

the authorized rate for in-court and out-of-court time not to exceed the 

maximum fee cap in effect at the time of acceptance of the assignment. 

* * * 

(2) It shall be the responsibility of the assigned counsel to file an 

itemized and signed Form OPD-206R and to meet all requirements of 

the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Fee Bill Policy in effect at the time 

the fee bill is filed. 
(3) If an assigned counsel files a motion for extraordinary fees with the 

Clerk of Court, it shall be referred to the assigned judge for review and 

approval of payment.

Cuyahoga C.P. Loc.Juv.R. 15(D), applicable to the second order,

addresses the compensation of GALs in juvenile cases. It provides, in relevant part:

(8) In cases where the State is ordered to pay Guardian ad litem fees, 

upon the filing of Form OPD-206R, compensation to the Guardian ad 

litem shall be paid in accordance with the Cuyahoga County Juvenile 

Court Fee Bill Policy and Fee Schedule in effect at the time the 

Guardian ad litem was appointed. The Guardian ad litem shall be 

compensated at the authorized rate for in-court and out-of-court time, 

not to exceed the maximum fee cap in effect at the time of acceptance 

of the assignment.

* * *

(11) It shall be the responsibility of the Guardian ad litem to file in 

triplicate (an original plus two copies) a completed and signed Form 

OPD-206R and to meet all requirements of the Cuyahoga County 

Juvenile Court GAL Fee Bill Policy in effect at the time the fee bill is 

filed.

(12) If a Guardian ad litem files a Motion for Extraordinary Fees with 

the Clerk of Court, it shall be referred to the assigned judge for review 

and processing. If approved by the assigned judge, the motion shall 

then be forwarded to the Administrative Judge for final approval of 

payment.

Pursuant to the fee schedule in effect on May 26, 2020, when the 

juvenile court appointed Giamaria the legal counsel in the first matter, the hourly 

in-court rate was $50 and the hourly out-of-court rate was $40, with a cap of $400, 

which increased to $800 if the agency filed for permanent custody. On April 13, 

2021, when the juvenile court appointed Giamaria GAL in the second matter, the fee 

schedule in effect provided for an hourly rate of $60, with a cap of $1,000. 
With the above framework in mind, we now address Giamaria’s 

primary argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her two 

motions for extraordinary fees. Specifically, Giamaria contends extraordinary fees 

were justified in this case.

Recently, in In re M.H., 2021-Ohio-2777, 175 N.E.3d 1041 (8th Dist.),

we addressed issues of similar vein. In In re M.H., the juvenile court appointed legal 

counsel to represent a minor child in two juvenile cases. Id. at ¶ 2. The appointed

counsel filed a motion for extraordinary fees, explaining why the unique 

circumstances of the case required an “extraordinary amount” of services. Id. at ¶ 4. 

The trial court denied appointed counsel’s motion, stating, “[u]pon review of the 

[c]ourt file and the [m]otion, the [c]ourt finds said motion is not well taken. It is 

therefore ordered that said [m]otion is denied.”

In the instant case, like In re M.H., Giamaria, who had also been 

assigned to provide services in two separate cases, filed motions for extraordinary 

fees. As previously outlined, in the briefs in support, Giamaria detailed why the 

specialized training she possessed and the exceptional services she provided, 

demanded an award of extraordinary fees. 

However, in In re M.H., when declining to conclude that the juvenile 

court abused its discretion, we stated 

In this case, the juvenile court judge that presided over the juvenile 

delinquency proceedings reviewed counsel’s motion for extraordinary 

fees, and, in considering appellant’s motion, reviewed the “court file,”

was in the best position to determine whether appellant’s request for 

extraordinary fees was reasonable and warranted. As noted above, this 
court is precluded from merely substituting our judgment for the 

judgment of the juvenile court.

Id. at ¶ 23.

Here, like in In re M.H., the juvenile court considered the reasons 

Giamaria advanced in support of the motions for extraordinary fees and stated 

“[u]pon review of the Motion, the Court finds said Motion is not well-taken.” 

Ostensibly, the juvenile court considered the itemized hours Giamaria spent on the 

two cases, before concluding that extraordinary fees were not warranted. 

Here, the juvenile court was in the best position to determine whether 

Giamaria’s request for extraordinary fees was reasonable and warranted. In 

reaching this conclusion, we are not discounting the amount of time spent, energy 

consumed, and expertise utilized by Giamaria in these two cases. Yet, as previously 

noted, we are precluded from merely substituting our judgment for the judgment of 

the juvenile court. Again, as in In re M.H., we decline to do that here.

Secondarily, Giamaria argues she was misled into accepting the 

appointments and only accepted the assignments with the understanding that she 

would be fully compensated. 

However, counsel who accepts appointment as court-appointed 

attorneys impliedly accepts the fee schedule approved by the county commissioners 

and are bound by that schedule. In re Ashton B., 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-03-003, 

2003-Ohio-3092, ¶ 3, citing State v. Magruder, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 1228, 1985 

Ohio App. LEXIS 7281 (Sept. 27, 1985). Of note, Giamaria acknowledged, in her 
brief, the prevailing fee schedule and the respective caps. Because Giamaria was 

cognizant of the fee parameters attendant to the services she was assigned to 

provide, we are unable to conclude that she was misled into accepting these 

appointments.

We do, however, recognize the reality that appointed attorneys are 

not always compensated adequately for the services they provide to their clients. In 

re M.H., 2021-Ohio-2777, 175 N.E.3d 1041, at ¶ 27, citing In re C.W., 9th Dist. Wayne 

No. 18AP0020, 2019-Ohio-2058, at ¶ 13 (“[w]e are not insensitive to the reality that 

appointed counsel are quite often inadequately compensated for their services.”).

Upon consideration of the entire record, we find that the juvenile

court’s decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The juvenile 

court’s decision denying the motions for extraordinary fees does not constitute an 

abuse of discretion.

 Accordingly, we overrule Giamaria’s assignments of error.

Judgment 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 

Cuyahoga County 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.

_________________________

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR