Court Opinion

ID: 9950849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:11:57.427946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:54.581607
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re A.J., 2024-Ohio-953.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE A.J.                                   :

A Minor Child                                :               No. 113005

[Appeal by M.S., Mother]                     :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 14, 2024

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                    Juvenile Division
                                 Case No. AD-23901337

                                       Appearances:

                 A.E. Boles LLC and Alisa Boles, for appellant.

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee CCDCFS.

                 Roger M. Bundy, for appellee Father.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

                   Appellant M.S. (“mother”) appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“juvenile court”), filed on July 3,

2023, which adopted the magistrate’s decision and committed the minor child, A.J.,
to the legal custody of the child’s father (“father”). Upon review, we reverse the

judgment and remand the matter to the juvenile court with instructions.

              On February 1, 2023, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and

Family Services (“CCDCFS”) filed a complaint for abuse and dependency and for

temporary custody to father. The child was committed to the predispositional

temporary custody of father. In April 2023, CCDCFS filed a notice of amendment

of its dispositional prayer to legal custody to father. Following an adjudicatory

hearing, the child was adjudicated to be abused and dependent. A dispositional

hearing was held in June 2023.

              On June 16, 2023, a magistrate’s decision was filed that committed

the child to the legal custody of father. The magistrate’s decision also denied

mother’s motion for alternative placement and granted father’s motion to modify

custody, which motions had been previously filed.

              On June 24, 2023, mother timely filed objections to the magistrate’s

decision. Three days later, on June 27, 2023, the juvenile court issued a journal

entry in which the court found mother’s objections “are not well taken” and “do not

include an affidavit or any indication that a transcript of the proceeding has been

requested.” However, that same day, mother filed a request for transcript of the

proceedings, which the magistrate granted in an entry journalized on June 29, 2023.

Notwithstanding the transcript request, on July 3, 2023, the juvenile court issued a

judgment entry that adopted the June 16, 2023 magistrate’s decision and ordered

the child committed to the legal custody of father.
              Mother timely filed this appeal. She raises two assignments of error

for our review. We begin by addressing the second assignment of error, under which

mother claims she was not afforded the appropriate time to submit a transcript in

support of her objections. CCDCFS concedes in its brief that there is some merit to

this argument and that the second assignment of error should be sustained. Father

filed a notice of concurrence with the brief of CCDCFS.

              The record shows that mother timely filed her objections to the

magistrate’s decision within the 14-day period permitted under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b).

She also filed a request for a transcript that was granted. Mother had 30 days from

filing her objections to file a transcript and could be given an extension pursuant to

Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b). The relevant portions of Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) provide as follows:

      (b) Objections to magistrate’s decision.

      (i) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a
      magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision,
      whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-
      day period as permitted by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e)(i). * * *

      ***

      (iii) Objection to magistrate’s factual finding, transcript or
      affidavit. An objection to a factual finding * * * shall be supported by
      a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to
      that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not
      available. * * * The objecting party shall file the transcript or affidavit
      with the court within thirty days after filing objections unless the court
      extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other
      good cause. If a party files timely objections prior to the date on which
      a transcript is prepared, the party may seek leave of court to
      supplement the objections.
              Additionally, Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) provides that in ruling on timely

objections to a magistrate’s decision, “the court shall undertake an independent

review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly

determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” This independent

review requires the juvenile court to conduct a de novo review of the facts and to

reach its own conclusions about the issues in the case. In re Y.H., 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-230132, 2023-Ohio-2272, ¶ 32, citing In re A.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-180056, 2019-Ohio-2359, ¶ 20. “As this court has previously held, ‘it is an

abuse of discretion to adopt a magistrate’s decision over an objection to factual

findings prior to its receipt of a timely requested transcript or other materials

necessary to conduct an independent review of the matter.’” In re A.C., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 108442, 2019-Ohio-5127, ¶ 21, quoting In re H.R.K., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 97780, 2012-Ohio-4054, ¶ 12; see also In re I.R.Q., 8th Dist.

No. 105924, 2018-Ohio-292, ¶ 24-25.

              The record herein reflects that the juvenile court ruled upon mother’s

objections three days after her objections were filed. Although nothing in the rule

required mother to alert the juvenile court of her intent to request a transcript, the

better practice would have been to do so. Nonetheless, mother had 30 days within

which to file a transcript, and she had requested a transcript of the proceedings that

was granted by the court magistrate. Notwithstanding that request, the juvenile

court proceeded to enter a final judgment entry in the matter without reviewing the

transcript.
               Accordingly, we find the juvenile court abused its discretion by

prematurely adopting the magistrate’s decision without waiting for the transcript to

be submitted in order to conduct the independent review required by

Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). See In re A.C. at ¶ 28; In re I.R.Q. at ¶ 24-25; In re Y.H. at

¶ 36-37. “[A] juvenile court cannot ‘purport to conduct an independent review of

the evidence when it [knows] that there [is] a transcript of the trial being prepared.’”

In re Y.H. at ¶ 34, citing In re R.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94885, 2010-Ohio-4690,

¶ 7, fn. 1. Mother’s second assignment of error is sustained. The first assignment of

error is rendered moot, and we are unable to address the issue of legal custody in

this appeal.

               For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment

and remand the matter to the juvenile court with instructions for the court to permit

mother to file the requested transcript and to then conduct the independent review

required by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) with regard to mother’s objections.

               Judgment reversed, and case remanded with instructions.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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.

______________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR