Court Opinion

ID: 9910058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 19:07:20.122609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:39.866279
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re B.S., 2023-Ohio-4548.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE B.S.                                    :
                                              :              No. 113014
A Minor Child                                 :
                                              :
[Appeal by A.A., Mother]                      :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 14, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                    Juvenile Division
                                 Case No. AD-23903564

                                        Appearances:

                 Helen Rhynard, for appellant.

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Zachary J. Lafleur, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:

                   Appellant A.A. (“Mother”) appeals from the juvenile court’s decision

awarding permanent custody of her minor child B.S. (d.o.b. 11/3/2010) to the

Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the

agency”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History

                In a previous juvenile court case, B.S. was adjudicated neglected as a

result of Mother’s substance abuse issues, mental health issues, and inability to meet

B.S.’s mental health, educational, and basic needs. As a result of that adjudication,

on May 31, 2022, temporary custody of B.S. was awarded to her father, D.S.

(“Father”).1

                On March 23, 2023, the agency filed a complaint for neglect,

dependency, and permanent custody to the agency with respect to B.S.                    The

complaint alleged that Father has a substance abuse issue, specifically with respect

to alcohol. The complaint alleged that Father had recently relapsed, exhibited

aggressive behaviors, and was kicked out of his mother’s home, where he had been

residing with B.S. As a result, Father was without a stable residence to provide for

B.S. The complaint further alleged that Father has not been consistently ensuring

that B.S. has access to mental health services and has minimized B.S.’s need for

mental health services, despite B.S. experiencing ongoing mental health symptoms.

                With respect to Mother, and relevant to this appeal, the complaint

alleged that Mother lacked safe and appropriate housing to care for B.S. and that

Mother has failed to complete services to address the concerns related to her

substance abuse, mental health, parenting, and inability to meet B.S.’s basic needs.

The complaint further alleged that Mother was recently charged with drug

       1 The initial case also involved B.S.’s brother, S.S.S.S. and B.S. share a biological
mother, A.A., but have different biological fathers. As a result of the initial adjudication,
S.S.’s biological father was awarded custody of S.S. S.S. is not a subject of this appeal.
possession and was subsequently arrested for violating her probation related to that

case.

                The agency received temporary custody of B.S. in March 2023. At

that time, B.S. was initially placed with a maternal aunt. This relative was initially

interested in obtaining legal custody of B.S. but following an incident in which B.S.

exhibited aggressive behavior, B.S. was removed from her aunt’s care and placed

with her maternal grandmother on April 18, 2023. The maternal grandmother was

also initially willing to obtain legal custody, but following an incident in which B.S.

was physically aggressive towards the grandmother, the grandmother informed the

agency that she was unable to adequately care for B.S. B.S. was then transferred to

a residential placement.

                On May 9, 2023, the court held an adjudicatory hearing. Neither

Mother nor Father appeared at this hearing. The court heard testimony from agency

social worker Adonte Haddox (“Haddox”). On May 12, 2023, the court adjudicated

B.S. neglected and dependent.

                On June 21, 2023, the court held a dispositional hearing. Again, the

court confirmed that notice and service requirements on both parents had been met.

Neither parent appeared for the dispositional hearing. The court again heard

testimony from Haddox, who testified that a case plan was developed with respect

to B.S., Mother, and Father, and the goal of the case plan was reunification. Haddox

testified that Mother’s case plan involved parenting, mental health, and substance

abuse issues.
              With respect to mental health, Haddox testified that the agency had

previously learned that Mother was diagnosed with acute stress disorder. He went

on to testify that when Mother was incarcerated earlier in 2023, Mother completed

a psychological assessment and the agency wanted to determine Mother’s emotional

stability to care for B.S. Haddox testified that the agency referred Mother to two

different places for mental health services.        Haddox testified that Mother

communicated to him that she had already completed a mental health assessment

and was not willing to complete a second assessment; however, Mother also declined

to sign a release of information that would have allowed the agency to access that

assessment or otherwise provide the agency with documentation related to that

assessment.

              With respect to parenting, Haddox testified that he had last spoken to

Mother earlier in June 2023, and she expressed that she was willing to engage in

visitation with B.S. but was not willing to discuss any case plan services. Haddox

stated that when the agency initially became involved with the family, Mother was

referred for a parenting course, and then Haddox provided an additional referral

when he was assigned to the case. According to Haddox, Mother did not engage in

any parenting-related case plan services.

              With respect to substance abuse, Haddox testified that Mother has a

known history of substance abuse.           Further, earlier in 2023, Mother was

incarcerated related to drug possession charges, and Haddox testified that the

agency was concerned that Mother’s substance abuse has impacted her ability to
care for B.S. When asked what substances Mother used, Haddox testified that she

self-reported use of alcohol and marijuana, but she was indicted for “possession of

LSD, meth, and [Vyvanse] without a prescription.”

               With respect to housing, Haddox testified that Mother reported that

she has stable housing in Parma, Ohio, but he has been unable to verify that Mother

has appropriate housing.      Haddox testified that throughout the case, he has

repeatedly attempted to meet with Mother, and Mother either refuses to schedule a

meeting at her home or schedules a meeting at her home only to cancel the meeting

in the hours leading up to the scheduled meeting time. Haddox testified that the

agency has sent correspondence to Mother, and it has come back undeliverable.2

               Haddox also testified as to Mother’s history of visitation with B.S. He

explained that since the agency obtained custody in March 2023, Mother has

completed two separate visits with B.S., in April and May of 2023. Otherwise,

Haddox testified that Mother has communicated a desire to see B.S. but has failed

to follow through with additional visitation.

               Haddox testified that B.S.’s case plan services related to mental

health. Haddox further testified that at the outset of the case, B.S. reported that she

had been wetting the bed. B.S. reported that she was fearful of Father and that she

wanted to see a therapist, but Father was unwilling to follow through with this.

According to Haddox, it was not until January 2023, when B.S. reported that she

      2 At the adjudicatory hearing, the agency presented evidence that an eviction action

had been initiated against Mother and was subsequently dismissed; Haddox was not able
to verify why the case had been dismissed.
was suicidal, that Father expressed any willingness to have B.S. seen by a mental

health provider.

               Haddox explained that B.S. was referred to a number of different

places for mental health services, and at the time of the dispositional hearing, B.S.

was receiving mental health services in a residential program through Ohio

Guidestone. Haddox testified that B.S. had reported a high degree of trauma, both

while being in Father’s temporary custody and prior to the agency’s involvement

with her family. Haddox testified that B.S. had an individualized education plan

(“IEP”) due to her ADHD diagnosis and gaps in her learning as a result of neglect.

               Haddox also testified as to B.S.’s custodial history as described above.

He explained that while the agency had not identified any additional relatives who

were willing and able to care for B.S., there was a family friend — the mother of B.S.’s

best friend — who had expressed interest in obtaining custody. Haddox testified

that the agency was not willing to recommend this individual for custody at the time

of the dispositional hearing because it had not yet established a relationship with the

individual, but the individual had already started the process of obtaining a foster-

to-adopt license to foster B.S., and the agency was willing to explore this option.

               Following Haddox’s testimony, B.S.’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”)

addressed the court. The GAL testified that it was in B.S.’s best interest for the

agency to receive permanent custody. The GAL testified that B.S. had “been through

a lot” but stated that she is “a very smart girl” and was currently getting the

treatment and services she needs. The GAL also informed the court that B.S. initially
expressed a desire to live with one or both of her grandmothers but was now

interested in living with her best friend’s mother. According to the GAL, B.S. had no

interest in returning to the custody of Mother or Father. The GAL did not submit a

written report to the court.

               At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated that it took the

GAL’s recommendation into consideration and made findings under R.C.

2151.353(A)(4), and the best interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through

(E). The court terminated the prior order placing B.S. in the temporary custody of

the agency and ordered that B.S. be placed in the permanent custody of the agency.

               On June 23, 2023, the juvenile court issued a corresponding journal

entry awarding permanent custody of B.S. to the agency in which it made the

following findings:

      In accordance with ORC 2151.353(A)(4), the Court may commit the
      child to permanent custody of a public children services agency or
      private placing agency, if the court determines in accordance with ORC
      2151.414(E) that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s
      parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either
      parent and determines in accordance with ORC 2151.414(D)(1) that the
      permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.

      The child’s continued residence in or return to the home of [D.S.] would
      be contrary to the child’s best interest.

      The court further finds that reasonable efforts were made to prevent
      the removal of the child from the home, or to return the child to the
      home and finalize a permanency plan, to wit: reunification. Relevant
      services provided to the family include: the Mother was referred for
      Parenting, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. The Father
      was referred for Domestic Violence, Mental Health, Substance Abuse,
      Parenting and Housing Services. The Child receives Mental Health
      Services.
With respect to the best interest of the child, the Court has considered
the following factors under ORC 2151.414(D)(1):

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s
parents, siblings, relatives, and foster caregivers and out-of-home
providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child.

(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed by the child or through the
child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child.
The GAL recommends permanent custody.

(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
been in temporary custody of a public children services agency or
private child placing agency under one or more separate orders of
disposition for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two
month period. This is the second time the child has been in Agency
custody.

(d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and
whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of
permanent custody. The child deserves a safe and stable environment
where the child’s needs can be met. This cannot be achieved with
either parent as the parents have failed to engage in and complete
services and remedy the cause for removal. Willing or appropriate
relatives have not been identified.

(e) Whether any factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply
in relation to the parents and the child.

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot
be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or
should not be placed with either parent, pursuant to ORC 2151.414(E):

(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and
notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the
agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially
caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed
continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions
causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home.

(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the
child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the
child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness
to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.
      (14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing,
      shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child
      from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical,
      emotional, or mental neglect.

      (16) Any other factor the Court finds relevant: The Mother has another
      child who was removed from her custody and placed in the custody of
      that child’s father. Mother and Father failed to appear for any court
      hearings on this case.

      The Court does find by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the
      best interest of the child to be placed in the Permanent Custody of
      CCDCFS.

(Emphasis sic.)

              Mother appeals, presenting two assignments of error for our review.

      I. The trial court erred when it awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS
      as its findings are not supported by clear and convincing evidence and
      not in the best interest of the child.

      II. The trial court’s decision to award permanent custody to CCDCFS is
      against the child’s best interest when the court fails to address the
      conflict of interest between the child and the Guardian Ad Litem and
      the Guardian’s failure to perform his duties.

Law and Analysis

I. Permanent Custody

              Mother’s first assignment of error argues that the trial court’s award

of permanent custody to the agency was error because its findings were not

supported by clear and convincing evidence and the decision was not in the best

interest of the child. Specifically, Mother argues that the court’s termination of her

parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the alleged

abuse was poorly described in the record, there was little evidence to suggest that

the children’s emotional and behavioral problems had improved while in agency
custody, and the agency’s allegations that Mother was not benefiting from case plan

services were unsupported by the record.

                A parent has a fundamental interest in the care and custody of his

children. In re L.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107708, 2019-Ohio-1343, ¶ 20.

However, parental rights are not absolute: “‘The natural rights of a parent are always

subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling

principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, 86 N.E.3d 1012, ¶ 29 (8th

Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979).

“By terminating parental rights, the goal is to create ‘a more stable life’ for dependent

children and to ‘facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.’” In re R.G.,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104434, 2016-Ohio-7897, ¶ 21, quoting In re N.B., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 101390, 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67, citing In re Howard, 5th Dist.

Tuscarawas No. 85 A10-077, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7860, 5 (Aug. 1, 1986).

                On a complaint alleging abuse, neglect or dependency with a

dispositional request for permanent custody, a juvenile court must satisfy a two-

prong test set forth in R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) before it can terminate parental rights

and grant permanent custody to the agency. The juvenile court must find by clear

and convincing evidence, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414(E), that the child cannot

be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be

placed with either parent. Additionally, the court must find that permanent custody

is in the child’s best interest.
              Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as “that measure or

degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not

to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal

cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or

conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538,

2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 42, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469,

120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

              “R.C. 2151.414(E) provides that if the juvenile court determines by

clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions listed exist as to

each of the child’s parents, ‘the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be

placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with

either parent.’” In re K.R., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112036, 2023-Ohio-936, ¶ 34.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2151.414(E) lists numerous conditions:

      (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and
      notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the
      agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially
      caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed
      continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions
      causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining
      whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the
      court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric,
      psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material
      resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of
      changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain
      parental duties.

      ***

      (4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the
      child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the
      child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness
      to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.

      ***

      (14) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing,
      shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child
      from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of physical,
      emotional, or mental neglect.

      ***

      (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

               Here, the court specifically cited R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), (14), and

(16) in making its finding that B.S. could not be placed with either parent in a

reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. Following a thorough

review of the record, we find that there was sufficient evidentiary support for these

findings.

               As an initial matter, we note that the record in this case is relatively

sparse; only one witness testified at each hearing, and neither parent participated.

               With respect to Mother’s failure to remedy the conditions causing

removal pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the record reflects that Mother either

completely failed to engage in services related to substance abuse, mental health, or

parenting, or failed to provide any documentation or sign a release of information

that would have allowed the agency to confirm that she had in fact engaged in case

plan services. Further, the record reflects that during the juvenile court proceedings,

Mother was incarcerated related to drug possession charges.
               With respect to Mother’s lack of commitment to B.S. pursuant to R.C.

2151.414(E)(4), the record reflects that Mother did not participate in the juvenile

court proceedings at any point.          While the record reflects that Mother

communicated with B.S. regularly and completed two visits with B.S., that is the

extent of Mother’s visitation with B.S. She likewise refused to provide the agency

with access to her home to verify that she had stable, appropriate housing for B.S.

               With respect to R.C. 2151.414(E)(14), relating to Mother’s

unwillingness to meet B.S.’s basic needs, the record reflects that, as discussed above,

Mother was entirely unwilling to engage in case plan services or visit B.S. more than

twice.

               Finally, with respect to R.C. 2151.414(E)(16), other relevant factors,

the court found that Mother’s other child was removed from Mother’s custody and

that neither parent participated in the juvenile court proceedings. Both of these

findings are clearly supported by the record in this case.

               In light of the foregoing findings, all of which were supported by clear

and convincing evidence, the trial court was required by statute to conclude that B.S.

cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed

with either parent.

               With respect to the second prong of the test, the court found that it

was in the best interest of B.S. for the agency to be awarded permanent custody.
              R.C. 2151.414(D) provides a list of factors for the court to consider in

determining the best interest of the child. Here, the court considered the factors in

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e):

      (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s
      parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home
      providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;

      (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through
      the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the
      child;

      (c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has
      been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services
      agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of
      a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the child has been in the
      temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or
      private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a
      consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in division
      (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously
      in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state;

      (d) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and
      whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of
      permanent custody to the agency;

      (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section
      apply in relation to the parents and child.

Specifically, the court’s journal entry acknowledged that this was the second time

B.S. had been placed in agency custody, that the GAL recommended permanent

custody, and that B.S. deserves a safe and stable environment where her needs can

be met, which cannot be achieved with either parent or with a willing and

appropriate relative.

              Our review of the record reveals that all of these findings are

supported by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the
trial court’s permanent custody determination was an abuse of discretion. For these

reasons, Mother’s first assignment of error is overruled.

II. GAL

               In her second assignment of error, Mother argues that the trial court’s

permanent custody determination is against B.S.’s best interest because the trial

court failed to address the conflict of interest between B.S. and the GAL and the

GAL’s failure to perform his duties.

               Mother asserts that the GAL’s recommendation for permanent

custody was at odds with the child’s wishes. This assertion is unsupported by the

record. The record reflects that previously in the proceedings, B.S. wished to be

placed with a relative, and at the time of the dispositional hearing, she was interested

in being placed with her friend’s mother. The record also reflects that at the time of

the dispositional hearing at this matter, while the agency was not prepared to

formally recommend that B.S. be placed with her friend’s mother, a grant of

permanent custody to the agency would possibly involve a placement with her

friend’s mother. Therefore, the assertion that a recommendation of permanent

custody conflicts with B.S.’s desire to be placed with her friend’s mother is

unsupported by the record. We see no conflict between B.S.’s wishes and the GAL’s

recommendation.

               We turn now to Mother’s argument that the GAL did not perform his

duties pursuant to local rules. R.C. 2151.281, which governs the appointment of a

GAL, requires a juvenile court to “appoint a guardian ad litem, subject to rules
adopted by the supreme court, to protect the interest of a child in any proceeding *

* * held pursuant to [R.C.] 2151.414.” R.C. 2151.281(B)(1). R.C. 2151.281(I), which

governs a GAL’s responsibilities and duties, provides:

      The guardian ad litem for an alleged or adjudicated abused, neglected,
      or dependent child shall perform whatever functions are necessary to
      protect the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to,
      investigation, mediation, monitoring court proceedings, and
      monitoring the services provided the child by the public children
      services agency or private child placing agency that has temporary or
      permanent custody of the child, and shall file any motions and other
      court papers that are in the best interest of the child in accordance with
      rules adopted by the supreme court.

              Further, Article IV, Section 5(A)(1) of the Ohio Constitution provides

the Supreme Court of Ohio with general superintendence over all the courts in the

state. In accordance with this authority, the Supreme Court originated the Rules of

Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, including the courts of common pleas and

the divisions thereof. Ohio Sup.R. 1. See In re D.E., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 20AP-

83, 2021-Ohio-524, ¶ 72. The Rules of Superintendence contain certain specified

provisions that apply in domestic relations and juvenile court cases where the court

appoints a GAL. Specifically, Ohio Sup.R. 48.03 provides a nonexhaustive list of

duties that GALs are required to perform, including providing the court

recommendations of the best interest of the child — which may be inconsistent with

the wishes of the child, act with respect and courtesy, and attend any hearing

relevant to the responsibilities of the GAL. Further, R.C. 2151.414(C) provides that

      [a] written report of the guardian ad litem of the child shall be
      submitted to the court prior to or at the time of the hearing held
      pursuant to division (A) of this section or section 2151.25 of the Revised
      Code but it shall not be submitted under oath.

               This court has consistently held that the failure of a GAL to adhere to

the requirement of R.C. 2151.414(C) is waived unless raised at the trial-court level.

In re R.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82453, 2003-Ohio-7062, ¶ 20, citing In re Cordell

v. Cordell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 60049 and 60050, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 1755

(Apr. 2, 1992). An award of permanent custody will not be disturbed where the GAL

failed to issue a written report and no objection was offered at the hearing. Id., citing

In re Keitner, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA 97-10-188, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3647 (Aug.

10, 1998).

               Mother did not appear at any proceeding in this case, let alone make

a timely objection to the GAL’s failure to submit a written report. As such, she has

waived this argument on appeal. An appellate court may recognize an error that an

appellant waived only if it constitutes plain error. In re T.C.K., 4th Dist. Washington

No. 13CA3, 2013-Ohio-3583, ¶ 16. The Ohio Supreme Court has admonished courts

to limit applying the plain error doctrine to cases “involving exceptional

circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the court, seriously

affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process * * *.”

Id., quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123, 679 N.E.2d 1099

(1997).

               This is not a case in which Mother’s perceived failure of the GAL to

fulfill his duties seriously affected the basic fairness of the proceedings. Our review
of the record shows that the GAL substantially complied with his duties to provide

the court with relevant information and an informed recommendation as to B.S.’s

best interest. For these reasons, Mother’s second assignment of error is overruled.

              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

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.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR