In re A.P.
964 N.E.2d 56
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Tammy T. had legal custody of A.P. from 2009 until the trial court removed her from the case plan for violating protective supervision terms.
- In 2009–2010, A.P. was placed in Tammy’s custody and then placed under the agency’s protective supervision after a dependency adjudication and disposition.
- In July 2010 the juvenile court adjudicated A.P. dependent and placed her in protective supervision, with conditions requiring Tammy to obtain agency approval for contact between A.P. and Andrea P.
- In August 2010 the agency alleged Tammy violated court orders by leaving A.P. with Andrea without agency approval, moving the court to grant temporary custody to the agency, which the court granted after a hearing.
- In October 2010 the agency sought to amend the case plan for more flexible visitation; GAL Matyac objected and sought Tammy’s termination from the case plan based on allegations about Tammy’s boyfriend, a registered sex offender.
- On March 24, 2011 the trial court found Tammy unsuitable as custodian, terminated her from the case plan, and denied her request for custody or expanded visitation; the agency later sought permanent custody and stayed execution pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the March 24, 2011 order appealable under R.C. 2505.02? | Tammy argues the order affects a substantial right and merits immediate review. | Agency contends the order does not affect a substantial right and is not a final dispositional order. | Not appealable; no substantial right affected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St. 3d 86 (Ohio 1989) (special-proceeding interlocutory review; substantial-right requirement)
- Polikoff v. Adam, 67 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 1993) (statutory interpretation of appellate review; substantial-right concept)
- State ex rel. Fowler v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1994) (procedural scope of appealability in special proceedings)
- In re C.S., 2010-Ohio-4463 (9th Dist. 2010) (record distortion from prolonged denial of visitation; not controlling for appealability of modification orders)
- In re T.M., 2006-Ohio-6548 (12th Dist. 2006) (case-plan-goal modification not appealable where no final disposition)