In Re J.J.
{¶ 3} Jacobson filed a motion for relief pursuant to
{¶ 4} Jacobson timely appealed, raising one assignment of error.
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Jacobson maintains that the trial court erred by denying her motion for relief pursuant to
{¶ 6} The decision whether or not to hold an evidentiary hearing on a
{¶ 7} In order to prevail on a
{¶ 8}
"(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse рarty; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment."
{¶ 9} In her initial
{¶ 10} As the trial court noted, the
{¶ 11} In hеr brief and second affidavit, Appellant proffered three averments in support of her
{¶ 12} We will first address Appellant's allegations relating to the testimony of the conservator. In a pretrial order, the trial court mаde clear that, although Appellant's medical conservator was an attorney, she did not serve Appellant in that capacity. The trial court cоncluded that the conservator's proposed testimony was therefore not privileged. Notwithstanding this order, Appellant maintained, in her second affidavit, that she believed that her medical conservator did serve as her attorney, and that she was surprised when the conservator testified against her at the permanеnt custody hearing. Appellant further alleged that newly discovered medical records directly contradict a piece of the conservator's testimony, which, Appellant maintains, conveyed the incorrect insinuation that Appellant ripped certain stitches in J.J.'s mouth following an operation.
{¶ 13} Appellant has previously challenged the admission of the conservator's testimony, in her direct appeal to this court. This court rejected that challenge. Seе In re: J.J. v. JoannJacobson (Dec. 31, 2002), 9th Dist. No. 21226,
{¶ 14} Likewise, the record indicates that the case plan bearing the allegedly forged signature played no part in the decisions of the trial court and this court. The trial court made no reference to the case plan bearing the disputed signature in its explanation of the factors underlying its decision, and this court affirmed that decision without reference to the case plan. Additionally, Appellant previously raised the very same allegation of forgery, at a pretrial status hearing. The trial court addressed that allegation and explained that any forgery of Appellant's signature on the case plan was of no relevance, stating in its order that "[w]hether or not Ms. Jacobson agreed with the terms of a voluntary Case Plan or complied with the same prior to the initiation of formal proceedings in the instant matter is not of consequence nor is it even being offered by CSB in support of its pending Permanent Custody Motion."
{¶ 15} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that none of the three allegations raised by Appellant in hеr brief and second affidavit, if true, would provide the basis for a meritorious defense or claim if
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immеdiately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
Whitmore, P.J., Batchelder, J., Concur.