In re K.M.
For Appellant
E. MARIE SEIBER
6525 Walkers Lane SE
Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683
For Appellee Tuscarawas JFS
NO APPEARANCE
{¶1} Appellant Krista N. appeals the decision of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her son, K.M., to Appellee Tuscarawas County JFS, which has not filed a response brief herein. The relevant procedural facts leading to this appeal are as follows.1
{¶2} On July 11, 2018, Appellee filed a “complaint for neglect, dependency, and kinship custody with protective supervision to TCJFS” regarding this child and six siblings, the children of appellant.2 Initial concerns included unstable living conditions, appellant‘s drug use (marijuana, methamphetamine, and “molly“), and appellant‘s mental health issues, although she had made arrangements herself to obtain caregivers for some of the children.
{¶3} On August 10, 2018, all seven children were found to be neglected and dependent, and they were ordered to remain in the temporary custody of various caregivers, with protective supervision to TCJFS. A case plan with a reunification objective was prepared by TCJFS.
{¶4} However, on May 8, 2019, TCJFS filed two motions to modify dispositions. In the first motion, the agency sought permanent custody as to three of the siblings, and in the second, legal custody to kinship caregivers as to four of the siblings.
{¶5} An evidentiary hearing was conducted before the trial court on July 11, 2019.
{¶7} Appellant-mother filed a notice of appeal on August 30, 2019. Appellate counsel for mother thereafter filed a conditional motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, infra, asserting that the within appeal “has no merit.” Counsel for appellant also therein raised one potential assigned error asking this Court to determine whether the trial court erred in modifying disposition of the child. She has therein asserted as follows:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT‘S DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.”
{¶9} Appellant was given an opportunity to file a pro se brief raising additional assignments of error, but she has not done so.3
Anders Criteria and Applicability
{¶10} In Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, the United States Supreme Court established five criteria which must be met before a motion to withdraw may be granted: (1) A showing that appellant‘s counsel thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record in the case before determining the appeal to be frivolous; (2) a showing that a motion to withdraw has been filed by appellant‘s counsel; (3) the existence of a brief filed by appellant‘s counsel raising any potential assignments of error; (4) a showing that appellant‘s counsel provided to the appellant a copy of said
{¶11} Pursuant to Anders, if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant‘s counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Once the defendant‘s counsel satisfies the aforesaid requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines that the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel‘s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements, or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.
{¶12} We find appellate counsel in this matter has adequately followed the procedures required by Anders v. California, supra.
{¶13} However, we must note at this juncture that the present appeal, along with the additional six appeals concerning the child‘s siblings, do not stem from criminal cases, the usual arena for initiating Anders appeals.
{¶14} This Court has indeed held that the procedures set out in Anders are applicable to appeals involving the termination of parental rights. In re B.F., 5th Dist. Licking No. 2009-CA-007, 2009-Ohio-2978, ¶¶ 2-3, citing Morris v. Lucas County Children‘s Services Board, 49 Ohio App.3d 86, 550 N.E.2d 980 (6th Dist.1989). See, also, In re L.D., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00222, 2016-Ohio-3163, ¶ 15.
{¶16} Having reached this point in the proceedings in the seven cases of these siblings, some of which furthermore resulted only in legal custody, not permanent custody, we are inclined to herein complete our task under Anders in the interest of judicial economy.
{¶17} However, from this point forward, this panel will no longer accept Anders briefs for filing in cases involving permanent custody or dispositions of legal custody. See In re N.C. at ¶ 89. Furthermore, this Court will review the possibility of a change to its local appellate rules on this subject in the near future.
Analysis
I.
{¶18} Pursuant to
{¶19} In addition, pursuant to
{¶20}
{¶22} We find no merit in the proposed Assignment of Error, and it is hereby overruled. Furthermore, after independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel‘s conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. We therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel‘s request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as to this child.
{¶23} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, John, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/d 0116