In re M.B.
On brief: John T. Ryerson, for appellant J.B.
On brief: William T. Cramer, for appellant H.B. Argued: William T. Cramer.
On brief: David K. Greer, for children-appellants. Argued: David K. Greer.
APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch.
{1} Appellants, H.B. (“Mother“), J.B. (“Father“), B.B., T.B., A.B., C.B., M.B., J.W.B., and D.B. (collectively “children“), appeal judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, that denied Mother‘s motions to dismiss the dependency actions involving her children and to return custody of the children to her. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals, we dismiss them.
{2} On April 20, 2016, appellee, Franklin County Children Services (“FCCS“), filed two complaints with the trial court alleging the children were dependent. One complaint concerned the older four siblings (B.B., T.B., A.B., and C.B.), and other complaint concerned the three younger siblings (M.B., J.W.B., and D.B.). The complaints alleged that the school-aged children were often absent from school, the family was struggling to maintain housing, and Father had tested positive for illegal drugs.
{3} At a preliminary hearing held on April 27, 2016, a magistrate initially granted FCCS temporary orders of custody for the children. In judgments effective June 14, 2016, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent children, and it committed the children to FCCS’ temporary custody pursuant to
{4} FCCS moved for permanent custody of the children on September 19, 2017. In judgments dated April 1, 2019, the trial court denied the agency‘s motions.
make arrangements to resume a parenting program, make arrangements for family counseling between the Children and herself, and * * * be prepared to present evidence of an executed lease for and the furnishing of housing for the Children and herself and a budget based on a realistic estimation of the expenses of her family and available financial resources.
Id. In the meantime, the trial court provided that FCCS would “retain temporary custody * * * of the Children herein until further order of the Court.” Id.
{6} The May 6, 2019 hearing occurred as scheduled. Apparently, the trial court was unsatisfied with Mother‘s compliance with its April 1, 2019 orders because it did not alter the existing custody arrangement after the hearing. Instead, in the May 6, 2019 orders that resulted from the hearing, the trial court imposed even more requirements on Mother: she was to perform drug screens; bar overnight visitors, Father, Father‘s brother, and her sister-in-law from her home; and bring a budget and detailed childcare plan to the next hearing.
{7} On May 30, 2019, FCCS again moved for permanent custody of the children. FCCS represented in its motions that Mother had not complied with the trial court‘s April 1, 2019 and May 6, 2019 orders. Both Father and the children filed memoranda in opposition to the second motion for permanent custody.
{8} On June 14, 2019, Mother filed in both cases a “Reply to Post-Permanent Custody Denial Motions and Memorandums.” In her filings, Mother questioned whether the trial court had the jurisdiction necessary to extend FCCS’ temporary custody of the
{9} At a hearing held June 18, 2019, Mother‘s counsel raised this point, stating, “I don‘t think the Court has the jurisdiction to keep the children in the temporary custody of the Agency, at this point, and I think that this case should be closed altogether.” (Tr. at 8.) Further argument revealed that counsel attributed the trial court‘s lack of jurisdiction to the court‘s violation of
{10} In judgment entries dated June 20, 2019, the trial court denied what it characterized as Mother‘s “oral motion” to “return the children to mother‘s custody.” On July 29, 2019, the trial court amended the judgment entries to correct the name of the FCCS attorney who attended the hearing.
{11} As we stated above, Mother, Father, and the children all appeal the denial of Mother‘s motions to dismiss the dependency actions and return custody of the children to her. As an initial matter, we must consider FCCS’ motion to dismiss these appeals for lack of a final, appealable order.
{12}
{14} Pursuant to
{15} Appellants’ analysis goes no further than this point.
must, as a threshold matter, establish that the right may not be vindicated on appeal after final judgment. “A substantial right is not affected merely because an order has the immediate effect of restricting or limiting that right. Rather, a substantial right is affected when there is virtually no opportunity for an appellate court to provide relief on appeal after final judgment from an order that allegedly prejudiced a legally protected right.”
{16} Here, Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court‘s judgments affected her substantial right to the custody of her children. The trial court has yet to enter any final disposition regarding the children. Once the trial court does, Mother may appeal if that disposition is contrary to her interests. In that appeal, she may raise as error the trial court‘s denial her motions to dismiss and return of custody to her based on the trial court‘s alleged violation of
{17} Appellants contend that Mother could have no remedy because the trial court could repeatedly extend temporary custody, without making any final disposition. The record, however, contains no indication that the trial court will go down this path. To the contrary, since the trial court rejected FCCS’ first motion for permanent custody, it has proactively pursued a final disposition for these children. A second permanent custody hearing is currently scheduled for later this month.
{18} Appellants also urge this court to follow In re D.J., 8th Dist. No. 107203, 2019-Ohio-1645. That case is not relevant because it involved an appeal of a different type of order. In In re D.J., a mother appealed from an order that continued a children services agency‘s temporary custody of the child. In the instant actions, the trial court denied motions to terminate the dependency actions and return custody of the children to Mother.
{19} Under
Motion granted; appeals dismissed.
SADLER, P.J., and BEATTY BLUNT, J., concur.