Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re M.W.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

November 16, 2017

IN RE: M.W., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal By Mother]

         Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD 15902651 and AD 15902653

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Mark Stanton Cuyahoga County Public Defender, Erika B. Cunliffe Assistant Public Defender, Morgan L. Pirc Assistant Public Defender

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, C.C.D.C.F.S. Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Anthony R. Beery Assistant Prosecuting Attorney C.C.D.C.F.S.

          For D.D., Father Troy M. Hough

          Also listed: Guardian ad litem for Children Richard D. Summers McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A.

          Guardian ad litem for Mother Susan K. Jankite

          BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Stewart, P.J., and Celebrezze, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          SEAN C GALLAGHER, JUDGE

         {¶1} Appellant mother ("Mother") appeals from the orders awarding permanent custody of her two children, M.W. and D.D., to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS"). Upon review, we affirm.

         {¶2} On February 26, 2015, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging M.W. and D.D. to be neglected and dependent children. Along with the complaint, CCDCFS filed a motion for predispositional temporary custody, which was granted by the court magistrate. The children were placed in the emergency custody of CCDCFS on March 10, 2015.

         {¶3} A case plan was developed for Mother and the alleged father. The alleged father did not engage in any services or visit with the children during the pendency of the case. The case plan for Mother included parenting classes, domestic violence services, mental health services, and meeting the special needs of the children. The permanency plan was reunification.

         {¶4} An adjudicatory hearing was held on June 23, 2015. The parents stipulated to an amended complaint, and the magistrate adjudicated the children as dependent. The magistrate's decision was adopted by the trial court.

         {¶5} Among the allegations stipulated to in the amended complaint were that M.W. was previously adjudicated neglected and dependent because of concerns of domestic violence between Mother and the children's alleged father, that there was a need to ensure that the children receive services to address their developmental delays, and that Mother requires mental health treatment.

         {¶6} The children were committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS. On March 1, 2016, the trial court granted a motion for first extension of temporary custody. On June 16, 2016, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. The CCDCFS social worker involved in the case testified that there was still hope that "mom can turn things around * * * and that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.