Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
IN RE K.V. Minor Child [Appeal by E.C., Mother]
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division Case No. AD17919014
REVERSED AND REMANDED
& Bartos, L.P A., and David Bartos, for appellant.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Rachel Eisenberg, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee C.C.D.C.F.S.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE.
1} Defendant-appellant E.C. ("Mother") appeals an
order of the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court ("juvenile
court") that extended temporary custody of her child,
K.V., to the Cuyahoga County Department of Child and Family
Services ("CCDCFS"). For the reasons that follow,
we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the juvenile
court to conduct an independent review of the
Factual and Procedural History
2} E.C. had custody of her daughter, K.V. On December 18,
2017, CCDCFS filed a complaint for neglect, as defined in
R.C. 2151.03(A)(2), and sought temporary custody of K.V. to
CCDCFS.  CCDCFS also filed a motion for emergency
temporary custody. On January 9, 2018, the magistrate found
K.V.'s continued residence with E.C. was not in the
child's best interest and found probable cause, pursuant
to R.C. 2151.31, for removal of the child. K.V. was committed
to the emergency temporary care and custody of CCDCFS.
3} A case plan was filed on January 12, 2018. The complaint
was amended on March 12, 2018, to find K.V. dependent, rather
than neglected, under R.C. 2151.04(C).  K.V. was
adjudicated on March 28, 2018, and the child was placed in
the temporary custody of the CCDCFS. On November 28, 2018,
CCDCFS filed a motion for extension of temporary custody.
4} Trial was held on March 11, 2019, and the magistrate's
decision was filed with the juvenile court on March 12, 2019.
The magistrate found continued temporary custody with CCDCFS
was in the best interests of K.V. The magistrate's
decision contained no facts or legal analysis justifying the
extension of temporary custody.
5} On March 18, 2019, E.C. filed a motion to obtain a copy of
the transcript from the January 11, 2019 hearing; on March
25, 2019, the court granted the motion. It appears E.C.
mistakenly requested the wrong hearing transcript and, on
March 21, 2019, filed an amended motion seeking the March 11,
2019 trial transcript. E.C.'s amended motion requesting
the trial transcript was granted on March 26, 2019.
6} E.C. objected on March 25, 2019, to the magistrate's
decision and requested leave to supplement her objections
upon receipt of the trial transcript.
7} On March 29, 2019, the court denied E.C.'s request for
leave to supplement her objections upon receipt of the trial
transcript and overruled her objections to the
magistrate's decision. On that same date, the trial court
approved and adopted the magistrate's ...