Opinion
2023 CA 0018
07-18-2023
IN RE: E.T.
For Plaintiff-Appellant HEIDI C. BACK, Pro Se For Defendant-Appellee TIFFANY D. BIRD Richland County Children Services
Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2021 DEP 00181
For Plaintiff-Appellant
HEIDI C. BACK, Pro Se
For Defendant-Appellee
TIFFANY D. BIRD
Richland County Children Services
Judges: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
OPINION
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Heidi Back appeals the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, modifying a case plan submitted by Appellee, Richland County Children's Services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} Heidi Back is the mother of thirteen-year-old E.T. and both were part of a case finding that E.T. was a dependent child. E.T. was placed in the legal custody of her father by a Magistrate on March 8, 2022 and Back objected to the Magistrate's Decision. (In RE: E.T., Richland App. No. 2021 DEP 00181).The trial court affirmed the decision and Back filed a timely appeal. (In RE: E.T., Richland App. No. 22CA52). Back sought relief from our order denying her "Motion for an Order to Produce and Correct the Record" by filing a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court declined jurisdiction, so that matter is currently pending before this Court.
{¶3} The trial court has taken no further action in the case of In RE: E.T., Richland App. No. 2021 DEP 00181. Back represents in her brief that Richland County Children's Services (RCCS) filed a motion in Richland County Common Pleas Case 2022 DEP 00034 requesting that E.T. be removed from the family case plan and that the motion was granted by the Court's order in 2022 DEP 00034. Back suggests that RCCS represented that this same request was granted within another case and RCCS, in its Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, represents that the motion was filed in three cases, but not Case Number 2021 DEP 00181, the matter currently before us.
{¶4} Back concludes by requesting:
* * this decision and all decisions made by Judge W. Steve McKinley, pertaining to this case be overturned in their entirety on the basis of the assignment of error that this judge does not know the meaning of reunification and therefore, could not have correctly or knowledgeably judged this case, or any other case regarding reunification, without knowing what it means to reunite a family. This decision should also be overturned by virtue of the fact that Judge W Steve McKinley is committing judicial error by allowing Richland County Children Services the ability to make changes to the case plan without a court order or the possibility of a hearing, contrary to the Laws.Appellant's Brief, p. 3.
{¶5} Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the "matter appealed from is not a final appealable order." (Appellee's Brief, p. 1). Back has opposed the motion to dismiss and attached the Notice of Proposed Case Plan Amendment, Certification of Notice of Proposed Case Plan Amendment and Update to the Plan and the only case referenced in those documents is In the Matter of L.G., Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2022 DEP 00034. In the record of the case before us, we find no order from the trial court removing E.T. from the case plan, presumably because E.T. was placed in the legal custody of her father, Shawn Taulbee and Back's objection "is not responsive to an Order or any other matters herein, either pending or resolved" Further, as noted by the trial court, Back's is objecting to a Case Plan Amendment filed in another case which does not pertain to E.T. "rendering the aforementioned, 'Objection to Modification' wholly inapplicable and irrelevant to the within matter." (Judgment Entry, Mar. 30, 2023).
{¶6} Back is representing herself in this matter and though we recognize that to a layperson the laws may appear complex and procedures daunting, "pro se litigants * * * must follow the same procedures as litigants represented by counsel." State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96, 2009-Ohio-4150, 914 N.E.2d 376, ¶ 5." 'It is well established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.'" State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Serv., 145 Ohio St.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238. "If the courts treat pro se litigants differently, the court begins to depart from its duty of impartiality and prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other litigants represented by counsel." Justice v. Lutheran Social Services of Cent. Ohio, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP-1153, 1993 WL 112497, *2.
{¶7} Back's appeal is therefore subject to the same scrutiny as any appeal filed on behalf of an appellant by counsel, and we find that her brief falls short of fulfilling many of the requirements of the Appellate Rules of Procedure. While we have some discretion with regard to our disposition of an appeal that lacks some of the requirements described in the Rules, we find we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal as it is not based upon a final appealable order.
{¶8} Generally, our threshold question is whether the court's judgment entry is a final, appealable order from which appellant can properly appeal now. In the absence of a final order, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514, 2007-Ohio-607, 861 N.E.2d 519, ¶ 14, quoting General Accident Insurance Co. v. Insurance Company of North America, 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540 N.E.2d 266 (1989). We are restricted to the record of this case to determine whether a final appealable order exists as "Our appellate review is limited to the record before us * * * Congress Lake Co. v. Green, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00002, 2019-Ohio-3487, ¶ 21. See Village of Somerset v. Shaner, 5th Dist. Perry No. CA-349, 1986 WL 5513 as quoted in State v. McGuire, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 18 CA 10, 2018-Ohio-4676, ¶ 47 ("* * * [a]ppellate review is limited to considering errors revealed in the record.")
{¶9} We have reviewed the record in this case and we do not find an order as described by Back. Both Back and RCCS suggest that the order is found within other cases before the trial court. However, a court does not have the authority to take judicial notice of the proceedings in another case, including its own judgment entries. Helfrich v. Madison, 5th Dist. Licking No. 08-CA-150, 2009-Ohio-5140, ¶ 49 quoting State v. LaFever, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 02 BE 71, 2003-Ohio-6545, ¶ 27; State v. Blaine, 4th Dist. Highland No. 03CA9, 2004-Ohio-1241, ¶ 17; Diversified Mortgage Investors, Inc. v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Revision, 7 Ohio App.3d 157, 454 N.E.2d 1330(4th Dist.1982); NorthPoint Properties, Inc. v. Petticord, 179 Ohio App.3d 342, 2008-Ohio-5996, 901 N.E.2d 869 (8th Dist.), ¶ 16. The rationale for this holding is that if a trial court takes notice of a prior proceeding, the appellate court cannot review whether the trial court correctly interpreted the prior case because the record of the prior case is not before the appellate court. Id., quoting Blaine, supra, ¶ 17; LaFever, supra, ¶ 27.
{¶10} We find that there is no final appealable order in this case because there is no order in this case. Both parties refer to an order that was journalized in a different case and while we make no decision regarding whether that order is a final appealable order within the context of the case in which it was rendered, it cannot serve as a final appealable order in this case.
{¶11} Back's appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
By: Baldwin, J. Gwin, P.J. and King, J. concur.