In re Smith

4 Citing cases

  1. In re K.B.

    C.A. No. 21365 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2003)

    Thus, an adjudication that a child is abused, neglected, or dependent followed by a disposition awarding temporary custody to a public children services agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2) constitutes a final appealable order. In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 161; In re Smith (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 788, 789-790. Here, the trial court adjudicated Appellant's minor daughter abused and dependent and adjudicated Appellant's minor sons dependent.

  2. In the Matter of Carpenter

    Case No. 01CA26 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2002)   Cited 3 times

    Because that order adjudicated Canyon's disposition, it was a final appealable order. Smith v. Lucas County Childrens Servs. Bd. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 788, 790; see, also, In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155. A notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days after the trial court enters its judgment.

  3. In re S

    102 Ohio App. 3d 338 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 101 times

    For purposes of the instant appeal, a summary of these facts will suffice. See In re Smith (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 788, 573 N.E.2d 1170; In re Smith (July 10, 1989), Lucas App. No. L-89-112, unreported, 1989 WL 385873; In re Smith (1990), 64 Ohio App.3d 773, 582 N.E.2d 1117; In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 601 N.E.2d 45; In re Smith (Nov. 21, 1991), Ottawa App. No. 91-OT-046, unreported, 1991 WL 325699. In 1988, appellee Ottawa County Department of Human Services ("OCDHS") filed its initial complaint seeking permanent custody of the four children who are the subject of this action: Forrest, now age seventeen; Dawn, now fifteen; Maurice and Ronald, ages thirteen and twelve, respectively.

  4. In re Smith

    64 Ohio App. 3d 773 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    This court has previously determined that the judgment entry ordering transfer was a final and appealable order. See In re Smith (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 788, 573 N.E.2d 1170. See, also, In re Smith (July 10, 1989), Lucas App. No. L-89-112, unreported.