In re J.R. ( 2021 )

[Cite as In re J.R., 2021-Ohio-3673.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE J.R., ET AL. :
: Nos. 110397 and 110398
Minor Children :
:
[Appeal by J.R., Father] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 14, 2021
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division
Case Nos. AD18903882 and AD19902969
Appearances:
Mary Jo Hanson L.L.C., and Mary Jo Hanson, for
appellant.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
In these consolidated appeals, appellant J.R. (“appellant”), the
biological father of minor children J.R. and K.F.W., appeals the decision of the
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court denying his motions for visitation and his motion
to vacate.1 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental
rights and determining that he lacked standing to have visitation rights after
permanent custody had been awarded to the Cuyahoga County Department of
Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “agency”). After a thorough review, we
affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
Appellant is the biological father of minor children J.R. and K.F.W. The
record on appeal reflects that the children had been placed in the temporary custody
of CCDCFS in 2018. The agency subsequently moved for permanent custody of both
children. Following trial on the agency’s request, the court awarded permanent
custody of the children to CCDCFS, and all parental rights were terminated,
including those of appellant.
Appellant did not appeal this judgment. Two months after the
expiration of the time to appeal, appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment in each
case and later filed motions to set visitation. A magistrate’s decision was issued in
each case, recommending dismissal of the motion for visitation on the grounds that
appellant lacked standing due to the termination of his parental rights. Appellant
filed objections to these decisions, which were overruled by the court. The court also
denied appellant’s motions to vacate.
1 While the juvenile court denied appellant’s motions to vacate in both of the
underlying cases, it appears that he has only appealed one of the denials.
Appellant then filed the instant appeals, raising two assignments of
error for our review:
1. The Juvenile Court abused its discretion by terminating [appellant]’s
parental rights and removing [appellant]’s standing to have parental
rights, as the decision denied [appellant]’s substantive right of due
process, which is a bedrock right grounded in custody law.
2. The Juvenile Court abused its discretion by failing to acknowledge
that there was evidence favorable to [appellant], and the Juvenile Court
further abused its discretion by not considering this evidence.
II. Law and Analysis
Prior to considering any of appellant’s assignments of error, we must
first address the issue raised by CCDCFS as to whether appellant’s assignments of
error are properly before this court.
Within his assigned errors, appellant challenges the judgment of the
trial court in granting permanent custody of the minor children to CCDCFS and
terminating his parental rights. However, appellant did not file a timely appeal of
that judgment entry. Instead, appellant has appealed the subsequent orders of the
juvenile court denying his motion to vacate and his motions for visitation.
Consequently, appellant is attempting to employ the procedure of
“bootstrapping” through his appeal by challenging the trial court’s denial of his
motion to vacate and dismissal of his motions for visitation, which was a final
appealable order from which appellant filed a timely appeal.
“Bootstrapping” is “the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly
and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.”
State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135,
¶ 9. Such attempt is “procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with
the appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the
order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result
of that order” and is disfavored. Williamson, citing State v. Church,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838 (Nov. 2,
1995); Bd. of Health v. Petro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104882, 2017-
Ohio-1164, ¶ 12 (noting this court’s consistent declination to consider
bootstrapped claims).
State v. Bhambra, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105283, 2017-Ohio-8485, ¶ 12.
Our review in this appeal must be limited to the trial court’s denial of
his motion to vacate and dismissal of his motions for visitation. However,
appellant’s merit brief raises no arguments of any kind relating directly to the denial
of his motion to vacate and motions for visitation. Appellant instead attempts to
bootstrap arguments, raising time-barred assigned errors pertaining to the
termination of his parental rights.
The claimed errors are beyond the scope of the appeal, and appellant is
attempting to bootstrap claims that are time-barred; accordingly, we are without
jurisdiction to consider them. See Bhambra at ¶ 13, citing State v. Cottrell, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 95053, 2010-Ohio-5254, ¶ 20, and App.R. 4.
III. Conclusion
Appellant’s assignments of error are outside of the jurisdiction of this
court. The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR