In re S.P. ( 2024 )

[Cite as In re S.P., 2024-Ohio-3405.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
IN RE S.P., ET AL. :
: Nos. 113647 and 113993
Minor Children :
:
[Appeal by CCDCFS] :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 5, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Juvenile Division
Case Nos. AD23914206, AD24903137, AD24903138, AD24903139, and
AD24903140
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellant.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Britta Barthol, Assistant Public Defender, for appellees.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J.:
Appellant Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services
(“CCDCFS”) brings the instant interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s
identical decisions in two separate child custody matters ordering CCDCFS to
disclose confidential records to opposing counsel without first reviewing the records
in camera. Appellees concede the error, and as such, this court vacates the decision
of the trial court and remands for the trial court to perform an in camera review of
the confidential records.
The factual history is of no consequence to the instant appeal. Both
cases involve child custody cases that are only in the discovery phase. In both cases,
CCDCFS filed a motion for in camera review of confidential records and asked the
trial court to determine whether exculpatory evidence that is material to the defense
exists before providing that information to the defense. In both cases, a magistrate
reviewed the motions and denied them, instead ordering CCDCFS to “comply with
Juvenile Rule 24” and “disclose to Opposing Counsel any exculpatory or
contradictory evidence, contained in but not limited to, the [CCDCFS] Caseworker’s
File that would be beneficial to the opposing party’s defense,” and to “redact any
confidential referent information to resolve any concern made by Counsel for
[CCDCFS].”
In both matters, CCDCFS filed a motion to set aside that portion of the
magistrate’s order, arguing that the trial court is required to conduct an in camera
review of CCDCFS’s records prior to ordering their disclosure. The trial court denied
the motions to set aside the respective portions of the magistrate’s order, and
CCDCFS filed the instant appeals, which were consolidated for review based on the
identical issue presented in both. CCDCFS assigns the following error for our
review:
The trial court erred as a matter of law by ordering CCDCFS to disclose
confidential agency records to opposing counsel without first reviewing
said records in camera as is required by law.
Civ.R. 26(B)(1) provides that discovery may be obtained “regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Juv.R.
24(A) provides that the parties providing discovery when requested shall “to the
extent not privileged, produce promptly for inspection, copying, or photographing
the . . . information, documents, and material in that party’s custody, control, or
possession[.]”
In this appeal, the discovery specifically pertained to caseworker files
kept by CCDCFS, nearly all of which are deemed “confidential” pursuant to the
following relevant statutory sections. R.C. 5153.17 provides that records “of
investigation of families, children, and foster homes, and of the care, training and
treatment afforded children [and] other records as are required by the department
of job and family services. . . shall be confidential.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 5101.131
provides that information contained in the SACWIS system utilized by CCDCFS to
store its case management files “is confidential. . . .” R.C. 2151.421, that governs
reports of child abuse or neglect, provides, with some exceptions, that “[a] report
made under this section is confidential” and that “no person shall permit or
encourage the unauthorized dissemination of the contents of any report made under
this section.” R.C. 2151.421(I)(1); 2151.421(I)(2)(a).
It is undisputed, however, that this confidentiality is not absolute. See
Vaughan v. Shaker Hts., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106449 at 11 (N.D. Ohio July 30,
2013) (collecting cases). To this end, numerous Ohio courts have acknowledged
that, where appropriate, the records must be made available to the trial court for an
in camera inspection before they are disclosed. Vaughan at id.In particular, this court’s precedent mandates the use of
an in camera examination of the agency records to determine whether:
(1) the records are relevant and necessary to the pending action (2)
whether the individual seeking disclosure has demonstrated good
cause; and (3) whether admission of the records outweighs the
statutory confidentiality considerations.
State v. McCutchen, 2023-Ohio-368, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), citing In re C.A., 2015-Ohio-
4768, ¶ 80 (8th Dist.); State v. Sahady, 2004-Ohio-3481, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.); Child
Care Provider Certification Dept. v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-6500, ¶ 11-13 (8th Dist.);
Johnson v. Johnson, 134 Ohio App.3d 579, 585 (3d Dist. 1999).
“Good cause” requires the trial court to consider whether the due
process rights of the accused are implicated, whether it is in the best interest of the
child, and whether the records are material to the defense or fair trial considerations
are at stake. Johnson at 583.
As this court has previously stated, “where, as here, a request is made
for confidential documents that may contain information material to the defense of
an accused, the trial court must balance the due process rights of an accused against
the privacy rights at issue” and this requires the trial court to “examine the
documents, in camera, to determine if they contain evidence material to the defense
of the accused.” In re C.A. at id.Here, the trial court refused to review records that are confidential
pursuant to the cited statutes herein. This was error, as the appellees concede based
on the precedent of this court that requires an in camera review when confidential
records are at issue in child custody matters.
Accordingly, this court vacates the judgment entries of the court
denying such review and the portions of the entries ordering disclosure of the
confidential documents without review. We remand for the trial court to conduct
an in camera inspection of the documents pursuant to the guidance in this opinion,
and then make a determination as to whether any of the documents require
disclosure to appellees.
Judgment vacated and remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellees 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. Case
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR