In re Amonte A.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Amonte A., 2002-Ohio-7103.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY In the Matter of Amonte A. Court of Appeals No. L-02-1280 Trial Court No. 01097496 DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: December 20, 2002 * * * * * Stephen A. Meyer, for appellant. Dianne L. Keeler, for appellee. * * * * * KNEPPER, J. {¶1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that awarded permanent custody of Amonte A. to the Lucas County Children Services Board ("LCCS"). Pursuant to 6th Dist. Loc.App.R. 12(C), this case is assigned to the accelerated calendar. {¶2} Appellant sets forth the following assignments of error: {¶3} committed "I. The reversible trial court error when abused it its adopted discretion the and magistrate's decision which terminated the parental rights of appellant but failed to make an award of permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services Board. {¶4} "II. The trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by issuing a nunc pro tunc order awarding permanent custody of Amonte to the Lucas County Children Services Board." {¶5} Brenda A. Amonte A. was born on November 24, 2001 to appellant On November 27, 2001, emergency custody of Amonte was awarded to LCCS, for placement in shelter care, and on January 9, 2002, the agency received temporary custody. The agency filed a motion for permanent custody on April 23, 2002, a hearing was held on August 14, 2002, and the magistrate filed a decision on August 19, 2002, terminating appellant's parental rights. September 3, decision. No written objections were filed by either parent. {¶6} 2002, Appellant the trial filed a court timely adopted notice the On of magistrate's appeal. On September 12, 2002, the parties filed a joint motion for a nunc pro tunc entry regarding the September 3, 2002 judgment entry. In their memorandum in support, the parties stated that "*** it is clear that the court has merely inadvertently, through clerical error, omitted a clear award of permanent custody to the L.C.C.S.B. from its Judgment Entry and such an award should be made." been The parties further stated that counsel for appellant had made aware of the problem and that counsel joined his signature "*** for purposes of indicating his consent to the correction of the Judgment Entry and herewith asks that the Court amend his notice of appeal to include its Nunc Pro Tunc Entry, should it choose to enter such of record." by asking the trial court to "*** The parties concluded mak[e] a clear award of permanent custody of this child to Lucas County Children Services Board, as it intended." The memorandum was signed by counsel for LCCS and appellant's counsel. {¶7} On September 26, 2002, the trial court filed a nunc pro tunc order in which it stated that "[p]ermanent custody of this child is specifically awarded to the Lucas County Children Services Board." {¶8} the In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that trial because, court while erred the by adopting decision the clearly magistrate's terminated decision her parental rights, it failed to award permanent custody to LCCS. After a thorough review of the trial court record, this court finds that, while the trial court's September 3, 2002 judgment entry was lacking language specifically awarding permanent custody to LCCS, this omission was corrected by the nunc pro tunc entry filed on September 26, 2002. In her second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by issuing a nunc pro tunc order. As we acknowledged above, the trial court's omission was remedied, pursuant to appellant's request by motion filed on September 13, 2002, by the very nunc pro tunc entry of which appellant now complains. As clearly indicated in the portion of the memorandum quoted above, appellant consented to the correction of the judgment entry by nun pro tunc entry. Based on appellant's the foregoing, arguments this have court merit and finds that her first assignments of error are not well-taken. {¶9} On consideration whereof, this substantial justice was done the party court neither and second finds complaining of and that the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Peter M. Handwork, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Richard W. Knepper, J. ____________________________ Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J. CONCUR. JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
