Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 2001No. 76852Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLeo M. Spellacy, P. J.

I concur with the majority’s judgment and analysis of the first assignment of error. As for the third assignment of error, I agree that the permanent custody order regarding Dwayne should be reversed based upon the direct conflict between the guardian ad litem’s recommendation and the expressed wishes of Dwayne. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the permanent custody order regarding Dawhon and Destiny. The majority apparently opines that the juvenile court is required to appoint a separate counsel for the children even where there is no direct conflict…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Asberry v. PayneOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. In Re duncan/walker ChildrenOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API