Background
Randall Conway sent a public-records request to the Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services agency seeking documents about a foster child placed in the Conway home. His request covered the child’s psychological, behavioral, medical, developmental, and educational history, as well as records concerning diagnoses, interventions, placement disclosures, and acknowledgment forms.
After the agency produced no documents, Conway filed a mandamus action against the agency and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark Zanghi, who represented the agency. Because the parties submitted affidavits, the Fifth District treated the respondents’ dismissal motions as motions for summary judgment and considered them alongside Conway’s cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Zanghi had no clear legal duty to produce the agency’s records. Although he provided legal services to the agency and acknowledged Conway’s request, he did not oversee or maintain the records, was not an agency employee, and was not otherwise legally responsible for providing them under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
The court also held that the agency had no clear legal duty to disclose the requested materials because they concerned investigations of a family and foster home and the care and treatment of a child. Those records are confidential under R.C. 5153.17(B) and therefore excluded from the definition of public records by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). Conway offered no evidence supporting good cause to permit access.
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to both respondents, denied Conway’s cross-motions, and dismissed the case. It also denied statutory damages and court costs because the agency had not violated an obligation under the Public Records Act.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney who represents a public agency is not necessarily the person responsible for producing that agency’s records.
- Children’s-services records covering family or foster-home investigations and a child’s care or treatment are confidential under R.C. 5153.17(B).
- A requester cannot recover statutory damages or court costs when the agency had no duty under the Public Records Act to release the requested records.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Ohio’s policy favoring broad access to public records does not override statutes expressly making children’s-services and foster-care records confidential. Even people closely connected to a child’s placement must establish a lawful basis for access rather than rely solely on the Public Records Act.
The opinion also underscores the importance of naming the proper records custodian in a mandamus action. An agency’s legal counsel does not become responsible for its records merely by receiving or responding to a request.