2023 Ohio 1006
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellant Orlin Waldina Hernandez Caballero (maternal aunt) filed a "complaint for custody" (Jan. 25, 2022) seeking legal custody of Jose Carlos Lopez Hernandez (b. May 31, 2004), alleging his mother is deceased and his father abandoned him.
- Caballero sought service by publication on the alleged father; the magistrate issued a temporary custody order for Caballero but refused to proceed at initial hearings because an unknown father had not been properly served.
- Hearings were continued multiple times; Hernandez turned 18 on May 31, 2022. Caballero attempted to accelerate proceedings prior to that date but service issues persisted.
- On June 22, 2022 the magistrate dismissed the complaint for (1) failure to prosecute (failure to appear at a June 8 hearing) and (2) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Hernandez had turned 18; the juvenile court adopted that decision.
- Caballero appealed, raising four assignments of error (including that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to continue custody orders past age 18 to enable high-school graduation). She did not object to the magistrate’s decision below, so appellate review was limited to plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court retained jurisdiction after the child turned 18 | Caballero: court may retain jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.353(F)(1) to continue dispositional orders so child can finish high school | Court/State: Juvenile jurisdiction requires statutory grant; child = under 18; absent a dispositional order the continuing-jurisdiction exception does not apply | Court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction after the child turned 18 because no dispositional order had been issued; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Caballero failed to prosecute | Caballero: she did not fail to prosecute; no hearing was scheduled for June 8 | Trial court: dismissed for failure to appear/prosecute | Moot on appeal (jurisdictional ruling dispositive) |
| Whether paternity/service on an unknown father precluded proceeding | Caballero: preponderance showed paternity so unknown father service unnecessary | Trial court: service on all necessary parties required before proceeding | Moot on appeal |
| Whether the trial-court errors prejudiced Caballero (reversible error) | Caballero: errors deprived her of relief | Trial court/State: no reversible error | Moot on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases requires extreme circumstances)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (a court without subject-matter jurisdiction must dismiss)
- In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211 (1992) (jurisdictional grants in R.C. 2151.23(A)(1) and (A)(2) are independent)
- In re Hunt, 46 Ohio St.2d 378 (1976) (abuse/neglect/dependency complaints must allege particular facts supporting the allegation)
- State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 150 Ohio St.3d 230 (2016) (continuing jurisdiction arises only after issuance of a dispositional order under R.C. 2151.353(A))
- Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 1 (2021) (statutorily created juvenile courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction only as expressly granted by statute)