In re B.D.
2012 Ohio 2223
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- B.D. was adjudicated delinquent for rape and sexual imposition in Guernsey County, Ohio.
- Dispositional order placed him with the Ohio Department of Youth Services for up to his 21st birthday with 90-day jail terms concurrent after high school.
- SAY Program and safety planning were ordered; father to participate in a parent component.
- Release from jail occurred in September 2009; SAY Program completed in December 2010; hearing requested January 2011 prior to 21st birthday.
- Sex offender classification hearing was scheduled post-21st birthday and conducted on June 28, 2011 after delays.
- Trial court concluded the hearing was a continuation of the delinquency case and had jurisdiction to complete the required proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does jurisdiction exist to classify after 21? | State: court retains jurisdiction to complete proceedings in delinquency case. | B.D.: jurisdiction ends at 21; classification after 21 improper. | Jurisdiction existed; hearing continuation valid; classification proper. |
| Was the hearing timely after release and SAY completion? | Court may delay to assess SAY program; timing within reasonable period. | Significant delay after SAY undermined timely resolution. | Delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances; hearing timely enough. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.M., 188 Ohio App.3d 318 (3rd Dist. 2010) (holds jurisdiction may end at 21 to begin classification; distinguished)
- In re A.R.R., 194 Ohio App.3d 40 (4th Dist. 2011) (classification timing discussed; pre-21 original order context)
- State ex rel. N.A. v. Cross, 125 Ohio St.3d 6 (2010) (supreme court allowed proceeding with delinquency hearing despite age)
- State v. Brown, 186 Ohio App.3d 309 (8th Dist. 2010) (reasonableness of delay in classification proceedings)