2020 Ohio 3086
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Father Jason Coykendall is parent of B.F. and J.F.; Marion County Children Services (MCCS) obtained ex parte emergency orders on June 14, 2017 and filed dependency complaints the same month (refiled Sept. 12, 2017 due to service issues).
- Adjudicatory hearing Oct. 16, 2017; on Nov. 13, 2017 the trial court adjudicated the children dependent.
- Dispositional process resulted in temporary custody remaining with MCCS (January 2018 entries).
- MCCS moved for permanent custody on Aug. 31, 2018; hearings were held Dec. 6 and Dec. 27, 2018.
- The trial court granted MCCS’s motions for permanent custody on Sept. 9, 2019; Coykendall received notice Oct. 28, 2019 and appealed Nov. 12, 2019, arguing the court failed to journalize the permanent-custody order within 200 days under R.C. 2151.414(A)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permanent-custody orders must be vacated because the court did not journalize a ruling within 200 days of MCCS’s motion under R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) | Coykendall: orders should be vacated because they were not issued within 200 days after the motions for permanent custody were filed | MCCS/Trial Court: R.C. 2151.414(A)(2)’s final paragraph states the time limit does not affect the court’s authority or the validity of its orders; the time limit is not jurisdictional; appellant did not raise the issue below or show prejudice | The court affirmed. The statutory 200‑day limit is not jurisdictional; failure to meet it does not invalidate the order. Appellant did not show prejudice and did not preserve the issue at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 2012-Ohio-5075 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (statutory time limits in R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) are not jurisdictional)
- In re M.C., 2016-Ohio-8294 (4th Dist. Scioto) (time-period noncompliance does not require reversal)
- In re M.W., 2008-Ohio-4499 (9th Dist. Wayne) (same)
- In re B.L., 2005-Ohio-1151 (10th Dist. Franklin) (same)
- Matter of J.D., 2020-Ohio-196 (5th Dist. Knox) (same)
- In re Sox, 2006-Ohio-7116 (7th Dist. Mahoning) (same)
- In re S.H., 2008-Ohio-3111 (9th Dist. Summit) (same)
- In re J.A., 2017-Ohio-997 (3d Dist. Defiance) (issue not preserved when not raised below)
- In re M.G., 2016-Ohio-5256 (5th Dist. Perry) (issue preservation and prejudice analysis)
- In re James, 2003-Ohio-5208 (10th Dist. Franklin) (no prejudice shown from delay)
- In re Allberry, 2005-Ohio-6529 (4th Dist. Hocking) (delay alone insufficient without prejudice)