2022 Ohio 654
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- RCCSB filed a dependency/abuse complaint as to G.T. on January 29, 2019; the dispositional hearing occurred May 7, 2019 (eight days after the 90‑day deadline) and the dispositional entry was journalized June 6, 2019.
- On April 16, 2019 both parents signed written waivers expressly consenting to adjudication/disposition beyond the 90‑day period; counsel for each parent signed and attested the waivers were knowing and voluntary.
- At the May 7, 2019 dispositional hearing Father conceded dependency and the court placed the child in temporary custody of maternal grandparents; the magistrate’s dispositional decision was adopted June 6, 2019.
- Mother did not directly appeal the June 6, 2019 dispositional order; she and Father moved to dismiss on March 3, 2021 arguing the court missed the statutory 90‑day dispositional deadline.
- The magistrate denied the dismissal motion (finding the written waivers effective and invoking laches/res judicata); the trial court overruled Mother’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | RCCSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) required dismissal for holding disposition after 90 days | The case must be dismissed without prejudice because the dispositional hearing occurred beyond the 90‑day limit | Dismissal was not required because parents expressly waived the 90‑day deadline and procedural defects are subject to res judicata | Court affirmed denial of dismissal — no mandatory dismissal where parents executed express waivers and res judicata applied |
| Whether parents can explicitly waive the 90‑day dispositional deadline | An explicit waiver of the statutory 90‑day limit is not permitted under In re K.M. | Explicit waivers are permitted; the Supreme Court has not forbidden express waivers and several appellate courts recognize them | Express waivers are permitted; the parents’ written, counsel‑acknowledged waivers were effective |
| Whether Mother can assert lack of waiver on behalf of the child or guardian ad litem | The GAL/child are parties under Juvenile Rule 2(Y); without their waiver the 90‑day rule was not waived as to all parties | Mother lacks standing to raise another party’s rights; the GAL/attorney could have appealed and withdrew support for dismissal | Mother lacked standing to assert the child/GAL’s rights; the GAL did not appeal and withdrew support for dismissal |
| Whether res judicata bars the late challenge to the dispositional order | Res judicata does not apply because the dispositional entry was void for lack of jurisdiction | The entry was voidable (not void); because Mother did not timely appeal the June 6, 2019 final dispositional order, res judicata bars the late challenge | Res judicata bars Mother’s challenge: the dispositional order was final and any jurisdictional error was voidable, so it should have been raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 2020) (held the 90‑day dispositional time limit is mandatory and rejected implicit waivers)
- In re K.K., 164 Ohio St.3d 1440 (Ohio 2021) (addressed whether res judicata bars later challenges to missed 90‑day deadline when parents did not timely appeal)
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (Ohio 2020) (distinguishes void and voidable judgments; errors in exercising jurisdiction generally render judgments voidable)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (an adjudication plus disposition under R.C. 2151.353(A) constitutes a final, appealable order)
- Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. P.U.C.O., 140 Ohio St. 160 (Ohio 1942) (appeal lies only for the party aggrieved by the order)
- Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (one party may not assert or appeal rights belonging to another party)