2022 Ohio 473
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In April 2019 HCJFS filed for interim custody after allegations that G.A. sexually abused Mother and her child H.M.M.; Mother agreed to temporary custody and criminal charges followed.
- HCJFS filed a series of complaints and amendments; the third amended complaint (filed Aug. 23, 2019) sought permanent custody.
- HCJFS filed a fourth amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2019 that repeated the allegations verbatim from the third amended complaint.
- On Dec. 11, 2019 the magistrate entered a finding that “all parties waive any objection to the completion of the adjudication and/or disposition within 90 days of the filing of the complaint.”
- Adjudication occurred in Sept. 2020 (Mother absent due to detention); the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on Apr. 5, 2021 and awarded HCJFS permanent custody.
- Mother appealed, arguing the dispositional hearing occurred after the 90-day deadline in former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) and the case therefore had to be dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | HCJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court lost authority for disposition when the 90‑day deadline expired | The third amended complaint (8/23/2019) triggered the 90‑day clock; dispositional hearing occurred after 90 days so court was required to dismiss | HCJFS contended later filings/amendments and party waiver justified continuing the case | Held for Mother: the 90‑day limit is mandatory; court lost authority and must dismiss without prejudice |
| Whether the Nov. 20, 2019 filing was an amended complaint that reset the 90‑day clock | The Nov. 20 filing was not a true amendment (it added no new facts) so it did not reset the clock | HCJFS argued filing a new/amended complaint functionally restarted the time period | Held for Mother: an “amended complaint” must modify the preceding complaint; identical filing did not reset the clock |
| Whether parties can waive the 90‑day deadline after it expires | Mother: no—an express waiver must occur before the 90 days expire; post‑deadline waiver is ineffective | HCJFS: the recorded waiver at the Dec. 11 proceeding cured timing issues | Held for Mother: waiver must be explicit, on‑the‑record, and before the 90 days expire; court had no authority to accept waiver after expiration |
| Whether Mother forfeited the timing objection by not earlier objecting or showing ineffective assistance | HCJFS relied on precedent requiring ineffectiveness for late objection | Mother: In re K.M. and subsequent authority supersede those earlier holdings; dismissal is mandatory regardless of counsel conduct | Held for Mother: post‑K.M. authority controls; court exceeded authority and must dismiss regardless of counsel conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (2020) (statutory 90‑day dispositional deadline is mandatory; court must dismiss complaint without prejudice when deadline expires)
- In re Z.R., 144 Ohio St.3d 380 (2015) (juvenile courts derive authority from statute; limited to powers the General Assembly grants)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (distinguishes subject‑matter jurisdiction from authority over a particular case)
- In re R.K., 152 Ohio St.3d 316 (2018) (definition of waiver: intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- In re D.G., 168 N.E.3d 43 (1st Dist. 2021) (court exceeded authority by proceeding past the 90‑day deadline; explicit pre‑deadline waivers are required)