2021 Ohio 1689
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Parents A.T. (Mother) and M.K. (Father) have three children at issue: K.K., M.K., and D.T.; the Butler County JFS (the Agency) obtained temporary custody after filing neglect/dependency complaints.
- Complaints filed Oct. 25, 2018 for K.K. and D.T.; Dec. 11, 2018 for newly born M.K.
- Parents agreed K.K. and D.T. were neglected/dependent; M.K. was contested and adjudicated dependent after parents failed to appear.
- Dispositional hearings were not held within 90 days of the complaint dates (D.T. and K.K. dispositional hearing March 19, 2019; M.K. June 7, 2019).
- Agency moved for permanent custody in Feb. 2020; a magistrate granted the motions and the juvenile court adopted the decision. Parents appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the juvenile court erred by not dismissing the complaints without prejudice for failing to hold dispositional hearings within the statutory 90-day period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to hold dispositional hearing within 90 days of the complaint requires dismissal under R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) | State concedes lateness but contends courts may proceed or parents can waive the deadline | Father argues the statutory 90-day limit is mandatory and requires dismissal without prejudice | Court: 90-day limit is mandatory per In re K.M.; dismissal without prejudice required |
| Whether parents can implicitly waive the 90-day requirement | Cites cases where parents cooperated or agreed to continuances (argues waiver) | Father: K.M. prohibits implicit waiver of the 90-day limit | Court: No implicit waiver; express waiver possible but not shown here |
| Whether the issue is barred by res judicata/forfeiture because not raised below | State: Parents failed to raise the timing issue in juvenile court and did not appeal dispositional orders earlier | Father: Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited and may be raised on appeal | Court: Jurisdictional defects are not forfeitable; issue may be raised on appeal |
| Effect of mandatory dismissal on child permanency and agency ability to refile | State: Mandatory dismissal hampers permanency and strains dockets | Father: Statutory remedy is dismissal without prejudice; agency may refile immediately | Court: Acknowledges policy concerns but applies statute; dismissal without prejudice allows immediate refiling |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 2020) (held the 90-day dispositional deadline in R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) is mandatory and requires dismissal without prejudice)
- In re Z.R., 144 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2015) (discusses the limited statutory authority of juvenile courts)
- Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co., 145 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2015) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time)