In re K.K., 2022 Ohio 3888

Background

Butler County Children Services filed separate complaints alleging K.K., D.T., and M.K. were abused/neglected/dependent; temporary custody was awarded to the agency after adjudication.
The dispositional hearings that resulted in temporary-custody orders occurred more than 90 days after the complaints were filed.
The parents did not object to the magistrate’s temporary-custody decisions nor appeal those temporary-custody orders within the 30-day appeal window.
The agency later moved for permanent custody; a magistrate and the juvenile court granted permanent custody and the parents timely objected to the permanent-custody rulings (but not to the earlier timeliness issue).
On appeal from the permanent-custody orders the father argued the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the dispositional hearings exceeded the 90‑day statutory deadline; the appellate court agreed but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the 90‑day dispositional limit does not divest the juvenile court of subject-matter jurisdiction; because the parents failed to timely challenge the temporary-custody orders those challenges are barred by res judicata.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does failing to hold the dispositional hearing within 90 days divest the juvenile court of subject‑matter jurisdiction (rendering subsequent orders void)?	Parents: 90‑day deadline in former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) is jurisdictional; late dispositional orders are void and may be attacked anytime.	Agency: The dismissal directive is not self‑executing as jurisdictional; failing to dismiss is an error in exercise of jurisdiction and makes orders voidable, not void.	The Court: The 90‑day rule is mandatory as to dismissal but does not divest subject‑matter jurisdiction; judgments are voidable, not void.
Can a parent first raise the untimely‑disposition claim on appeal from a later permanent‑custody order, or does res judicata bar it?	Parents: If the 90‑day rule is jurisdictional it can be raised at any time.	Agency: Temporary‑custody adjudications are final, appealable orders; failure to appeal those orders bars later challenges.	The Court: Res judicata bars the challenge because the parents did not timely object or directly appeal the temporary‑custody orders.
Does In re K.M. control so that dismissal (and loss of jurisdiction) is required here?	Parents: In re K.M. established the 90‑day deadline as mandatory and jurisdictional.	Agency: In re K.M. is distinguishable on its facts (parents there moved to dismiss); it does not compel invalidation here.	The Court: In re K.M. confirmed the dismissal requirement is mandatory but is factually distinguishable; it does not make the 90‑day rule jurisdictional in these circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (2020) (interpreting former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) as imposing a mandatory dismissal requirement when dispositional hearing exceeds 90 days)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (distinguishing lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction from defects in exercise of jurisdiction; void v. voidable analysis)
State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285 (2020) (clarifying when judgments are void vs. voidable based on subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (advising against labeling claim‑processing time limits as jurisdictional; guidance on use of term "jurisdictional")
Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (discussing distinction between jurisdictional rules and emphatic time prescriptions)
In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (holding adjudication plus temporary‑custody disposition is a final, appealable order)