In re K.M. (Slip Opinion)
152 N.E.3d 245
Ohio2020Background:
- These consolidated appeals challenge R.C. 2151.35(B)(1), which requires a dispositional hearing within 90 days of the filing of a juvenile abuse/neglect/dependency complaint and mandates dismissal without prejudice if the court fails to meet that deadline.
- Two consolidated matters: In re K.M. (mother R.H.; two children; complaints filed April 19, 2017) and In re D.T. et al. (mother B.S.; six children; complaints filed May 5, 2017).
- In K.M. the adjudicatory hearing was June 30, 2017 (dependency found); dispositional hearing was set for August 4, 2017 (107 days after filing). R.H. moved to dismiss at the dispositional hearing; the magistrate denied the motion and granted temporary custody to relatives.
- In D.T. the adjudicatory proceedings spanned July–October 2017 (findings of dependency/abuse on October 12); dispositions were not finally entered until April 9, 2018 (339 days after filing). B.S. filed timely motions to dismiss that were denied.
- The Fifth District affirmed in both matters, treating the 90-day deadline as directory (not mandatory) and finding waiver or procedural default in some respects. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review and reversed, holding the 90-day rule mandatory and ordering dismissal without prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)’s 90‑day dispositional deadline is mandatory and requires dismissal without prejudice when missed | Appellants (R.H., B.S.): statute is mandatory; failure to hold dispositional hearing within 90 days mandates dismissal without prejudice | Children Services / Fifth Dist.: deadline is directory; courts may act after 90 days; procedural rules and waiver (e.g., Juv.R. 22(E), parties’ conduct) bar dismissal or justify delay | Held: statute is mandatory; if dispositional hearing is not held within 90 days, the court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice (Juv.R. 34(A) construed similarly) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 271 N.E.2d 834 (1971) (statutory use of "shall" ordinarily construed as mandatory)
- In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520, 705 N.E.2d 1219 (1999) (statutory time limits may be directory when no language limits court authority)
- In re Z.R., 144 Ohio St.3d 380, 44 N.E.3d 239 (2015) (absence of statutory language terminating authority indicates non‑jurisdictional rule)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Barnell, 109 Ohio St. 246, 142 N.E. 611 (1924) (statutory timing can be a limitation on authority depending on phraseology)
- Linger v. Weiss, 57 Ohio St.2d 97, 386 N.E.2d 1354 (1979) (court rules cannot extend or limit statutory authority)