In re R.B., 2022 Ohio 1705

Background:

BCDJFS removed two boys, R.B. (b. 2009) and B.C. (b. 2014), after allegations of sexual abuse/trafficking and Mother's admitted substance abuse and mental-health crises.
On March 13, 2018 BCDJFS filed abuse/dependency complaints; the juvenile court adjudicated both children dependent and held dispositional hearings on July 2, 2018 — more than 90 days after filing.
Temporary custody was awarded to BCDJFS; no party appealed the July 2018 dispositional orders.
BCDJFS moved for permanent custody on January 23, 2020; a three-day hearing concluded February 3, 2021.
During the permanent-custody hearing Mother moved to dismiss based on the missed 90-day dispositional deadline under former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1); magistrate denied the motion and later recommended permanent custody to BCDJFS.
The juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections and granted permanent custody; Mother appealed, raising (1) lack of jurisdiction from the missed 90-day deadline, (2) evidentiary error re: cross-examining the caseworker about bias, and (3) manifest-weight challenge to the best-interest finding.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (BCDJFS)	Held
Whether the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because dispositional hearings occurred after the 90-day deadline in former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1).	Court lost subject-matter jurisdiction and complaints must be dismissed.	The deadline does not divest subject-matter jurisdiction; remedy was dismissal but must be raised timely; res judicata bars late attack.	Court held Mother’s challenge is barred by res judicata; juvenile court retained jurisdiction to proceed because the missed deadline renders orders voidable, not void.
Whether In re K.M. requires automatic dismissal and whether that error is jurisdictional (impact of In re K.M. and In re K.K.).	Invokes In re K.M. to argue strict 90-day deadline and no waiver.	Agency: K.M. requires dismissal when timely raised, but failure to timely appeal/dispose makes the defect voidable; res judicata applies.	Court follows In re K.M. on the mandatory nature of the 90-day limit but holds that failure to comply renders orders voidable (not jurisdictional) and res judicata bars belated challenges; declines to follow In re K.K. to the extent it held otherwise.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by prohibiting cross-examination probing the caseworker about therapists' views (bias/impeachment).	Mother wanted to question the caseworker whether therapists told her opinions about reunification to show bias.	Therapists were subpoenaed to testify; asking the caseworker about therapists’ views would be cumulative; trial court within discretion.	Exclusion was within the court’s discretion and not an abuse; no material prejudice shown.
Whether the grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence / not in children’s best interests.	Mother argued she had remedied problems (sobriety, housing, employment), bonded with children, and completed services, so reunification was possible.	BCDJFS pointed to children’s improved development in foster care, children’s preference to remain, abandonment and custodial history, and the statutory 12-of-22 months ground.	The juvenile court’s best-interest finding was supported by credible evidence; permanent custody affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 2020) (90-day dispositional deadline is mandatory and requires dismissal when enforced)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove parental-rights termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standards for manifest-weight review)
Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1972) (definition of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh, 162 Ohio St.3d 501 (Ohio 2020) (distinguishes void vs. voidable judgments; res judicata implications)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)