2015 Ohio 5245
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- R.R., born 2009, was removed from his mother’s custody (March 2014) after her psychiatric hospitalization; CSB placed the child in emergency temporary custody.
- Father (Leslie H.) was initially excluded from placement due to CSB’s concerns about his alcohol use; magistrate later adjudicated R.R. dependent and placed him in Father’s temporary custody (June 30, 2014).
- R.R. was not returned to Father until July 8, 2014. CSB soon learned Father allegedly drank heavily and passed out while R.R. was in his care and filed timely objections to the magistrate’s dispositional order, triggering an automatic stay of the placement.
- The trial court held hearings on CSB’s objections and Father’s motion for return of the child; it allowed CSB to present post‑dispositional evidence about Father’s drinking and Father testified denying the allegations.
- The trial court overruled objections to the adjudication, sustained CSB’s objection to the disposition, adjudicated R.R. dependent, and placed him in temporary custody of CSB.
- Father appealed, raising: (1) lack of a final, appealable order because the court allegedly failed to rule on all objections; (2) due process violation for consideration of post‑dispositional evidence without notice; and (3) failure to make required R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts findings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction because trial court failed to rule on all objections (final order) | Trial court didn’t explicitly rule on every timely objection, so judgment is not final | Trial court must rule only on timely objections; some objections to disposition were untimely; Miller forecloses dismissal for unruled objections | Overruled — appellate jurisdiction exists; trial court not required to rule on untimely objections and Miller controls |
| Whether Father was denied due process by court considering post‑dispositional conduct without adequate notice | Court considered new evidence about Father’s drinking without adequate notice, violating due process | CSB gave prompt notice by filing objections and requesting an evidentiary hearing; Father did not object at trial or request continuance; evidence was relevant to immediate custody | Overruled — no due process violation; notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate in context |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to make R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts findings when continuing removal | Trial court failed to make explicit findings that CSB made reasonable efforts and to state factual basis, violating statute | Implied findings not sufficient; but CSB argued findings were implicit in judgment | Sustained — trial court must make written reasonable‑efforts findings and factual basis per statute; omission requires reversal/remand |
Key Cases Cited
(No listed authorities in the opinion have official reporter citations provided in the record supplied.)