2021 Ohio 1620
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother (a minor at the time) was the primary caregiver of R.R.; after a juvenile probation violation in August 2018 the juvenile court ordered Mother to JDC and R.R. was taken into agency custody.
- The court entered an August 6, 2018 ex parte entry designating R.R. dependent and placing her in temporary legal custody of Logan County Children Services (LCCS); no document labeled a sworn "complaint" under R.C. 2151.27 was filed.
- Mother was appointed counsel and a GAL; she and counsel did not contest dependency at the October 17, 2018 dispositional hearing and the court journalized temporary custody on December 4, 2018.
- LCCS implemented a case plan; R.R. remained in foster care. LCCS moved for permanent custody on September 23, 2019.
- Permanent‑custody hearings were held February 4 and April 9, 2020; the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence (statutory factors and best interests) that R.R. could not be placed with either parent and granted permanent custody to LCCS on June 8, 2020.
- Mother appealed, raising three assignments: (1) the dependency adjudication/juvenile court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because no complaint was filed; (2) the permanent‑custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) LCCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | LCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court’s dependency adjudication was void for lack of a sworn complaint (jurisdiction) | August 6, 2018 adjudication was entered without a complaint as required by R.C. 2151.27, so the court never acquired subject‑matter jurisdiction and subsequent orders are void ab initio | Court retained jurisdiction via its lawful custodial action at the probation violation hearing (R.C. 2151.31); the ex parte order and later proceedings supplied due process; any error was voidable, not void | Court: error to not follow the complaint procedure, but jurisdiction over parties/child existed from probation proceedings so the defect was voidable; mother should have appealed earlier—res judicata bars collateral attack; first assignment overruled |
| Whether permanent custody award was against manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued immaturity, depression, lack of support, and need for more time to comply with the case plan warranted reversal | LCCS produced clear and convincing evidence of chronic housing instability, sporadic compliance with counseling and drug testing, missed visits, and strong foster‑care bonding—per statutory factors, permanent custody served R.R.’s best interests | Court: evidence supported findings under R.C. 2151.414(B) and (D); decision not against manifest weight; second assignment overruled |
| Whether LCCS failed to use reasonable efforts to reunify | LCCS did not meet the statutory duty to use reasonable efforts prior to permanent‑custody hearing | Court noted the juvenile court had previously found reasonable efforts at dispositional/annual review hearings and, even if not, the record shows reasonable case planning and assistance offered to Mother | Court: LCCS’s efforts were reasonable and diligent; third assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (2020) (distinguishes void from voidable judgments and discusses jurisdictional effect of errors)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (error in exercise of jurisdiction renders judgment voidable, not void)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (juvenile adjudication plus temporary‑custody disposition is a final, appealable order)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and clear‑and‑convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (discussion of agency’s reasonable‑efforts duties under R.C. 2151.419)