2020 Ohio 3354
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- October 2016: A.S. died from injuries ruled a homicide; HCJFS filed a "Fourth Amended Complaint" alleging A.S. and his five siblings were abused, neglected, and dependent and sought permanent custody.
- At adjudication, the trial court's November 3, 2017 entry erroneously stated A.S. had already been dismissed because of his death; the court dismissed two siblings for lack of proof of neglect but remanded dependency issues.
- On remand HCJFS moved to correct the record; the trial court on April 25–26, 2019 issued nunc pro tunc entries vacating the earlier misstatement and then expressly dismissed A.S. from the action solely because he was deceased.
- HCJFS, the guardian ad litem, and the siblings appealed the April 2019 dismissal entries; the parents also filed appeals which the court later dismissed for lack of an aggrieved substantial right.
- The appellate court considered whether a juvenile court may adjudicate a child who was deceased before the complaint was filed and whether dismissing A.S. solely because of death was lawful.
- The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of A.S. and remanded for further proceedings; parents’ appeals were dismissed as unripe/non‑appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court may adjudicate a child who was deceased before the complaint was filed (or whether dismissal is required because of death) | HCJFS: R.C. 2151.031 and R.C. 2151.23 permit adjudication of an abused child even if the child was deceased when the complaint was filed; dismissal solely for death is improper | Trial court/Parents: court lacked authority or dismissal was appropriate; parents also argued procedural/law‑of‑the‑case grounds for not revisiting the issue | The court held the juvenile court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a deceased child as abused and erred in dismissing A.S. solely because he was deceased; reversal and remand ordered |
| Whether the trial court's April 2019 entries were final, appealable, and who may appeal (standing/affected substantial right) | HCJFS & siblings: the dismissal affected HCJFS's and siblings' substantial rights to adjudicate abuse/seek protection and thus was appealable | Parents: argued procedural issues and that earlier entry controlled; parents claimed errors but were not aggrieved by dismissal of the deceased child | The court held the entries affected substantial rights of HCJFS, guardian ad litem, and siblings so those parties could appeal; parents were not aggrieved and their appeals were dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2007) (permanent-custody actions are special proceedings)
- Thomasson v. Thomasson, 153 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2018) (explains the "affected substantial right"/immediate-review test)
- Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1993) (applies the standard for when an order affects a substantial right)
- In re S. Children, 126 N.E.3d 239 (1st Dist. 2018) (prior appellate decision in the same litigation addressing appealability and substantive issues)