In re S.S.
2019 Ohio 2857
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Perry County Children Services filed for temporary custody of S.S. on July 25, 2018; an ex parte order and a same‑day shelter care hearing occurred.
- Tina Kingsolver initially denied dependency; an adjudicatory hearing was held October 3, 2018, where the juvenile was found dependent; a dispositional hearing was scheduled but never held.
- Appellants (Tina and Steve Kingsolver) requested appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem; counsel for Tina later moved to withdraw and was permitted to do so.
- Appellants filed a post‑judgment request to withdraw their admissions and filed an appeal on November 2, 2018; the trial court later delayed further proceedings pending resolution of the appeal.
- The appellate court noted absence of a transcript and certain records, but reviewed the file and concluded the trial court made no disposition (temporary custody) following the dependency finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over order finding dependency | Children Services: dependency finding is reviewable | Kingsolvers: challenge trial rulings and seek relief | Dismissed appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because no dispositional custody order was entered |
| Whether lack of transcript/record forfeits review | Appellee argued appellants' brief noncompliant and should be disregarded | Appellants contended trial errors occurred (GAL appointment, ex parte hearing, shelter care, contact prohibitions) | Appellate court noted appellant’s burden to show error but proceeded to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds despite record gaps |
| Whether adjudication without disposition is appealable | Children Services implicitly relied on adjudication being reviewable | Kingsolvers sought review of adjudicatory rulings | Court held an adjudication absent disposition is not a final appealable order |
| Whether matter should be remanded for motion to withdraw admissions | Appellee requested remand for hearing on withdrawal motion | Appellants sought relief on prior rulings and withdrawal | Court remanded to trial court to consider withdrawal request and proceed consistently with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (8th Dist. 1996) (pro se litigants are subject to same rules and procedures as represented parties)
- Knapp v. Edward Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears burden to demonstrate error by reference to the record)
- In re Sekulich, 65 Ohio St.2d 13 (1981) (a juvenile adjudication unaccompanied by disposition is not a final appealable order)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (final appealable juvenile order requires adjudication plus disposition awarding temporary custody to agency)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (finding of dependency without disposition is not final and appealable)