2014 Ohio 5492
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant FCDJFS appeals a juvenile court disposition placing V.B. in Bassett House after a probation violation.
- V.B. admitted the probation violation while in the temporary custody of FCDJFS.
- The hearing discussed needs for mental health and substance abuse treatment but did not specify where or level of treatment.
- The court ordered counseling/treatment as directed and later ordered placement at Bassett House contingent on completion.
- FCDJFS argues the court exceeded its statutory authority by ordering placement at a specific facility while under agency custody.
- The court reversed, citing In re J.D. and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may order a specific residential facility placement | FCDJFS argues custody gives placement control to agency | V.B. does not directly argue; court's authority to order counseling exists | Yes, court cannot order a specific facility; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D., 2007-Ohio-3279 (Ohio) (agency must place in a facility, not court dictate which one)
- In re S.M., 2009-Ohio-4677 (Ohio) (juvenile court review limited when agency has custody; agency chooses facility)
- In re K.H., 2009-Ohio-7070 (Ohio) (court’s reach limited to dispositions authorized by statute)
- State v. Grady, 3 Ohio App.3d 174 (Ohio) (court discretion limited to statutory dispositions)