In Re Z.R., 144 Ohio St. 3d 380

Background

Mother L.R. had five older children adjudicated dependent/neglected in Summit County; she failed to complete the case plan and her whereabouts were often unknown.
L.R. gave birth to Z.R. in Cuyahoga County; Summit County Children Services (SCCS) filed a dependency complaint in Summit County based partly on the open sibling cases and L.R.’s history.
L.R. moved to dismiss the Summit County complaint for lack of jurisdiction (improper venue) and sought transfer of the siblings’ cases to Cuyahoga County.
Summit County Juvenile Court adjudicated Z.R. dependent and ordered transfer of Z.R.’s case to Cuyahoga County instead of dismissing.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that improper venue required dismissal despite subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review and addressed whether venue requirements in R.C. 2151.27/Juv.R.10 are jurisdictional for dependency complaints.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to establish venue under R.C. 2151.27/Juv.R.10 requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction	L.R.: complaint filed in Summit County was improper because Z.R. resided and the dependency occurred in Cuyahoga County; thus Summit lacked jurisdiction	SCCS/Summit Ct.: juvenile courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over dependency cases and venue rules are procedural; improper venue should be remedied by transfer, not dismissal	Venue provisions are directory, not jurisdictional; dismissal for improper venue is not required and transfer is the appropriate remedy
Whether juvenile courts’ unique statutory nature converts venue rules into jurisdictional bars	L.R.: juvenile-court procedures may be jurisdictional and thus venue rules limit court power over a case	SCCS: statutory grant gives juvenile courts jurisdiction over dependency matters statewide; rules/statutes do not strip that jurisdiction	Juvenile courts’ limited subject-matter jurisdiction does not make venue requirements jurisdictional; jurisdiction remains under R.C. 2151.23
Whether Juv.R.11’s transfer mechanisms preclude dismissal for venue defects	L.R.: (implicit) dismissal appropriate remedy	SCCS: Juv.R.11 provides transfer options and omits dismissal, indicating transfer—not dismissal—is intended remedy	Juv.R.11 contemplates transfer and omits dismissal; venue defects are typically corrected by transfer
Public-policy implications of requiring dismissal for venue defects	L.R.: procedural compliance necessary	SCCS: dismissal would encourage evasion and undermine child protection; juvenile system must favor substance over form	Requiring dismissal would frustrate statutory purpose of protecting children; liberal construction favors remedial measures (transfer)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (discusses statutory creation and limits of juvenile courts)
In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (distinguishing juvenile procedures from courts of general jurisdiction)
In re T.R., 52 Ohio St.3d 6 (juvenile court mission and procedural distinctions)
In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572 (jurisdiction vs. venue distinction in juvenile context)
Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (venue is a procedural matter distinct from jurisdiction)
Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227 (when procedural requirements can be jurisdictional)
Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 64 Ohio St.2d 20 (construing procedural provisions as directory vs. mandatory)
In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520 (failure to comply with directory provisions does not divest jurisdiction)
In re C.T., 119 Ohio St.3d 494 (statutory interpretation and reading statutes in pari materia)
In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (reading related statutes together)
Children’s Home of Marion Cty. v. Fetter, 90 Ohio St. 110 (historic statement of juvenile-court purpose to protect children)
In re W.W., 190 Ohio App.3d 653 (transfer under Juv.R.11 as remedy for venue issues)