2019 Ohio 2859
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Perry County Children Services filed for temporary custody on July 25, 2018; an ex parte order and a shelter-care hearing occurred that day. Tina Kingsolver attended and denied dependency allegations. An adjudicatory hearing was set for August 29, 2018 but later occurred on October 3, 2018.
- On October 3, 2018 the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent; a dispositional hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2018. Appellants later sought to withdraw admissions and filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2018.
- Counsel for Tina Kingsolver moved to withdraw and was allowed on November 6, 2018. The trial court issued orders in late November and December 2018 that referenced documents and asserted the appellate status of the case; the court ultimately canceled the December 19 hearing pending resolution of the appeal.
- No dispositional hearing or disposition awarding custody was conducted after the October 3 adjudication; the trial court delayed further action and noted it would wait for the Fifth District’s decision.
- Appellants challenged several trial-court rulings (guardian ad litem appointment, exclusion from an in-camera hearing, shelter-care placement, contact restrictions). The record on appeal lacked a transcript and Appellants did not provide a statement of the evidence.
- The Fifth District raised the question of appellate jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded there was no final, appealable order because adjudication was not followed by a disposition awarding custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the juvenile court adjudication | Appellants implicitly contend the adjudication and related pre-adjudication orders are reviewable now | Perry Cty. Children Services implicitly contends the appeal is premature or the briefing is deficient | Court held no final appealable order exists because adjudication occurred without a disposition awarding custody, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether trial-court rulings (GAL appointment, exclusion from ex parte hearing, shelter care, contact prohibition) are reviewable on this appeal | Appellants assert error in those orders and seek review | Appellee asserts appellants' brief is noncompliant and facts/transcript missing; also contends proceedings did not produce an appealable order | Court declined to reach merits because absence of disposition precludes appellate review; remanded to trial court for further proceedings |
| Whether pro se status excuses noncompliance with briefing and record requirements | Appellants suggest pro se should allow leniency | Appellee argues noncompliance warrants dismissal or disregard of brief | Court noted some allowances for pro se litigants but affirmed they remain bound by rules; appellant must show error via the record |
| Whether the trial court should consider appellants’ motion to withdraw admissions | Appellants requested withdrawal of plea/admission | Appellee asked for remand for hearing on motion | Court remanded to trial court to consider motion to withdraw and for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (8th Dist.) (pro se litigants are bound by same procedural rules as represented parties)
- Knapp v. Edward Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (procedural burden on appellant to demonstrate error by reference to record)
- In re Sekulich, 65 Ohio St.2d 13 (finding of delinquency without disposition is not a final appealable order)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (adjudication without disposition is not final and appealable)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (an adjudication plus disposition awarding temporary custody to children services is required for a final, appealable juvenile order)