2021 Ohio 118
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- July 25, 2018: Perry County Children Services (PCCS) filed a complaint seeking temporary custody of five children, including C.S., Z.S., and E.S.; shelter-care and counsel orders followed.
- October 3, 2018: Adjudicatory hearing resulted in an order finding the children dependent; the dispositional hearing initially was set for December 19, 2018 (beyond the 90‑day deadline).
- Appellants (Steven and Tina Kingsolver) filed motions, sought to withdraw admissions, and lodged appeals; this court earlier dismissed an appeal for lack of a final appealable order and remanded for further proceedings.
- No dispositional hearing was held within 90 days of the July 25, 2018 filing; the court did not conduct what it labeled a disposition until August 28, 2019, leaving PCCS temporary custody in place.
- PCCS moved (Oct. 30, 2019) for legal custody to third parties; the juvenile court granted legal custody (Jan. 28, 2020). Appellants appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed: holding the trial court lacked authority to act after the 90‑day deadline and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice; a dissent argued the issue was waived/subject to res judicata because no timely dismissal motion was made below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PCCS) | Defendant's Argument (Kingsolver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)'s 90‑day deadline for a dispositional hearing required dismissal when the court acted after the deadline | The court’s post‑deadline actions were valid given the procedural history (including conversions, appeals, and admissions); no timely motion to dismiss was made below, so the deadline issue is waived | The dispositional hearing was not held within 90 days of the complaint (deadline Oct. 23, 2018), so the statute mandates dismissal without prejudice | Majority: R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) imposes a mandatory 90‑day limit; the court had no authority to act after Oct. 23, 2018 — reverse and remand to enter dismissal without prejudice. Dissent: issue waived/res judicata absent a timely dismissal motion and direct appeal of the dispositional order |
| Whether appellants’ procedural failures (no transcript/statement of evidence) preclude review of their assignments of error | PCCS relied on defects in the record and appellants’ procedural noncompliance to argue appellate review should be denied or limited | Appellants asserted the record documents suffice to raise the dispositive statutory error despite lack of a transcript | Court: Although appellants failed to provide a transcript or statement of evidence (which normally impedes review), the record contained sufficient documentary evidence to decide the dispositive 90‑day statutory issue; other asserted errors found moot |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544 (2020) (holds R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)’s 90‑day dispositional deadline is mandatory and requires dismissal if not met)
- Knapp v. Edward Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears burden to demonstrate trial‑court error by reference to the record)
- In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520 (1999) (time limits may constitute a limitation on an officer’s power)
- State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96 (2009) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural rules as represented parties)