2021 Ohio 4584
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Summit County Children Services (SCCS) filed an abuse/ dependency case; three children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the mother’s legal custody with SCCS protective supervision.
- The father moved to modify the case plan seeking an assessment for parental alienation; SCCS moved to terminate protective supervision. The juvenile court proceeded to final hearing, granted termination, and denied the father’s motions; the father appealed.
- This Court reversed and remanded for the juvenile court to consider the father’s motion to modify the case plan (In re M.B./A.B.). On remand, the juvenile court ordered a parental-alienation assessment and appointed an out-of-state evaluator, allocating 80% of fees to SCCS.
- SCCS objected, citing licensing and ~ $60,000 cost concerns, moved to modify the evaluator selection and fee allocation, and sought further hearings. The juvenile court found noncompliance and ordered SCCS’s Executive Director to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt.
- SCCS filed an original action in this Court seeking a writ of prohibition (to bar the court-ordered contracting/payment and contempt) and a writ of procedendo (to compel an evidentiary hearing), plus a stay. The appellate court granted the judge’s motion to dismiss and denied other outstanding motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of procedendo should issue to compel an evidentiary hearing on SCCS’s pending motions | SCCS: this Court’s remand required the juvenile court to consider the father’s motion; SCCS has a right to a hearing that Judge Stucki is delaying/refusing | Judge Stucki: he has discretion in how to implement the mandate; he ordered an evaluator and proceedings are not refused or unduly delayed | Denied — SCCS failed to show a clear legal right to an evidentiary hearing or a clear duty on the judge to conduct one; procedendo will not control ordinary court process |
| Whether a writ of prohibition should bar the juvenile court from ordering SCCS to contract with/pay the appointed evaluator and from holding its Executive Director in contempt | SCCS: forcing payment or imprisonment would compel public expenditures and criminal penalties without adequate remedy; prohibition necessary to prevent irreparable injury | Judge Stucki: juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction over dependency and custody; SCCS has available remedies (show-cause hearing and appeal of any contempt) | Denied — SCCS did not show lack of an adequate remedy at law; appeal from any contempt order is an adequate remedy, and subject-matter jurisdiction exists |
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when attachments and prior appellate rulings are considered | SCCS relied on this Court’s prior decisions to establish its claims | Judge Stucki relied on incorporation/doctrine allowing consideration of prior related records on a 12(B)(6) motion | Granted — dismissal appropriate; appellate decisions incorporated into the complaint were considered and the complaint cannot state facts entitling SCCS to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489 (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal standard presumption of truth for complaint allegations)
- Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 389 (complaint dismissed only if no set of facts would entitle relator to relief)
- Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 (courts generally cannot rely on extrinsic evidence on a 12(B)(6) motion)
- State ex rel. Peoples v. Schneider, 159 Ohio St.3d 360 (material incorporated in a complaint may be considered part of the complaint)
- State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 Ohio St.3d 125 (courts may take notice of docket/record in closely related case on 12(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (elements required for writ of procedendo)
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (procedendo addresses refusal or undue delay to render judgment)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court, 77 Ohio St.3d 447 (elements required for writ of prohibition)
- State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1 (appeal from contempt order is an adequate remedy barring prohibition)
- State ex rel. St. Sava Servian Orthodox Church of Cleveland v. Riley, 36 Ohio St.2d 171 (procedendo will not control ordinary court procedure)