In re S.N.V.
Rendered on August 20, 2009
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine J. Press, for appellant.
Angela Lloyd, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch.
BROWN, J.
{¶1} The State of Ohio (“state“), appellant, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, in which the court adopted the magistrate‘s decision that dismissed the state‘s complaint alleging chronic school truancy, in violation of
{¶2} On June 5, 2008, the state filed a complaint, naming S.N.V., appellee, as the sole party and alleging S.N.V. to be delinquent for committing the offense of chronic
A COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO
R.C. §2152.02(F) , ALLEGING THAT A CHILD IS DELINQUENT DUE TO HIS CHRONIC TRUANCY FROM SCHOOL, MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TOR.C. §2152.021(A)(1) WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILD ALONE. IN CHRONIC SCHOOL TRUANCY CASES THE STATE OF OHIO IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROCEED PURSUANT TOR.C. §2152.021(A)(2) WHICH PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE IN WHICH TO PROSECUTE THE CHILD AND HIS PARENT OR GUARDIAN JOINTLY, ALLEGING THAT THE CHILD IS DELINQUENT FOR HIS FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL AND THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS LIKEWISE CULPABLE, IN VIOLATION OFR.C. §3321.38 , FOR FAILING TO CAUSE THE CHILD‘S ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL.
{¶3} The state argues in its assignment of error that the trial court erred when it granted S.N.V.‘s motion to dismiss the state‘s complaint. The trial court dismissed the state‘s complaint based on insufficiency, concluding that the state‘s complaint failed to name S.N.V.‘s parents in the complaint as required by
{¶4} In construing
{¶5}
(A)(1) Subject to division (A)(2) of this section, any person having knowledge of a child who appears to be a juvenile traffic offender or to be a delinquent child may file a sworn complaint with respect to that child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement or in which the traffic offense or delinquent act allegedly occurred. The sworn complaint may be upon information and belief, and, in addition to the allegation that the child is a delinquent child or a juvenile traffic offender, the complaint shall allege the particular facts upon which the allegation that the child is a delinquent child or a juvenile traffic offender is based.
* * *
(2) Any person having knowledge of a child who appears to be a delinquent child for being an habitual or chronic truant may file a sworn complaint with respect to that child and the parent, guardian, or other person having care of the child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement or in which the child is supposed
to attend public school. The sworn complaint may be upon information and belief and shall contain the following allegations: (a) That the child is a delinquent child for being a chronic truant or an habitual truant who previously has been adjudicated an unruly child for being a habitual truant and, in addition, the particular facts upon which that allegation is based;
(b) That the parent, guardian, or other person having care of the child has failed to cause the child‘s attendance at school in violation of
section 3321.38 of the Revised Code and, in addition, the particular facts upon which that allegation is based.
{¶6} Here, the trial court found
{¶7} We agree with the trial court‘s reading of
{¶8} After reading
{¶9} The state‘s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. The state contends that
{¶10} The state also argues that prosecutors have broad discretion to decide whom to prosecute and the strength of a case, and requiring prosecutors to file a complaint against both the allegedly delinquent truant child and the child‘s parent or guardian divests them of such discretion. The state also points to the principle that a prosecutor may not institute a complaint absent probable cause to believe that an offense is committed, and requiring a prosecutor to file a complaint against a parent or guardian of an allegedly delinquent truant would run counter to the law and the rules of professional conduct. The trial court agreed that the statute improperly impinges on the state‘s discretion as to whom should be charged, but found it did not interfere with the state‘s decision to proceed with a complaint once the decision to charge is made. The trial court also found that there exist sufficient prosecutorial alternatives to avoid a finding that the statute is unconstitutional. The trial court noted a child may be charged with an “unruly” offense of chronic school truancy, pursuant to
{¶11} The trial court went on to voice its opinion that it was incredibly disturbing that
{¶12} Accordingly, the state‘s single assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT and CONNOR, JJ., concur.
____________________