In re V.B.
Jess C. Weade and James B. Roach, 110 East Court Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for appellant, Fayette County Department of Job & Family Services
O P I N I O N
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Fayette County Department of Job and Family Services (FCDJFS), appeals a decision of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, ordering that V.B., a delinquent juvenile, be placed in a specific residential treatment facility.1
{¶ 2} In March 2014, a probation violation was filed against V.B. after she left her foster parents’ home without permission. V.B. admitted violating her probation. A
{¶ 3} During the hearing, V.B.‘s need for mental health and substance abuse counseling and treatment was generally discussed. However, there was no discussion as to where V.B. would receive such counseling and treatment and what level of treatment was appropriate. At the close of the hearing, the juvenile court told V.B., “You‘re going to get counseling and or treatment as directed by the probation department,” then told V.B.‘s probation officer, “I‘m going to leave that up to you to determine what we need to get done and what we can get her into.” After FCDJFS told the court it would try to set up the counseling and treatment near V.B.‘s foster home, the court suggested FCDJFS coordinate its efforts with the probation officer.
{¶ 4} By judgment entry filed on April 28, 2014, the juvenile court ordered V.B. to “attend counseling and/or treatment as directed.” Later that day, the juvenile court issued a second judgment entry that stated: “Pursuant to the Judgment Entry journalized on April 28, 2014 ordering counseling and treatment as directed, the Court hereby Orders [V.B.] to the Bassett House treatment program with release dependent upon completion of said program.”
{¶ 5} FCDJFS appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY EXCEEDING ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND ENCROACHING ON THE POWERS OF FCDJFS BY ORDERING THE PLACEMENT OF V.B. AT BASSETT HOUSE, A SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY, WHILE THE CHILD WAS IN THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF FCDJFS.
{¶ 7} FCDJFS argues that although the juvenile court has broad authority under
{¶ 8} Juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose powers are created solely by statute. In re S.M., 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2009-02-008, 2009-Ohio-4677, ¶ 14, citing Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio-7107.
{¶ 9} Despite the broad discretionary power granted to the juvenile court under
{¶ 10} In In re J.D., the issue before the Tenth Appellate District was whether the
{¶ 11} The Tenth Appellate District reversed the decision of the juvenile court, finding that, although the juvenile court can order a delinquent child in the custody of children services to be placed in a residential treatment facility, it could not specify which facility, and thus, the court‘s disposition regarding the minor fell outside its statutory authority. In re J.D., 2007-Ohio-3279 at ¶ 15, 18. The appellate court noted that by placing the minor in the temporary custody of the agency, the juvenile court gave the agency legal custody of the minor. Id. at ¶ 15. ”
{¶ 12} The Tenth Appellate District also noted that no statutory authority existed for a juvenile court to determine the specific placement. Id. at ¶ 16. Consequently, the appellate court held that:
When legal custody is granted to FCCS, decisions related to normal incidents of custody are committed to the discretion of the agency. Stated another way, when the juvenile court grants custody of a child to FCCS, with custody goes the authority to determine the child‘s specific placement. How FCCS carries out
its statutory obligations is an administrative decision based upon the child‘s needs and the budgetary confines within which the agency must operate. Our conclusion is consistent with the definition of “legal custody.” To interpret the statute as the state urges would transform the juvenile court‘s broad discretion into unfettered discretion and vitiate the notion of legal custody by allowing the court to dictate to the custodian how to implement the custodian‘s legal responsibilities. Although
R.C. 2152.19(A) specifically allows the juvenile court to make any other disposition authorized or required byR.C. Chapter 2152 , nothing inR.C. Chapter 2152 authorizes or requires the juvenile court to order FCCS where to place a child after relinquishing custody to FCCS. Accordingly, we conclude the catchall provision, while indisputably broad, allows the juvenile court to make “any further disposition” consistent with the choices of dispositions provided for in the juvenile statutes. To that end, when the juvenile court commits a child to the custody of an agency such as FCCS, the statutes at issue give the agency, not the court, the discretion to determine at what facility to place the child.* * *
Although courts generally have the right to order an agency to do what it has a legal obligation to do, the courts cannot tell the agency how to fulfill its obligation when the means of fulfilling that obligation are within the agency‘s discretion.
{¶ 13} We find the reasoning and analysis of the Tenth Appellate District in In re J.D. to be persuasive.2 In the case at bar, at the time the juvenile court issued its judgment entries on April 28, 2014, FCDJFS had temporary legal custody of V.B. and thus, had the authority and right to determine where and with whom V.B. should live. While the juvenile
{¶ 14} FCDJFS‘s assignment of error is accordingly well-taken and sustained. The judgment of the juvenile court is reversed on the basis of In re J.D., 2007-Ohio-3279, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶ 15} Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.