Nos. 95-941, 95-942, 95-1213, 95-1510, 95-1688 and 95-1526 | Ohio | Oct 9, 1996
Lead Opinion
We are asked in these consolidated cases to consider whether a juvenile court loses jurisdiction to enter dispositional orders upon expiration of the statutory time period (the “sunset date”) pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(F). The certified question is: “Are the provisions of R.C. 2151.415(D) jurisdictional in nature, such that a trial court loses jurisdiction to enter custody orders after expiration of the statutory time period?” We answer the question in the negative and for the reasons that follow, we find that a juvenile court does not lose jurisdiction of a matter upon the passing of the sunset date and that a judge may enter an order of disposition pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A) after the sunset date when the problems that led to the original temporary custody order remain unresolved.
R.C. 2151.353(F) states in pertinent part: “Any temporary custody order issued pursuant to division (A) of this section shall terminate one year after the earlier of the date on which the complaint in the case was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, except that, upon the filing of a motion pursuant to section 2151.415 of the Revised Code, the temporary custody order shall continue and not terminate until the court issues a dispositional order under that section.”
R.C. 2151.415(A) states in pertinent part: “Any public children services agency or private child placing agency that has been given temporary custody of a child pursuant to section 2151.353 of the Revised Code, not later than thirty days prior to the earlier of the date for the termination of the custody order pursuant to
“(1) An order that the child be returned to his home and the custody of his parents, guardian, or custodian without any restrictions;
“(2) An order for protective supervision;
“(3) An order that the child be placed in the legal custody of a relative or other interested individual;
“(4) An order permanently terminating the parental rights of the child’s parents; .
“(5) An order that the child be placed in long-term foster care;
“(6) In accordance with division (D) of this section, an order for the extension of temporary custody.”
Temporary custody is terminated upon the passing of the sunset date, when no motion is filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A). However, the issue before us, what happens to the court’s jurisdiction upon the passing of the sunset date, is not clear. Accordingly, we look elsewhere in the Revised Code to determine the jurisdiction of a court in situations like the ones before us. In doing so, we are guided by R.C. 2151.01(A), which states in pertinent part that Chapter 2151 of the Revised Code is to be “liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate * * * the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code.” See, also, Kurtz & Giannelli, Ohio Juvenile Law (2 Ed.1989) 167, Section 13.01.
R.C. 2151.353(E)(1) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he court shall retain jurisdiction over any child for whom the court issues an order of disposition pursuant to division (A) of this section * * * until the child attains the age of eighteen * * * or the child is adopted.” It seems abundantly clear that this provision was intended to ensure that a child’s welfare would always be subject to court review. That is, given that a child, by virtue of being before the court pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2151, was at risk of some harm, the General Assembly provided for the child’s safety and welfare by ensuring that the juvenile court would retain jurisdiction over the child through the age of majority. R.C. Chapter 2151 places no limitation on this general jurisdiction.
At the risk of oversimplifying the issue before us, we believe that R.C. 2151.353 is dispositive. Accordingly, we hold that the passing of the sunset date pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(F) does not divest juvenile courts of jurisdiction to enter dispositional orders.
This holding allows the juvenile court to assess each situation on its merits and does not mandate the return of children to a situation from which they originally needed protection solely because the agency charged with their care missed a filing deadline. Thus, we hold that when the sunset date has passed without a filing pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 and the problems that led to the original grant of temporary custody have not been resolved or sufficiently mitigated, courts have the discretion to make a dispositional order in the best interests of the child. Where the original problems have been resolved or sufficiently mitigated, courts may not make further dispositional orders based on the original complaint.
We now address the issue of refiling. Presently, some agencies are resorting, as the facts of the cases before us suggest, to filing new complaints, alleging the same facts as in a previous complaint, to prevent the passing of the sunset date. The agencies do so with the best of intentions in order to protect children. Nevertheless the practice unnecessarily clutters the courts with essentially redundant casework. Our holding should eliminate the perceived necessity for these redundant filings.
Further, when a new complaint is filed based on past facts discovered subsequent to the original complaint or subsequent facts, we find that the new complaint established its own sunset date because it is not a mere refiling. This sunset date does not affect and is not controlled by previously filed complaints or previously established sunset dates.
We now turn to the application of our holding to the specific facts before us.
YOUNG CHILDREN
We reverse the court’s dismissal of Ronald Young’s case. Though the sunset date had passed as to the original complaint filed on September 21, 1992, the complaint filed on February 8, 1993 alleging sexual abuse established its own sunset date because it was based on facts learned subsequent to the filing of the
However, the motion for permanent custody was not filed prior to the sunset date as required by R.C. 2151.415(B). Accordingly, temporary custody was terminated on July 8, 1994, the date through which the court properly extended temporary custody. Even so, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to our holding today.
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this case and remand to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the problems that led to the filing of the February 8, 1993 complaint had been resolved or sufficiently mitigated as of July 8, 1994, when the extended temporary custody order would have otherwise terminated. If these problems had been resolved or mitigated, the court should terminate the temporary custody order and release the child to his mother. If they had not, the court has discretion to make a further dispositional order pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 and our holding above.
BUNTING CHILDREN
The motion for permanent custody of Shasta Bunting and Megan Bunting was filed on February 9, 1993, after the passing of the sunset date. Even so, the court retains jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to our holding today. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this case and remand to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the problems that led Shasta and Megan to be taken into temporary custody had been resolved or sufficiently mitigated as of February 24,1993, when the temporary custody order would have otherwise terminated. If these problems had been resolved or mitigated, the court should terminate the temporary custody order and release the children to their mother. If they had not, the court has discretion to make a further dispositional order pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 and our holding above.
FARRAR CHILDREN
The temporary custody orders in this case terminated on September 27, 1992 because there was no filing pursuant to R.C. 2151.415 prior to the sunset date. Even so, the trial court retains jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to our holding today. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this case and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to determine whether the problems that led to the original grant of temporary custody had been resolved or sufficiently mitigated as of September 27, 1992 when the temporary custody order would have otherwise terminated. If these problems had been resolved or mitigated, the court should terminate the temporary custody order and release the children to their mother. If they had not, the
BROCK CHILDREN
The original complaint in this case established a sunset date of December 26, 1992. A new complaint, alleging different facts was filed on January 14, 1993. This complaint established its own sunset date. The motion for permanent custody was filed prior to the sunset date established by the January 14, 1993 complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this case and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgments reversed and causes remanded.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring in the syllabus and concurring in part and dissenting in part in judgment. Although I concur in the syllabus of the majority’s opinion, my analysis differs and leads to different dispositions of the four cases.
Like the majority, I believe that the passing of the sunset date found in R.C. 2151.353(F) does not divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction to enter a dispositional order. That division only causes an order of temporary custody to lapse. R.C. 2151.353(E)(1) continues jurisdiction in a juvenile court over any child for whom the court has issued a dispositional order until that child reaches the age of majority. I believe that is as far as the majority needed to go to dispose of these cases.
Instead, the majority conditions a court’s ability to issue further dispositional orders on whether or not the problems leading to the filing of the original complaint exist as of the sunset date. This approach is not in the statutory scheme or in the case law and thus there is no basis for imposing such a condition.
In three of the four cases presently before this court, the juvenile courts issued permanent custody orders. In the fourth case, the juvenile court refused to entertain a permanent custody motion on its conclusion that the passing of the sunset date had divested it of jurisdiction. Assuming that the permanent custody orders are supported by the appropriate considerations as they existed at the time of the permanent custody hearings, there is no reason to reverse those orders. The Bunting, Farrar and Brock courts’ continuing jurisdiction authorized the issuance of permanent custody orders. R.C. 2151.415(E)(1). The
It is critical that we give effect to the statutory design for placement of children who are adjudicated abused, neglected or dependent. The statute places a burden on the court to keep tabs as a child progresses toward return to the family home or an alternative permanent living arrangement. It also limits the time that a child’s future may be left in limbo. Nevertheless, a temporary order that is permitted to lapse under R.C. 2151.353(F) does not mandate the child’s return to the family home. After an adjudication that the child is abused, neglected or dependent and the issuance of a dispositional order, all further placements must be court-ordered. If temporary custody is permitted to lapse, and a child’s parents believe that they are entitled to have the child returned to the family home, they can file a motion pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(F), requesting the court to issue the appropriate order. None of the parties to this appeal exercised that option. The juvenile courts’ continuing jurisdiction now authorizes them to rule on the permanent custody motions.
Accordingly, I would reverse Bunting, Farrar and Brock and return the cases to the appellate courts for review of the assignments of error which were found to be moot. I would reverse Young and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing on the permanent custody motion.
In addition, I also note my respectful disagreement with the majority’s treatment of successive complaints concerning the same child. The majority concludes that where the latter complaint alleges new facts, or facts not disclosed in the original complaint, a new sunset date is given effect and the old one is erased. It is only when the original and new complaints are based on the same facts that the sunset date is calculated from the original complaint. Application of the statute in this manner thwarts the fundamental purpose behind the legislature’s limitation upon grants of temporary custody.
Orders of temporary custody are limited so that children do not linger in housing arrangements that were never intended to be permanent. The limitation is not so much for the benefit of the parent as it is for the benefit of the child. Evidence of this fact is supplied by R.C. 2151.415(D)(1), which conditions an extension of temporary custody on a demonstration by clear and convincing evidence that there has been significant progress on the child’s case plan and that the child will be reunified with one of his parents within the period of extension. Moreover, children in temporary custody whose return to the family home is neither imminent nor desirable are to receive case plans designed to develop and implement an alternative permanent living arrangement. R.C. 2151.412(F)(l)(b)(ii).
In formulating the statutory scheme related to the placement of abused, neglected and dependent children, the legislature built in safeguards to ensure that children are not forgotten after being placed in temporary custody. A juvenile court is required to hold a review hearing one year after the earlier of the filing of a complaint or placement of the child into shelter care. R.C. 2151.415(B); 2151.417(C). Such hearing is to be scheduled upon completion of the court’s dispositional hearing held pursuant to R.C. 2151.35. R.C. 2151.35(B)(3). Accordingly, a child’s dispositional order should not be permitted to lapse.
Because the trial courts below were confounded by the filing of amended and second complaints, timely action was not taken in making or extending the appropriate dispositional order. This confusion would be eliminated by construing R.C. 2151.353(F) to require calculation of the sunset date to run from the earlier date of the child’s placement in shelter care or the filing of the original complaint. If later filed complaints are not permitted to reset the sunset date, the situation presented in the present case is unlikely to recur.