State v. B.C.State v. B.C.
For Plaintiff-Appellant Morrow County JFS
DREAMA K. REESE
619 W. Marion Road
Mount Gilead, OH 43338
For Morrow County Prosecutor‘s Office
JACOB GRABINSKI
60 East High Street
Mount Gilead, OH 43338
For Defendant-Appellee Mother B.C.
DAVID JOHNSON
1900 Polaris Parkway
Suite 450
Columbus, OH 43240
{¶1} Appellant Morrow County Job and Family Services, Children Services Division, appeals from the October 22, 2021 Journal Entry of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding S.C. to be a dependent child and ordering appellant to have Court Ordered Protective Supervision of S.C.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 19, 2021, a criminal complaint was filed in Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case No. 2021 JC 00004 alleging that B.C., the mother of S.C. (DOB 10/1/2004) had contributed to the delinquency /unruliness of S.C. The complaint alleged that B.C. had failed to send S.C. to school in violation of
{¶3} A show cause hearing was held on October 19, 2021. Following the hearing, the trial court, pursuant to a Journal Entry filed on October 22, 2021, found that S.C. was habitually truant and that B.C. had allegedly contributed to “that delinquency by not ensuring that the daughter remains in school“. The trial court further found that S.C. had admitted to the frequent use of marijuana and not living with her mother. The trial court found S.C. to be a dependent child and ordered appellant, Morrow County Job and Family Services to immediately have Court Ordered Protective Supervision of her.
{¶4} Appellant now appeals raising the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT‘S (1) FINDING THAT THE MINOR CHILD WAS DEPENDENT AND (2) DISPOSITIONAL ORDER REQUIRING MORROW COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (HEREINAFTER, “MCJFS” AND/OR “THE AGENCY“) TO
I
{¶6} Appellant, in its sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case in the absence of a dependency complaint filed in accordance with
{¶7} As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 1, 2021-Ohio-2319, 181 N.E.3d 1162:
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to adjudicate a particular class or type of case,” Corder [v. Ohio Edison], 162 Ohio St.3d 639, 2020-Ohio-5220, 166 N.E.3d 1180, at ¶ 14, and a court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction ” ‘is determined without regard to the rights of the individual parties involved in a particular case,’ ” id., quoting Kuchta1 at ¶ 19. “Instead, ‘the focus is on whether the forum itself is competent to hear the controversy.’ ” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting [State v.] Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, at ¶ 23; see also 18A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 4428, at 6 (3d Ed.2017) (“Jurisdictional analysis should be confined to the rules that actually allocate judicial authority among different courts“).
Because subject-matter jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a court‘s power to adjudicate and render judgment in a case, “[i]f a court acts without jurisdiction, then any proclamation by that court is void.” State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 75, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998), citing Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 518 N.E.2d 941 (1988).
“A court‘s jurisdiction over a particular case refers to the court‘s authority to proceed or rule on a case that is within the court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, at ¶ 19. This reference to “[a] court‘s jurisdiction over a particular case” “involves consideration of the rights of the parties.” Id. However, ” ‘[o]nce a tribunal has jurisdiction over both the subject matter of an action and the parties to it, ‘* * * the right to hear and determine is perfect; and the decision of every question thereafter arising is but the exercise of the jurisdiction thus conferred * * * ,’ ” (Ellipses added in Pizza.) Harper at ¶ 26, quoting Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Pizza v. Rayford, 62 Ohio St.3d 382, 384, 582 N.E.2d 992 (1992), quoting Sheldon‘s Lessee v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494, 499 (1854).
Id. at paragraphs 21-23.
{¶9} Under
{¶10}
{¶11} In this case, it is undisputed that, in the present matter, no complaint was filed under
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate S.C. a dependent child and to order her into appellant‘s protective supervision.
{¶13} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.
By: Baldwin, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.