In re J.S.

• Decision Date: 19 May 2022
• Docket Number: 111097
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 1679
• Parties: IN RE J.S. Minor Child [Appeal by K.S., Mother]
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2022-Ohio-1679

IN RE J.S. Minor Child [Appeal by K.S., Mother]

No. 111097

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 19, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD-21905665

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Scott J. Friedman, for appellant.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE

{¶ 1} Appellant, K.S. ("Mother"), appeals from the decision of the juvenile court granting permanent custody of her minor child, J.S. ("J.S." or the "child"), to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS" or the "agency"). Mother contends that the court should have dismissed the case without prejudice because it failed to hold the dispositional hearing within 90 days

1

after CCDCFS filed its complaint seeking permanent custody. We affirm the trial court's judgment denying Mother's motion to dismiss.

I. Background

{¶ 2} On July 2, 2021, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that J.S. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child and requesting a disposition of permanent custody to the agency. CCDCFS also filed a motion seeking predispositional emergency temporary custody of the child.

{¶ 3} On August 23, 2021, the court held a hearing at which Mother appeared without counsel, after which the court continued the matter for further hearing on the temporary emergency custody issue to September 20, 2021, because service had not been perfected and counsel had not yet been appointed for Mother. During this hearing, counsel for CCDCFS advised the court that the 90-day statutory period for holding the dispositional hearing ended on September 30, 2021.

{¶ 4} On September 14, 2021, the court, through its magistrate, issued an entry continuing the hearing set for September 20, 2021, to October 4, 2021, "because the Court is unavailable on September 20, 2021. The Court finds good cause to go beyond the speedy trial time."

{¶ 5} Thereafter, on October 4, 2021, the magistrate held a hearing on CCDCFS's motion for temporary custody of the child, after which the child was committed to the emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS. Although Mother was not present, her counsel appeared and participated in the hearing, including cross-

2

examining former and current CCDCFS social workers assigned to the case.^[1] At the close of the hearing, the magistrate and counsel for the parties set dates for the adjudicatory hearing to be held on November 8, 2021, and the dispositional hearing on November 12, 2021. Mother's counsel raised no objection that the dispositional hearing was set for a date beyond the 90-day statutory time period for such hearings.

{¶ 6} On October 12, 2021, after obtaining new counsel, Mother filed a motion to vacate the emergency temporary custody order and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. In her motion, Mother argued that under R.C. 2151.28(B)(3), "in no case shall the dispositional hearing be held later than 90 days after the date on which the complaint was filed." Mother argued that because the complaint was filed on July 2, 2021, and the hearing on CCDCFS's motion for emergency temporary custody was held on October 4, 2021, the hearing was held four days past the mandatory 90-day time period of R.C. 2151.28(B)(3) and the case should therefore be dismissed...