In re K.K., 2021-0822
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | Kennedy, J. |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 3888 |
| Parties | In re K.K. et al. |
| Docket Number | 2021-0822,2021-0857 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2022 |
2022-Ohio-3888
In re K.K. et al.
Nos. 2021-0822, 2021-0857
Supreme Court of Ohio
November 3, 2022
Submitted March 30, 2022
Appeal from and Certified by the Court of Appeals for Butler County, Nos. CA2020-12-130, CA2021-01-002, and CA2021-01-033, 2021-Ohio-1689.
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Jeannine Barbeau, for appellee A.T.
Dawn S. Garrett, for appellee M.K. Jr.
Brian Davidson, Emily Edwards, and Tiffany Alston, urging reversal for amicus curiae Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, L.L.C.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services.
Kennedy, J.
{¶ 1} This is a discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals and a certified-conflict case in which we have recognized that a conflict exists between the Twelfth District's judgment and the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in In re L.S., 4th Dist. Ross No. 20CA3719, 2020-Ohio-5516. The questions presented relate to whether a judgment granting temporary custody of a child is void or voidable when the dispositional hearing was held beyond the 90-day limit set forth in former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1), 2016 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 410.
{¶ 2} The memorandum in support of jurisdiction originally presented two questions. The first question asks whether former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) was self-executing with regard to the 90-day limit or whether the provision had to be invoked by court action or through the filing of a motion to dismiss. The second question asks whether the judgment of the appellate court can be retroactively applied. The merit brief failed to address the second proposition of law; therefore, it is deemed abandoned.
{¶ 3} The certified-conflict question asks whether, on an appeal from a judgment granting permanent custody, res judicata bars a parent from challenging the juvenile court's jurisdiction based on the court's failure to have held a dispositional hearing on the issue of temporary custody within 90 days of the filing of an abuse, neglect, or dependency complaint.
{¶ 4} Appellee A.T. is the biological mother of three minor children, K.K., D.T., and M.K. Appellee M.K. Jr. is the biological father of K.K. and M.K.
{¶ 5} The Butler County Department of Job and Family Services-Children Services Division ("the agency") received temporary custody of the minor children, K.K., D.T., and M.K., on the basis that they were abused, neglected, or dependent children. It is undisputed that the dispositional hearing granting the agency
temporary custody of the children occurred more than 90 days after the filing of the complaints for temporary custody.
{¶ 6} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(D)(1), the agency filed three motions for permanent custody of the children. The magistrate determined that it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to the agency. Both the mother and the father timely filed objections to the decisions of the magistrate. The juvenile-court judge overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate's decisions as the court's orders. Both the mother and the father appealed.
{¶ 7} The father first raised the issue that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant permanent custody to the agency in his appeal of that judgment. He argued that because the dispositional hearings granting temporary custody to the agency were held more than 90 days after the complaints for temporary custody were filed, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the agency permanent custody. He asserted that the temporary-custody judgment is void, not voidable. The appellate court agreed, reversed the judgments of the juvenile court granting permanent custody of K.K., D.T., and M.K. to the agency, and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings. We disagree.
{¶ 8} The statute in effect while this matter was pending in the juvenile court stated that a dispositional hearing on an agency's motion for temporary custody "may not be held" more than 30 days after the adjudicatory hearing was held but "shall not be held" more than 90 days after the complaint was filed. Former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1), 2016 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 410. The statute went on to state: "If the dispositional hearing is not held within the period of time required by this division, the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party or the guardian ad litem of the child, shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice." Id.
{¶ 9}"' "It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the
judgment voidable." '" Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Parker, 95 Ohio St.3d 524, 2002-Ohio-2833, 769 N.E.2d 846, ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting), quoting State v. Swiger, 125 Ohio App.3d 456, 462, 708 N.E.2d 1033 (1998). The language of former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) is unambiguous. It does not express an intent to divest the juvenile court of subject-matter jurisdiction if the court fails to hold the dispositional hearings within the 90-day limit. Therefore, the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the matters at issue in this case when it entered the judgments granting temporary custody of the children to the agency and the judgments are voidable, not void.
{¶ 10} Under the plain language of former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1), the juvenile court is required to dismiss the complaint after 90 days, even if no motion to dismiss has been filed. But a juvenile court's failure to dismiss the complaint is an error in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, not one that deprives the court of jurisdiction. We therefore hold that because the mother and the father failed to timely object to the magistrate's decisions and appeal the judgments granting temporary custody of the children to the agency, those judgments are valid, and the current challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdiction is barred by res judicata.
{¶ 11} Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals and answer yes to the certified-conflict question. We remand the matter to the Twelfth District to address the remaining assignments of error.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Juvenile-Court Proceedings
{¶ 12} This appeal arises from judgments granting the agency permanent custody of all three children. The mother and the father argue that the permanent-custody judgments and the judgments underlying the motions for permanent custody, that is, the judgments that held that the children were neglected and dependent and granted temporary custody of the children to the agency, are void
because the dispositional hearings were held more than 90 days after the complaints for temporary custody were filed.
{¶ 13} On October 25, 2018, the agency filed complaints in the Butler County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, alleging that K.K. and D.T. were abused, neglected, and dependent children because the family home was unsafe. On December 11, the agency filed a complaint alleging that M.K. was a dependent child for the same reason. The agency was granted temporary custody of all three children on an emergency basis, and the children were placed in foster care.
{¶ 14} On March 19, 2019, a magistrate held an adjudicatory hearing. The mother and the father were informed of their right to be represented by counsel but declined representation.
{¶ 15} The mother and the father stipulated that K.K. was neglected and dependent, and the mother stipulated that D.T. was neglected and dependent. However, the mother and the father refused to stipulate that M.K. was dependent.
{¶ 16} The magistrate found that K.K. and D.T. were neglected and dependent and granted temporary custody of those two children to the agency. The magistrate explained that once the decisions were approved, they would be final unless timely objections were filed. An adjudicatory hearing regarding M.K was scheduled.
{¶ 17} The following day, the juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decisions, as allowed by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e). The court's orders also advised the parties of their right to object to the magistrate's decisions. The mother and the father did not file objections and did not appeal the final judgments of the juvenile court.
{¶ 18} On April 30, the magistrate conducted a required review hearing in K.K.'s and D.T.'s cases and an adjudicatory hearing on the complaint for the temporary custody of M.K. The mother and the father did not appear. In M.K.'s
case, the magistrate found that M.K. was dependent and scheduled a dispositional hearing.
{¶ 19} On June 7, the magistrate held another review hearing in K.K.'s and D.T.'s cases and a dispositional hearing in M.K.'s case. The mother and the father appeared and proceeded without counsel. The magistrate granted temporary custody of M.K. to the agency. The mother and the father were again told that they could file objections to the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 20} On June 10, the juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decision regarding the adjudication and disposition of temporary custody of M.K., as allowed by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e). The order was final and appealable. Again, the mother and the father were advised of their right to appeal.
{¶ 21} Neither the mother nor the father moved to dismiss the cases on the ground that the dispositional hearings had been held more than 90 days after the complaints were filed. See former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1). Neither the mother nor the father objected to the magistrate's decisions or appealed the juvenile court's judgments...
To continue reading
Request your trial