Case Title: In re Young Children

Citation: 1996-Ohio-45

Docket Number: 19950941

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re  Young Children. 
In re Bunting Children. 
In re Brock Children. 
In re Farrar et al. 
[Cite as In re Young Children (1996), ______ Ohio St.3d ______.]  
Juvenile court -- Passing of statutory time period pursuant to R.C. 
2151.353(F) does not divest juvenile courts of jurisdiction to 
enter dispositional orders. 
 
(Nos. 95-941, 95-942, 95-1213, 95-1510, 95-1526 and 95-1688 -- 
Submitted April 30, 1996 -- Decided October 9, 1996.) 
The passing of the statutory time period (“sunset date”) pursuant to R.C. 
2151.353 (F) does not divest juvenile courts of jurisdiction to enter 
dispositional orders. 
 
APPEALS 94-CA-264 from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for 
Stark County, Nos. 94-CA-198, 94-CA-264 and 94-CA-227. 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County, No. 94-CA-20. 
 
 
2
YOUNG CHILDREN 
 
On September 21, 1992, the Stark County Department of Human 
Services (“SCDHS”) filed complaint JU 80468 in the Stark County Juvenile 
Court alleging that Ronald and Dominic Young were dependent and/or 
neglected children.  On that day, the court placed Ronald in the temporary 
custody of SCDHS.  SCDHS filed a new complaint, JU 81490, on January 8, 
1993, based on the exact facts of complaint JU 80468, alleging that Ronald and 
Dominic were dependent and/or neglected children.  On January 13, 1993,  the 
court dismissed complaint JU 80468 and based on a finding of probable cause 
as to complaint JU 81490, granted temporary custody of Ronald and Dominic 
to SCDHS. 
 
SCDHS filed an amended complaint on February 8, 1993 alleging that 
Ronald had been sexually abused.  Following a dispositional hearing held on 
April 7, 1993, the juvenile court granted temporary custody of Ronald and 
Dominic to SCDHS based upon their parents’ prior stipulation that Ronald was 
an abused child and that Dominic was a dependent child.  SCDHS filed a 
 
3
motion to extend temporary custody on December 8, 1993.  The court granted 
the motion on January 3, 1994 and extended temporary custody until July 8, 
1994. 
 
On March 28, 1994, SCDHS filed a motion for permanent custody of 
Ronald and Dominic.  On May 5, 1994, Luella Young, the mother of Ronald 
and Dominic, filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the court lacked 
jurisdiction because the children had been removed on September 21, 1992 and 
SCDHS had not filed a motion to extend temporary custody prior to the sunset 
date prescribed by R.C. 2151.415.  The court overruled the motion finding that 
it had continuing jurisdiction.   
 
Upon the filing of an objection, the court held a hearing on July 5, 1994.  
At that time, the court determined that it retained jurisdiction over Dominic and 
that it had lost jurisdiction over Ronald on September 21, 1993, pursuant to In 
re White (Feb. 14, 1994), Stark App. No. CA-9461, unreported.  Therefore, the 
court dismissed Ronald’s case.  The court of appeals affirmed this dismissal.  
 
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
 
4
discretionary appeal (case No. 95-941), and finding its judgment in conflict 
with decisions in the Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth and Twelfth Appellate 
Districts, the court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict.  This court 
determined that a conflict exists (case No. 95-942).         
BUNTING CHILDREN 
 
Upon their parents’ stipulation to probable cause to the allegation that 
they were dependent and/or neglected, the Stark County Juvenile Court placed 
Shasta Bunting and Megan Bunting in the temporary custody of SCDHS on 
February 24, 1992.  SCDHS filed a first amended complaint, JU 78383, on 
March 19, 1992 alleging that the children lived in unsafe housing conditions 
and were poorly supervised, in addition to being dependent and/or neglected.  
On May 26, 1992, SCDHS filed a new complaint, JU 79440, alleging the same 
facts as complaint JU 78383.  At that time the court issued an order granting 
temporary custody to SCDHS.  The first amended complaint, JU 78383, was 
dismissed on June 4, 1992 because the juvenile court could not hear the 
complaint within the ninety-day time period prescribed in R.C. 2151.35(B)(1). 
 
5
 
Complaint JU 79440 reached adjudication on August 20, 1992 at which 
time the court awarded custody to SCDHS.  SCDHS filed a motion for 
permanent custody on February 9, 1993 and amended it on June 1, 1993 as a 
motion to extend temporary custody.  The court granted the latter motion upon 
agreement of the parents.   
 
SCDHS filed a motion for permanent custody on October 25, 1993.  
Ramona Martin ( the mother of Shasta and Megan) relinquished her parental 
rights on April 18, 1994.  The court granted permanent custody of Shasta and 
Megan to SCDHS on August 1, 1994.  On May 15, 1995, the court of appeals 
reversed the grant of custody based on its finding that the trial court lacked 
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to In re White, supra.   
 
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
discretionary appeal.  (Case No. 95-1213.) 
    FARRAR CHILDREN 
 
 
On September 27, 1991, Guernsey County Children Services 
Board (“GCCSB”) filed a complaint in the Guernsey County Juvenile Court 
 
6
alleging that Julie Farrar, Ron Farrar, Jr., and Amanda Welker were neglected 
and/or dependent children.  On October 18, 1991, the court granted a 
predispositional interim custody order and granted protective supervision to 
GCCSB.  On November 21, 1991, the court adjudicated the children to be 
neglected.  At that time, the court returned custody of Ron and Amanda to their 
mother.  Julie had been and remained in the custody of Norma Berg.   
 
On January 29, 1992, the court granted a predispositional order of 
temporary custody of Ron to Charlie and Lisa Berg and of Amanda to Ed 
Welker, her maternal grandfather.  On February 25, 1992, the court found Ron 
and Amanda to be dependent and neglected children.  On September 22, 1992, 
because of problems in both Berg households, the court awarded temporary 
custody of Ron and Julie to GCCSB.  The court also awarded legal custody of 
Amanda to Ed Welker.   
 
On May 10, 1993, GCCSB filed a motion to modify the temporary 
commitment to permanent commitment based on the parents’ lack of 
compliance with the case plan.  On February 9, 1994, after several 
 
7
continuances, the court granted permanent custody of Julie and Ron to 
GCCSB.  On June 23, 1995, the court of appeals reversed, based on its finding 
that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to In re White, 
supra, and dismissed the trial court’s grant of permanent custody to GCCSB. 
 
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
discretionary appeal.  (Case No. 95-1526.) 
BROCK CHILDREN 
 
 
 
On December 26, 1991, SCDHS filed complaint JU 77685 in the Stark 
County Juvenile Court alleging that Keisha Brock, Sade Brock, and David 
Brock were neglected children.  Following an adjudicatory hearing on January 
24, 1992, the court granted temporary custody of Keisha, Sade, and David to 
SCDHS.  The court placed the children with their mother.  SCDHS filed a new 
complaint, JU 81572, on January 14, 1993, alleging that the children were 
neglected and/or dependent.  At an emergency shelter hearing on January 15, 
1993, the court awarded temporary custody of the Brock children to SCDHS.   
 
8
 
On February 9, 1993, the court held an adjudicatory hearing on 
complaint JU 81572 at which the children were found dependent.  At a 
dispositional hearing that same day, the court placed the children in the 
temporary custody of SCDHS.  Complaint JU 77685 was dismissed on 
February 18, 1993.   
 
SCDHS filed a motion for permanent custody on December 10, 1993.  
This motion was not heard until May 9, 1994 because of difficulty serving the 
parents and the parents’ failure to appear at the first scheduled hearing.  The 
court granted permanent custody of the children to SCDHS on July 6, 1994.  
On June 29, 1995, the court of appeals reversed and remanded with orders to 
dismiss the case pursuant to In re White, supra. 
 
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
discretionary appeal (case No. 95-1510), and, finding its judgment in conflict 
with decisions in the Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Twelfth Appellate 
Districts, the court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict.  This court 
determined that a conflict exists (case No. 95-1688). 
 
9
 
Darlene Odar, for appellee Louella Young, mother of Ronald 
Young. 
 
Donald Ramsayer, for appellee Ronald Young, Sr., father of Ronald 
Young. 
 
John Mackey, for appellee Paul Bunting, father of the Bunting 
Children. 
 
 Charles E. McKnight, for appellee Debbie Farrar, mother of the 
Farrar children. 
 
Oberholtzer & Oberholtzer and Mattheuw W. Oberholtzer, for 
appellee Vivian Brock, mother of the Brock children. 
 
Linda Shields-Stiefel, for appellee David Brock, father of the Brock 
children. 
 
Paula M. Sawyers and Edith M. Hough, for appellant Stark County 
Department of Human Services. 
 
Josephine E. Hayes, for appellant Guernsey County Children 
Services Board. 
 
10
 
Kathleen O. Tatarsky, for amicus curiae Stark County Children’s 
Services and Advisory Council, in case No. 95-941. 
 
PFEIFER, J.  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 
 
11
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 division (F) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code or the 
date set at the dispositional hearing for the hearing to be held pursuant to this 
section, shall file a motion with the court that issued the order of disposition 
requesting that any of the following orders of disposition of the child be issued 
by the court: 
 
“(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; 
 
12
 
“(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 
 
13
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.   
 
14
 
That juvenile courts have continuing jurisdiction does not mean that 
public children services agencies or private child-placing agencies can ignore 
the mandates of the statute and rely on the court to save them from their own  
failures or oversights.  Neither does it mean that courts can grant dispositional 
orders indiscriminately.  The obligation to file a motion thirty days prior to the 
sunset date is not vitiated and the failure to file is not harmless error.  See 
Endsley v. Endsley (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 306, 624 N.E.2d 270.  
Accordingly, although the  court has continuing jurisdiction, temporary custody 
terminates when the sunset date passes without a filing pursuant to R.C. 
2151.415 (A).  However, because the court retains jurisdiction over the child, it 
may make further dispositional orders as it deems necessary to protect the 
child.  We believe the General Assembly granted continuing jurisdiction to the 
courts for just this reason. 
 
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 
 
15
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 
 
16
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 original complaint.  Thus, the motion for an extension of 
temporary custody filed on December 8, 1993 was filed prior to the sunset date.   
 
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 
 
17
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 
 
18
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 
 
19
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. 
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. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
20
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and COOK, JJ., concur in the syllabus and 
concur in part and dissent in part in judgment. 
 
COOK, J., 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 
 
21
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 Young court’s continuing jurisdiction authorizes it to rule upon the 
permanent custody motion. Id. 
 
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 
 
22
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 
 
23
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 
 
24
designed to develop and implement an alternative permanent living 
arrangement. R.C. 2151.412(F)(1)(b)(ii).   
 
A second complaint based on new facts would tend to demonstrate that a 
parent is not making progress with the case plan and return to the family home 
is not imminent.  Accordingly, it is no reason to justify prolonging temporary 
custody.  The same can be said for a complaint based on new allegations of 
past conduct.  Nevertheless, that is the result under the majority opinion. 
 
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. 
 
25
 
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. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.