[Cite as In re J.P., 2019-Ohio-197.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WARREN COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 J.P. : CASE NO. CA2018-01-011 

 

 : O P I N I O N 

 1/22/2019 

 : 

 : 

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 17-D000115 

Eric V. Robinson, 62 Remick Blvd., Springboro, Ohio 45066, for appellant, A.T. 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice 

Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee, Warren County Children Services 

 PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, A.T. ("Mother"), appeals a decision of the Warren County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting a child services agency's motion to stay an 

aspect of Mother's visitation with her child, J.P. 

{¶ 2} Warren County Children Services ("the Agency") filed a complaint alleging that 

J.P. was dependent because the child was drug dependent when born and remained in the 

hospital's care to manage symptoms of drug withdrawal. The juvenile court immediately 
Warren CA2018-01-011 

 - 2 - 

ordered that the child be placed in the Agency's emergency care with temporary custody of 

J.P. given to the child's paternal grandparents. The juvenile court later adjudicated J.P. 

dependent based upon stipulations from the parties. 

{¶ 3} Soon after the court's adjudication, the court ordered that the child remain in the 

temporary custody of the paternal grandparents. The court allowed Mother and J.P.'s father 

("Father") to have supervised visitation and one weekly unsupervised overnight visit. The 

Agency filed a motion to stay the portion of the order pertaining to the overnight visitation 

when it learned that Mother was not following some aspects of the case plan. A magistrate 

eventually granted the stay pending a phone conference between the court and the parties. 

{¶ 4} However, before the phone conference was held, Mother filed a motion in 

opposition to the stay and requested an oral hearing. At that time, the juvenile court denied 

the Agency's request for a stay. The Agency then filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

juvenile court's denial of the stay. 

{¶ 5} While the motion for reconsideration was pending before the juvenile court, the 

magistrate stayed the order of unsupervised overnight visitation. Father then filed a motion 

to set aside the magistrate's order. A day after that, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the 

Agency's motion for reconsideration and a motion to set aside the magistrate's order. Soon 

thereafter, the juvenile court denied Mother and Father's motions and adopted the 

magistrate's order to stay the unsupervised overnight visitation. 

{¶ 6} Mother now appeals the juvenile court's order adopting the magistrate's 

decision, raising four assignments of error for our review. However, we find that Mother's 

appeal must be dismissed, as there is no final appealable order and we lack jurisdiction to 

proceed. 

{¶ 7} Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of 

inferior courts within their districts. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 
Warren CA2018-01-011 

 - 3 - 

2505.02. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review nonfinal appealable orders and must 

dismiss matters lacking final appealable orders. In re C.G., 12th Dist. Preble Nos. CA2007-

03-005 and CA2007-03-006, 2007-Ohio-4361. 

{¶ 8} For a judgment to constitute a final appealable order, the entry must meet the 

requirements of R.C. 2505.02. The statute defines final order as "an order that affects a 

substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment." 

R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). Specific to special statutory proceedings, such as those in the juvenile 

court, a final order is "an order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or 

upon a summary application in an action after judgment." R.C. 2505.02(B)(2); In re T.M., 

12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2006-01-001 and CA2006-01-004, 2006-Ohio-6548. "An order 

granting a stay is not a final appealable order because it does not affect a substantial right, 

but merely puts the case on hold." In re Adoption of B.R.C., 4th Dist. Scioto No. 14CA3638, 

2014-Ohio-3391, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 9} After reviewing the record, we find that the juvenile court's grant of the stay is 

not a final appealable order because the stay merely maintained the status quo of the case 

rather than affecting a substantial right, determining the action, or preventing judgment. The 

court's decision did not change custody of the child, nor did it impede Mother from visiting 

with the child, as the stay only impacted the overnight unsupervised aspect of visitation not 

the supervised visits that continued to occur. See Community First Bank & Trust v. Dafoe, 

108 Ohio St.3d 472, 2006-Ohio-1503, ¶ 26 ("a stay is not an offshoot of the main action; it is 

the main action postponed"). Jurisdiction properly remained with the juvenile court to make 

final determinations regarding visitation issues while the child is in temporary custody of the 

paternal grandparents. 

{¶ 10} Accordingly, we find the juvenile court's order staying the overnight 

unsupervised aspect of visitation is not a final appealable order, and that this court is without 
Warren CA2018-01-011 

 - 4 - 

jurisdiction. The present appeal must therefore be dismissed. 

{¶ 11} Appeal dismissed. 

 RINGLAND, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.