[Cite as State v. K.G., 2022-Ohio-1256.]

COURT OF APPEALS

MORROW COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff - Appellant : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vs- :

:

K.G., : Case No. 2021CA0016

:

 Defendant - Appellee : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Morrow County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division, Case No. 2921 JC 0005

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Vacated

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 14, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant Morrow County JFS For Defendant-Appellee Mother K.G.

DREAMA K. REESE TYLER DUNHAM

619 W. Marion Road 19 East High Street

Mount Gilead, OH 43338 Mount Gilead, OH 43338

For Morrow County Prosecutor’s Office For Guardian ad litem

JACOB GRABINSKI CELESTE BRAMMER

60 East High Street 13290 Centerburg Road

Mount Gilead, OH 43338 Sunbury, OH 43074
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Morrow County Job and Family Services, Children Services 

Division appeals from the October 5, 2021 Journal Entry of the Morrow County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding Z.G. to be a dependent child and ordering 

appellant to have Court Ordered Protective Supervision of Z.G.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} K.G. is the mother of Z.G. (DOB 3/19/09). On February 22, 2021, a criminal 

complaint was filed against K.G. in Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division Case No. 2021 JC 05 alleging that K.G. had contributed to the 

delinquency/unruliness of Z.G. in violation of R.C. 2919.24(B)(1), a misdemeanor of the 

first degree. The complaint alleged that K.G. failed to send Z.G. to school. At her 

arraignment on March 26, 2021, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.

{¶3} Thereafter, at a pretrial held on September 29, 2021, the trial court, as 

memorialized in a Journal Entry filed on October 5, 2021, found Z.G. to be dependent 

and ordered appellant to assume Court Ordered Protective Supervision over Z.G. The 

trial court, in a Journal Entry also filed on October 5, 2021, stated that a complaint alleging 

that Z.G. was abused, neglected or dependent was filed following the September 29, 

2021 hearing. 

{¶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 

IMPLEMENT PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE MINOR CHILD AND/OR 
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 3

CHILD(REN), PURSUANT TO JOURNAL ENTRY ISSUED OCTOBER 5, 2021 (STATE 

V. K.G., 2021 JC 0005, ¶4), ARE VOID AB INITIO AS THE TRIAL COURT LACKED 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEPENDENCY 

COMPLAINT FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2151.27.”

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 R.C. 2151.27. We agree.

{¶7} As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 

1, 6-7, 2021-Ohio-2319, 181 N.E.3d 1162, 1167–68; 

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 Co.], 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”).

1 Bank of America, N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2104-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040.
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 4

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.

{¶8} “Ohio's juvenile courts are statutory courts, created by the General 

Assembly. As a statutory court, the juvenile court has limited jurisdiction, and it can 

exercise only the authority conferred upon it by the General Assembly.” In re Z.R., 144 

Ohio St.3d 380, 2015-Ohio-3306, 44 N.E.3d 239 ¶14, citing R.C. Chapter 2151; State v. 
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 5

Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 43, 1995-Ohio-217, 652 N.E.2d 196; and State ex rel. Ramey 

v. Davis, 119 Ohio St. 596, 165 N.E. 298 (1929), paragraph four of the syllabus.

{¶9} Under R.C. 2151.27(A)(1), “any person having knowledge of a child who 

appears * * * to be * * * a dependent child may file a sworn complaint with respect to that 

child[.] ”Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction 

“[c]oncerning any child who on or about the date specified in the complaint, indictment, 

or information is alleged * * * to be [an] * * * abused, neglected, or dependent child[.]” 

Thus, a complaint is a prerequisite to jurisdiction of Juvenile Court to adjudge a minor to 

be a dependent child. State ex rel. Clark v. Allaman, 87 Ohio App. 101, 90 N.E.2d 394

(1950), aff'd, 154 Ohio St. 296, 95 N.E.2d 753. See Union Cty. Child Welfare Bd. v. 

Parker, 7 Ohio App. 2d 79, 83-84, 218 N.E.2d 757 (3d Dist. 1964) (finding “the 

proceedings wherein it was determined that the children were dependent and neglected 

and ordered placed in the temporary custody of the child welfare board were void ab initio

for the want of a complaint filed as prescribed by Section 2151.27, Revised Code.”); see 

also, In re S.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27676, 2015-Ohio-2623, ¶ 7 (stating that “the 

juvenile court's subject matter jurisdiction was established when CSB filed complaints to

allege that [the children] were abused, neglected, and dependent children”); Riley v. 

Liston, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2005-12-032, 2006-Ohio-5846, ¶ 11 (stating that “it is 

clear under these statutory provisions that a juvenile court cannot adjudicate a child to be 

dependent without the filing of a dependency complaint.”); In the Matter Of: Hutchison, 

4th Dist. Lawrence No. 1537, 1982 WL 3455 (June 10, 1982) (stating “R.C. 2151.23(A)(1) 

confers jurisdiction respecting neglected and dependent children. R.C. 2151.27 which 

sets forth complaint requirements and R.C. 2151.03 and [R.C. 2151].04 defining 
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 6

neglected and dependent children are in pari materia, and the jurisdiction of the Juvenile 

Court is invoked only when a proper, verified complaint is filed in accordance with such 

statutes”).

{¶10} R.C. 2151.27 thus dictates that a complaint must be filed with the juvenile 

court to initiate abuse/neglect/dependency proceedings. Riley v. Liston, Fayette App. No. 

CA2005-12-032, 2006-Ohio-5846, ¶ 11. The complaint is “the legal document that sets 

forth the allegations that form the basis for juvenile court jurisdiction.” Juv.R. 2(F).

Therefore, a juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a child abused, 

neglected, or dependent unless a sworn complaint has been properly filed first. See Riley, 

supra.

{¶11} In this case, no complaint was filed under R.C. 2151.27 to initiate 

abuse/neglect/dependency proceedings. While the trial court, in its October 5, 2021 

Journal Entry, stated that a complaint was filed alleging abuse, neglect or dependency 

after the September 29, 2021 hearing, there is so such complaint in the file. In the 

absence of such a complaint, the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate Z.G.

a dependent child. The only complaint filed in this matter was an adult criminal complaint 

alleging that K.G., the mother of Z.G. had contributed to the delinquency /unruliness of 

Z.G.

{¶12} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not have jurisdiction 

to adjudicate Z.G. a dependent child and to order him into appellant’s protective 

supervision.

{¶13} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0016 7

{¶14} Having found the October 5, 2021 Journal Entry is void ab initio for want of 

subject matter jurisdiction and having sustained the sole assignment of error, the 

judgment of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed, 

and the order of October 5, 2021 is ordered to be vacated.

By: Baldwin, P.J.

Gwin, J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.