In re J.H.

2024 Ohio 5489

Opinion

[Cite as In re J.H., 2024-Ohio-5489.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE J.H. : : No. 114240 [Appeal by the State] :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: VACATED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 21, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. AD24902894

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Britta Barthol, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

This appeal involves a child protection matter relating to a child

before the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court in Case No. AD24902894. Plaintiff-

appellant, the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“the

agency”) appeals the juvenile court’s denial of the agency’s notice of dismissal of

complaint for neglect and temporary custody. Appellee-mother (“Mother”) has filed a notice of conceded error pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B). Finding that a notice of

voluntary dismissal filed pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A) is self-executing, we vacate the

order of the juvenile court.

In March 2024, the agency filed a complaint for neglect and

temporary custody alleging that Mother failed to ensure that the child attend school

on a consistent basis. The other two allegations pertain to father regarding paternity

and support. The agency moved for predispositional temporary custody. In April,

a hearing was held on the complaint and the motion. The matter was continued to

June 7, 2024, for adjudication and disposition on the complaint, and the motion for

predispositional temporary custody was held in abeyance. On June 6, 2024, the

agency filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint as it pertains to Mother.

The juvenile court held a hearing and denied the agency’s notice of voluntary

dismissal. This appeal followed.

The agency raises the following assignment of error for review:

The trial court erred by failing and refusing to recognize and honor the voluntary dismissal of appellant’s complaint.

Both parties argue that the agency has the ability to dismiss a parental

rights complaint without further order of court pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A). We agree

because the Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[t]he Rules of Civil Procedure apply

to custody proceedings in juvenile court except when they are clearly inapplicable[.]”

In re H.W., 2007-Ohio-2879, ¶ 11, citing Civ. R. 1(C)(7), State ex rel. Fowler v.

Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357 (1994). “The Civil Rules are not ‘clearly inapplicable’ here, especially in light of Juv. R. 45 which provides, ‘If no procedure is specifically

prescribed by these rules or local rule, the court shall proceed in any lawful manner

not inconsistent with these rules or local rule.’” Id. Since the juvenile rules are silent

on voluntary dismissal, the agency’s notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to

Civ.R. 41(A) was proper. Civ.R. 41(A) allows a complainant to file a notice of

dismissal at any time before commencement of trial.

Moreover, “a voluntary dismissal is effective when the notice is filed,

without order of the court, so long as it is done before trial.” Findlay v. Martens,

2022-Ohio-4146, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.), citing Kent v. CDC-Kent, LLC, 2018-Ohio-3743,

¶ 28, fn. 3 (11th Dist.). “In other words, a ‘Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) dismissal is self-

executing[.]’” Id., quoting Shue v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017-Ohio-443, ¶ 9

(10th Dist.). Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he plain

import of Civ.R. 41(A)(1) is that once a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses all claims

against a defendant, the court is divested of jurisdiction over those claims.” State ex

rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 2012-Ohio-47, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Fifth Third Mtge.

Co. v. Russo, 2011-Ohio-3177, ¶ 17.

Here, the agency filed a notice of dismissal of the complaint pursuant

to Civ.R. 41(A) on June 6, 2024, which was self-executing. Therefore, the juvenile

court was without jurisdiction to hold a hearing and without authority to deny the

agency’s notice of dismissal. The case was dismissed as of June 6, 2024.

Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is sustained.

Judgment vacated. It is ordered that no costs are herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR