In re T.B.
This text of 2021 Ohio 3413 (In re T.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as In re T.B., 2021-Ohio-3413.]
COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES: IN THE MATTER OF: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. T.B. Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
K.B. Case Nos. 21 CA 000007 and 21 CA 000008
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 220 2146 and 220 2147
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 27, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Mother For Appellee DJFS
DARIN AVERY ASHLEY L. JOHNS 105 Sturges Avenue KNOX COUNTY DJFS Mansfield, Ohio 44903 117 East High Street Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Guardian Ad Litem Father TONIA WELKER 126 East Vine Street TROY BELL 2nd Floor 840 Lexington Avenue Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Knox County, Case Nos. 21 CA 000007 and 21 CA 000008 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Appellant-Mother M.B. appeals the March 4, 2021, decision of the Knox
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying her motion to dismiss the
Complaint in this matter.
{¶2} Appellee is the Knox County Department of Job and Family Services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶4} Appellant-Mother M.B. and Father T.B. are the biological parents of T.B.
and K.B.
{¶5} On or about November 12, 2020, Appellee Knox County Department of Job
and Family Services, Children Services Division ("KCDJFS") filed Complaints alleging
that the minor children T.B. and K.B. were Dependent pursuant to R.C. §2151.04(B)(C)
based upon Mother's Methamphetamine abuse. The trial court issued a scheduling Order
with the following hearing dates: Preliminary Hearing, November 23, 2020; Adjudicatory
Hearing, December 14, 2020; and Dispositional Hearing, January 20, 2021.
{¶6} On November 23, 2020, Attorney Devin Trainer entered an appearance as
Counsel for Appellant.
{¶7} On December 1, 2020, Attorney Trainer requested a continuance of the
Adjudicatory Hearing "to allow counsel additional time to prepare a defense."
{¶8} On December 2, 2020, Counsel for KCDJFS requested the trial court
convert the Adjudicatory Hearing to a Status Conference rather than continue it outright
to address Mother's ongoing Methamphetamine abuse. Knox County, Case Nos. 20 CA 000007 and 20 CA 000008 3
{¶9} On December 2, 2020, the trial court converted the Adjudicatory Hearing to
a Status Conference.
{¶10} On December 10, 2020, Attorney Andrew Wick entered an appearance as
counsel for Appellant and filed a Motion to Continue.
{¶11} On December 11, 2020, Attorney Wick filed a Waiver of Time, explicitly
waiving the statutory time-period for the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.
{¶12} On December 14, 2020, the trial court held a Status Conference and at the
conclusion of that hearing, placed the children in the temporary custody of KCDJFS due
to Mother's four consecutive positive high-level Methamphetamine screens on October 1,
2020; October 26, 2020; November 23, 2020; and December 2, 2020. At this hearing,
Counsel for Appellant and Counsel for Father both advised that their clients explicitly
waived any claims regarding the 90-day statutory time-period so that the trial court had
time to grant the requested continuance. The trial court scheduled the Adjudicatory and
Dispositional Hearings for January 20, 2021.
{¶13} On December 18, 2020, Counsel for Father, Attorney Derek Demaree, filed
a Motion to Continue and Waiver of Time requesting continuance of the January 20, 2021,
Adjudicatory and Dispositional Hearings.
{¶14} On December 30, 2020, the trial court granted Attorney Demaree's Motion,
and the court issued a new scheduling Order with the following hearing dates:
Adjudicatory Hearing, January 29, 2021 and Dispositional Hearing, February 26, 2021.
{¶15} On January 25, 2021, Attorney Darin Avery, entered an appearance as
counsel for Appellant. Knox County, Case Nos. 20 CA 000007 and 20 CA 000008 4
{¶16} At an Adjudicatory Hearing on January 29, 2021, the trial court found the
children to be Dependent pursuant to R.C. §2151.04(C) based upon the environment
created by Mother's Methamphetamine abuse. As of the date of that hearing, Mother had
produced multiple clean drug screens for KCDJFS, and the Court returned the children
to the custody of Mother with a Protective Supervision Order.
{¶17} On February 26, 2021, a Dispositional Hearing was held. Counsel for
Appellant failed to appear for the Dispositional Hearing, and no objections were raised.
{¶18} On February 26, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the trial
court failed to conduct the dispositional hearings within the 90-day statutory timeframe
required by R.C. §2151.35(B)(1).
{¶19} On March 4, 2021, the Court denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss.
{¶20} On April 5, 2021, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
{¶21} Appellant failed to timely file an Appellate Brief.
{¶22} On May 19, 2021, Counsel for KCDJFS filed a Motion to Strike Appellant's
untimely brief and to Dismiss this Appeal.
{¶23} On May 27, 2021, Counsel for KCDJFS filed a Motion to Terminate the
protective supervision order and close the case with the agreement of Appellant.
{¶24} On June 1, 2021, the trial court granted the Motion to Terminate.
{¶25} Appellant-Mother assigns the following error for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶26} “I. THE COURT ERRED IN DECLINING TO DISMISS THE CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” Knox County, Case Nos. 20 CA 000007 and 20 CA 000008 5
I.
{¶27} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant-Mother challenges the trial court’s
decision denying her motion to dismiss these juvenile cases for failure to hold the
dispositional hearing within 90 days.
Mootness
{¶28} “The doctrine of mootness is rooted in the ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ language
of Section 2, Article III of the United States Constitution and in the general notion of judicial
restraint.” James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791, 600 N.E.2d
736.
{¶29} “While Ohio has no constitutional counterpart to Section 2, Article III, the
courts of Ohio have long recognized that a court cannot entertain jurisdiction over a moot
question.” Id. “It is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions,” so if during the
course of a proceeding “an event occurs, without the fault of either party, which renders
it impossible for the court to grant any relief,” the court will refuse to rule on the moot
question. Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21, syllabus. See also Tschantz
v. Ferguson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (stating “[n]o actual
controversy exists where a case has been rendered moot by an outside event”). Lingo v.
Ohio Cent. R.R., Inc., 10th Dist. No. 05AP–206, 2006–Ohio–2268, ¶ 20, quoting Grove
City v. Clark, 10th Dist. No. 01AP–1369, 2002–Ohio–4549, ¶ 11 (concluding an action is
moot when it does not involve an “ ‘actual genuine, live controversy, the decision of which
can definitely affect existing legal relations' ”).
{¶30} “The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions Knox County, Case Nos. 20 CA 000007 and 20 CA 000008 6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 Ohio 3413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tb-ohioctapp-2021.