[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 : OPINION
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[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 : OPINION
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.