In re K.M.N. , 2021 Ohio 2947 ( 2021 )

[Cite as In re K.M.N., 2021-Ohio-2947.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
:
:
IN RE: K.M.N. : Appellate Case No. 28725
:
: Trial Court Case No. 2019-5083
:
: (Juvenile Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
:
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 27th day of August, 2021.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by J. JOSHUA RIZZO, Atty. Reg. No. 0099218, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio
45422
Attorney for Appellee Montgomery County Children Services
FRANK M. BATZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0093817, 126 North Philadelphia Street, Dayton, Ohio
45403
Attorney for Appellant Mother
.............
-2-
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which granted custody of her son, K.M.N., 1 to his
father and ordered Mother to have no contact with him.
{¶ 2} On October 29, 2019, Montgomery County Children Services (MCCS) filed a
dependency complaint regarding K.M.N. The trial court appointed counsel for Mother. In
January 2020, Mother filed a pro se motion to dismiss the complaint. After a hearing, a
magistrate entered an interim order adjudicating K.M.N. a dependent child and overruling
Mother’s motion to dismiss. Mother filed pro se objections to the magistrate’s interim
order, and on January 24, 2020, the trial court entered an order overruling her objections
and adopting the magistrate’s order. On January 27, the magistrate’s (amended) decision
and a court order adopting the magistrate’s decision were entered, which granted legal
custody of K.M.N. to his father and ordered Mother to have no contact with her son.
Mother filed objections to the decision and order and filed a pro se appeal of the January
24 order.
{¶ 3} On August 12, 2020, we stayed appellate proceedings and remanded the
case for the juvenile court to resolve Mother’s objections to the January 27 decision and
order. On April 1, 2021, the juvenile court entered a final order overruling all of Mother’s
objections.
{¶ 4} Mother’s appeal is now before us. She alleges that the juvenile court erred
by finding that K.M.N. was a dependent child, by admitting certain testimony at a hearing,
1 We use the child’s initials to protect his privacy.
-3-
by denying her legal custody, and by entering the no-contact order. We do not consider
any of these allegations, though, because while Mother’s appeal was pending, the
juvenile court lost jurisdiction over K.M.N., rendering her appeal moot.
{¶ 5} The juvenile court’s jurisdiction to address matters involving a dependent
child is governed by R.C. 2151.353(F)(1), which pertinently provides:
The court shall retain jurisdiction over any child for whom the court issues
an order of disposition pursuant to [R.C. 2151.353(A), R.C. 2151.414, or
R.C. 2151.415] until the child attains the age of eighteen years if the child
does not have a developmental disability or physical impairment, the child
attains the age of twenty-one years if the child has a developmental
disability or physical impairment, or the child is adopted and a final decree
of adoption is issued, except that the court may retain jurisdiction over the
child and continue any order of disposition * * * for a specified period of time
to enable the child to graduate from high school or vocational school. The
court shall make an entry continuing its jurisdiction under this division in the
journal.
The foregoing section means that, “in the absence of the applicability of very limited
exceptions, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction of a child previously adjudicated
dependent, neglected, or abused once the child reaches 18 years old.” In re A.B., 9th
Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010927, 2017-Ohio-4344, ¶ 21, citing In re M., 6th Dist. Wood
No. WD-03-092, 2004-Ohio-3798, ¶ 9. “This section is read very narrowly by appellate
courts. Jurisdiction of the juvenile court ceases to exist over a child who has turned 18,
unless very limited exceptions apply.” In re M. at ¶ 9.
-4-
{¶ 6} The juvenile court’s jurisdiction over K.M.N. has ceased. According to the
record, K.M.N. turned 18 years of age on December 27, 2020. The record contains no
juvenile court order continuing jurisdiction over K.M.N. until he turns 21, and we see no
finding by the juvenile court that K.M.N. is developmentally disabled or physically
impaired.
{¶ 7} The juvenile court’s loss of jurisdiction means that we cannot grant any
effectual relief regarding K.M.N., rendering moot the issues raised by Mother in this
appeal. See In re A.B. at ¶ 22 (concluding that all issues pertaining to the juvenile had
been rendered moot because “as the juvenile court has lost jurisdiction over A.B., no
decision by this Court could grant any effectual relief regarding her”). Because all the
issues are moot, this appeal may not proceed. See Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484,
2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597,
13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37 ( “[u]nder the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide
cases in which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties”).
{¶ 8} This case is dismissed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
J. Joshua Rizzo
Frank M. Batz
Robert Alan Brenner
Sara Barry, GAL
Hon. Anthony Capizzi