In re M.D. , 2023 Ohio 3315 ( 2023 )

[Cite as In re M.D., 2023-Ohio-3315.]
COURT OF APPEALS
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
M.D.
Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010
DELINQUENT CHILD OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, Case No. 22 JD 00299
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 18, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee M.D.
JEFFREY M. KIGGANS LISA L. CALDWELL
TUSCARAWAS CJFS TUSC. COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
389 16th Street, SW 203 Fair Avenue, NE
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
Guardian ad Litem Tuscarawas County Prosecutor's Office
MARY WARLOP DOUGLAS JACKSON
116 Cleveland Avenue, NW 125 East High Street
Canton, Ohio 44702 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Tuscarawas County Job and Family Services, appeals the
decision of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“trial
court”), which granted temporary custody of M.D. (“Appellee”) to Appellant. The following
facts give rise to this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On July 29, 2022, Appellee was placed into the legal custody of Tifanie and
Jason Kukwa by Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division at the
conclusion of an abuse, neglect, and dependency case, 2021 JCV 00298. The Kukwas
currently reside in Tuscarawas County.
{¶3} After placement with the Kukwas, Appellee had problems leading to the
filing of an unruly case in the trial court. After Appellee violated the terms and conditions
placed on Appellee by the trial court, a delinquency case was brought against Appellee.
{¶4} On November 22, 2022, Appellee stipulated to the delinquency charge.
{¶5} On January 18, 2023, the child was placed into the temporary custody of
Appellant by the trial court.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶6} Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal and raises the following
Assignment of Error:
{¶7} “I. THE TUSCARAWAS COUNTY JUVENILE COURT DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION TO PLACE M.D. INTO THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY JOB & FAMILY SERVICES. THE APPROPRIATE COURT TO
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 3
DECIDE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IS THE STARK COUNTY FAMILY COURT
PURSUANT TO 2151.353(K).”
I.
{¶8} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to place Appellee in the temporary custody of Appellant. We agree.
{¶9} R.C. §2152.19 states, in pertinent part:
(A) If a child is adjudicated a delinquent child, the court may make
any of the following orders of disposition, in addition to any other disposition
authorized or required by this chapter:
(1) Any order that is authorized by section 2151.353 of the
Revised Code for the care and protection of an abused, neglected, or
dependent child[.]
{¶10} R.C. §2151.353 states, in pertinent part:
(A) If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent
child, the court may make any of the following orders of disposition:
(1) Place the child in protective supervision;
(2) Commit the child to the temporary custody of any of the
following:
***
(f) Any other person approved by the court.
***
(F) (1) The court shall retain jurisdiction over any child for whom the
court issues an order of disposition pursuant to division (A) of this section
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 4
or pursuant to section 2151.414 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code until the
child attains the age of eighteen years if the child does not have a
developmental disability or physical impairment, * * * or the child is adopted
and a final decree of adoption is issued[.]
***
(K) The jurisdiction of the court shall terminate one year after the date
of the award or, if the court takes any further action in the matter subsequent
to the award, the date of the latest further action subsequent to the award,
if the court awards legal custody of a child to either of the following:
(1) A legal custodian who, at the time of the award of legal custody,
resides in a county of this state other than the county in which the court is
located;
(2) A legal custodian who resides in the county in which the court is
located at the time of the award of legal custody, but moves to a different
county of this state prior to one year after the date of the award or, if the
court takes any further action in the matter subsequent to the award, one
year after the date of the latest further action subsequent to the award.
{¶11} Appellant argues “the matter” referred to in R.C. §2151.353(K), means a
custody determination, allowing the trial court granting custody to retain jurisdiction for
one year after the date of the latest action in the custody determination. However, looking
at the statute as a whole, we find the State Legislature meant “the matter” to be the
original abuse, neglect and dependency case. The title of R.C. §2151.353(K) is
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 5
Disposition of Abused, Neglected, or Dependent Child. In State v. Hollingshead, 5th Dist.
Muskingum No. CT2022-0031, 2023-Ohio-1714, ¶17, this Court has noted:
[W]hile we recognize that this caption is not part of the law and that
the caption does not control the subject matter of the statute “ ‘it is proper
to look to the title to ascertain the legislative purpose and intent.’
(Commercial Credit Co. v. Schreyer, 120 Ohio St. 568, at page 574, 166
N.E. 808, at page 810) * * *” as quoted in State ex rel. Wise v. Miller, 5th
Dist. Holmes No. 01-CA-002, 2001 WL 1773878, *2.” The Supreme Court
of Ohio has explained that while not part of the substantive law, “* * *, it is
proper to look to the title to ascertain the legislative purpose and intent, and,
if the body of the act contains no language which is in conflict with that
expressed purpose, the inquiry is greatly facilitated. The force to be given
to a title as a factor in interpretation of a statute in the state of Ohio
surpasses that to be given in some of the states, because section 16, article
II, of our Constitution, requires: ‘No bill shall contain more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed in its title.’ ” Commercial Credit Co. v.
Schreyer, 120 Ohio St. 568, 574, 166 N.E. 808, 810, 7 Ohio Law Abs. 333(1929).1
{¶12} In the case sub judice, the title is drawn from subsection (A) of the statute
which provides that “[i]f a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child,
the court may make any of the following orders of disposition.” A basic tenant of statutory
construction is “the General Assembly is not presumed to do a vain or useless thing, and
1 This language now appears in Article II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 6
that when language is inserted in a statute it is inserted to accomplish some definite
purpose.” State ex rel. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Euclid (1959), 169 Ohio St. 476, 479,
8 O.O.2d 480, 482, 159 N.E.2d 756, 759 as quoted in State v. Wilson, 77 Ohio St.3d 334,
336, 673 N.E.2d 1347, 1349 (1997). Subsection (K) of the statute then grants the original
trial court jurisdiction over “the matter” for a period of one year if the legal custodian does
not reside in the same county as the trial court.
{¶13} Accordingly, we find that the “matter” referenced in R.C. §2151.353(K) is
the adjudication of a child as abused, neglected, or dependent. As such, we must look
to R.C. §2151.353(F)(1) to determine which court maintains jurisdiction over the custody
of the child. As the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, issued an
order of disposition pursuant to R.C. §2151.353(A) granting legal custody of Appellee to
the Kukwas, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, retains jurisdiction
over the custody of the child pursuant to R.C. §2151.353(F)(1).
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 02 0010 7
{¶14} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is sustained.
{¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division of Tuscarawas County, Ohio is reversed and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the law and this Opinion.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
JWW/br 0906