A juvenile court is not required to dismiss a child-dependency complaint allegedly filed in the wrong venue, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

The state law and juvenile court rules governing where a dependency case should be heard provide direction to a juvenile court but do not remove the court’s authority to hear the case when a possible venue problem exists, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote for the court.

The Supreme Court concluded the Summit County Juvenile Court was permitted to reject a motion claiming the court had no jurisdiction in the case.

Parent Elusive About Her Address
In February 2012, the Summit County Juvenile Court removed L.R.’s five children from her custody for failing to give them adequate housing, food, and clothing. According to the record, L.R. did not follow steps to fix the conditions that led to her children’s removal from her care, and she has not regained custody.

Failure to recognize and allow for the sometimes transient patterns of people involved with our state’s children services bureaus … would directly undermine the juvenile court system’s ability to protect children.
- Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor

Failure to recognize and allow for the sometimes transient patterns of people involved with our state’s children services bureaus … would directly undermine the juvenile court system’s ability to protect children.
- Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor

L.R. provided many different addresses to Summit County Children Services (SCCS) from late 2011 to August 2012, none of which could be confirmed by the agency. A court entry on Aug. 7, 2012, in the children’s cases indicated their mother’s residence was unknown. However, she was reported to be living with family in Cleveland when she gave birth to Z.R. in a Cleveland hospital on Aug. 23 of that year.

L.R. had been evasive with SCCS about where she planned to live and Z.R.’s expected due date leading up to the birth, and the agency had asked the hospital to be notified if L.R. did give birth there.

Case Filed Against Mother Concerning Newborn
On Aug. 24, after the hospital informed SCCS of the birth, the agency filed a complaint in the Summit County Juvenile Court asserting that Z.R. was a “dependent child” under state law because of the ongoing cases concerning L.R.’ s other children and because she had not addressed the issues leading to the loss of custody. L.R. asked the juvenile court to dismiss the case, claiming the court had no jurisdiction in the case given that Z.R. was born in Cuyahoga County and had no connections to Summit County.

In December 2012, the Summit County court determined that Z.R. was a “dependent child” who needed to be temporarily removed from her mother’s care and then it transferred the case to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court.

The mother raised six arguments in an appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. The Ninth District ruled that SCCS improperly filed the complaint in Summit County and that the juvenile court should have dismissed the case for improper venue. The appeals court declined to consider the other five claims.

Juvenile Courts’ Authority and Purpose
In today’s opinion, Chief Justice O’Connor explained that all juvenile courts in the state have subject-matter jurisdiction in cases alleging dependency, which in general means inadequate parental care. State law gives juvenile courts “exclusive original jurisdiction” in cases “[c]oncerning any child” alleged to be dependent.

Noting that “venue” is a procedural issue about the geographic location where a case should be heard, the chief justice wrote that the Supreme Court avoids interpreting procedural matters, such as venue, as a barrier to a court’s jurisdiction unless the legislature clearly mandates it or the state or federal constitution demands it.

In addition, the General Assembly has clearly indicated that the juvenile court system’s purpose is to provide for the care, protection, and development of children and that related laws must be liberally applied to meet that goal, she noted.

No Provisions Require Dismissal for Venue Defects
The chief justice pointed out that the statute, R.C. 2151.27(A)(1), and the juvenile court rule, 10(A), directly involved in this case contain no language stating a court must dismiss a dependency complaint filed in the wrong venue. In reviewing the totality of the laws and rules about administering Ohio’s juvenile courts, the Supreme Court concluded that the venue provisions in R.C. 2151.27 and Juv.R. 10 “are directory rather than mandatory.”

“Our conclusion is consistent with the general practice of ensuring wide discretion for juvenile courts,” Chief Justice O’Connor wrote. “Requiring juvenile courts to dismiss complaints filed in an improper venue is inconsistent with the latitude typically granted to those courts and with the General Assembly’s intention in creating juvenile courts.”

“Failure to recognize and allow for the sometimes transient patterns of people involved with our state’s children services bureaus cannot be the result the General Assembly intended for R.C. 2151.27(A)(1), as it would directly undermine the juvenile court system’s ability to protect children,” she continued. “In the context of R.C. Chapter 2151 as a whole, as well as the purposes behind the creation of the juvenile court system, we conclude that the venue directives contained in R.C. 2151.27(A)(1) are not jurisdictional requirements and that it is within a juvenile court’s sound discretion to remedy an alleged venue defect by transferring a case to a proper venue.”

The decision reverses the Ninth District’s ruling and returns the case to that court to address L.R.’s other five arguments.

Justices’ Votes
The majority opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill. Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred only in the court’s judgment.

2014-0277. In re Z.R., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3306.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.