Background
The Stark County Department of Job and Family Services filed a complaint alleging that K.J. and her siblings were dependent, neglected, or abused. The juvenile court adjudicated K.J. dependent and placed her in the agency’s temporary custody. K.J.’s father later moved to Chicago and completed only the parenting assessment required by his case plan. He did not verify participation in substance-abuse treatment, mental-health counseling, or a parenting program, and he did not provide proof of income.
An interstate placement could not proceed because Father had active warrants and had not complied with his case plan. Although Father maintained virtual visits and shared a bond with K.J., the juvenile court found that K.J. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in her best interest. K.J. was thriving in a foster home with her sister. Father appealed the permanent-custody judgment and also challenged the earlier dependency adjudication, his waiver of counsel, and the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that res judicata barred Father’s challenges to the dependency adjudication and temporary-custody order because those rulings were final, appealable orders and Father did not timely appeal them. The court added that the statutory adjudication deadline did not provide a basis to invalidate the order and that dependency focuses on the child’s condition, not parental fault, so the juvenile court could consider Mother’s drug use.
The court also rejected Father’s right-to-counsel and evidentiary challenges. Because he provided neither a hearing transcript nor a trial-court-approved App.R. 9(C) statement, the appellate court presumed regularity in the proceedings, including the juvenile court’s finding that Father chose to represent himself. The juvenile court’s findings supported its conclusions that Father had not substantially remedied the conditions preventing placement and that K.J.’s need for permanence outweighed the harm of severing their bond. Finally, the court held that Father’s repeated Civ.R. 60(B) motions improperly attempted to substitute for a direct appeal, so denying them without a hearing was not an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A parent must timely appeal a dependency adjudication and accompanying temporary-custody disposition; otherwise, res judicata bars later challenges to those rulings.
- Without a transcript or an approved App.R. 9(C) statement, an appellate court presumes the regularity of juvenile-court proceedings.
- Minimal case-plan compliance, unresolved warrants, and the inability to verify services or income supported the finding that K.J. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural consequences of failing to appeal an initial dependency and temporary-custody order. Those issues generally cannot be revived during a later permanent-custody appeal or through Civ.R. 60(B).
It also illustrates how an incomplete appellate record can be dispositive. When the appellant does not supply a proper record of the hearings, the reviewing court generally must accept the trial court’s factual account and presume that its proceedings were regular.