Background
The Stark County Department of Job and Family Services filed a complaint alleging that D.J. and two siblings were dependent, neglected, or abused. The family court adjudicated D.J. dependent and placed him in the agency’s temporary custody. The court later granted the agency permanent custody after finding that D.J. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody served his best interest.
Father completed a parenting assessment but provided no evidence that he completed the resulting substance-abuse, mental-health, and intensive-parenting requirements after moving to Chicago. He did not submit to drug testing or verify his income, and active warrants and case-plan noncompliance prevented an interstate placement assessment. Although Father and D.J. shared a bond, D.J.—who had autism, speech delays, and behavioral needs—was thriving in foster care and attending preschool.
Father appealed pro se, challenging the timing and basis of the dependency adjudication, the handling and waiver of counsel, the evidentiary support for permanent custody, and the denial of his repeated Civ.R. 60(B) motions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Father’s challenges to the original dependency adjudication and temporary-custody award were barred by res judicata because that judgment was a final, appealable order and Father did not timely appeal it. The court added that failure to conduct the adjudicatory hearing within the statutory period would not invalidate the order and that dependency focuses on the child’s condition, not parental fault, so the family court could consider Mother’s drug use.
The court rejected Father’s right-to-counsel argument because he supplied neither a hearing transcript nor a trial-court-approved App.R. 9(C) statement. It therefore presumed regularity and accepted the family court’s finding that Father requested to represent himself after three appointed attorneys withdrew amid disagreements with him.
The court likewise upheld the permanent-custody findings. The family court’s findings supported its conclusions that Father had not substantially remedied the conditions leading to removal, D.J. could not be placed with him within a reasonable time, and permanent custody was in D.J.’s best interest. Because the appellate record lacked a proper transcript, the court presumed regularity. It also held that Father could not use Civ.R. 60(B) motions as substitutes for appeals and that the family court did not abuse its discretion by denying them without a hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A dependency adjudication followed by an award of temporary custody is immediately appealable; issues that could have been raised in a timely appeal may be barred later by res judicata.
- An appellant who fails to provide a transcript or an approved App.R. 9(C) statement risks a presumption that the trial-court proceedings were regular.
- Minimal case-plan compliance, active warrants preventing interstate placement, and a child’s need for stable services and permanence supported the permanent-custody judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parents must timely appeal dependency and temporary-custody orders rather than wait for a later permanent-custody appeal. Civ.R. 60(B) generally cannot revive arguments that were available on direct appeal.
It also illustrates the importance of preserving an adequate appellate record. Without a transcript or properly approved narrative statement, an appellate court generally cannot evaluate factual claims about hearings and will presume the trial court acted regularly.