Background
Stark County Department of Job and Family Services filed a complaint alleging that Z.J. and her two siblings were dependent, neglected, and/or abused. The family court found Z.J. dependent and placed her in the agency’s temporary custody. D.J., the appellant, was initially believed to be Z.J.’s biological father.
After E.W. was determined to be Z.J.’s biological father, the family court dismissed D.J. from Z.J.’s case in April 2025. The agency later moved for permanent custody of all three children, and the court granted the motion. D.J., representing himself, appealed the permanent-custody judgment and raised challenges involving statutory deadlines, due process, counsel, the sufficiency of the evidence, and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. It explained that an appellate court has jurisdiction only when the person appealing has standing to challenge the trial court’s judgment, and that a nonparty generally cannot appeal a decision on its merits.
D.J. had been dismissed from Z.J.’s case after genetic testing established that he was not her biological father. Because his dismissal occurred before the permanent-custody motion was filed, he was not a party to the permanent-custody proceedings concerning Z.J. He also did not move for legal custody after learning that he was not the biological father. The court therefore concluded that he lacked standing to appeal and did not address his assignments of error on their merits.
Key Takeaways
- A person must have standing to invoke an Ohio appellate court’s jurisdiction.
- A former alleged father who was dismissed before permanent-custody proceedings and did not seek legal custody lacked standing to appeal the custody award.
- Because standing was absent, the appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the asserted procedural, constitutional, evidentiary, or post-judgment issues.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that standing is a threshold issue in juvenile appeals. A person’s earlier involvement in a dependency case does not necessarily permit that person to challenge a later permanent-custody judgment after being dismissed as a party.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights the potential importance of formally seeking legal custody when a nonparent or former alleged parent intends to preserve a legally cognizable role in later custody proceedings.