In the case of In re D.B., 2022-Ohio-2624, the appellate court held that the trial court failed to declare a financially responsible school district for a minor child at the time the child was removed from the custody of his natural mother in accordance with R.C. 2151.362(A)(1), and thus remanded the case back to the trial court.
Here, a school district argued that it was improperly designated as the financially responsible school district for a minor child’s education costs because the trial court did not determine a financially responsible school district at the time the child was placed in the custody of foster parents. The trial court reasoned that it did not have to determine a financially responsible school district at the time of removal because the minor child was too young to be evaluated for special education. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court.
In support of its decision, the appellate court explained that R.C. 2151.362(A)(1) “directs a trial court to ‘determine the school district that is to bear the cost of educating the child at the time of making any order that vests legal custody of the child in a person other than the child’s parent or a government agency.’” In re D.B., ¶ 13; citing R.C. 2151.362(A)(1). The appellate court further explained that the age of the child at custody removal is irrelevant to making a determination on a financially responsible school district, as the statute directs a court on how to make that determination whether the child has special educational needs or not. Because the child was placed into the legal custody of someone other than the child’s parent or a governmental agency, the trial court should have designated a financially responsible school district at the time of the child’s removal from the natural parents’ home.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.