Fed. R. App. P4(B) Interpretation

In In re H.F., Slip Opinion No. 120 Ohio St. 3d 499, 2008 Ohio 6810, 900 N.E.2d 607, the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169, that "an adjudication by a juvenile court that a child is 'neglected' or 'dependent' as defined by R.C. Chapter 2151 followed by a disposition awarding temporary custody to a public children services agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2) constitutes a 'final order' within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02 and is appealable to the court of appeals pursuant to R.C. 2501.02." In re H.F. at P8. The Ohio Supreme Court determined that App.R. 4(B)(5) does not provide an exception to App.R. 4(A) in this situation because although adjudication orders constitute "final orders," they do not constitute "partial final orders," and the exception in App.R. 4(B)(5) only applies to "partial final orders." Id. at P12. It reasoned that an adjudication order concludes "the immediate action between the parties," and "there is no assurance that a parent would have an alternate opportunity to appeal an adjudication order." Id. at P13-14. It further reasoned that after a juvenile court adjudicates a child abused, neglected, or dependent, "there are no issues left pending." Id. at P15. It concluded that no issues remain pending even though the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to eventually enter a final disposition for the child. Id. at P16.