In re H.V.

{¶ 27} The majority’s decision to affirm the Ninth District Court of Appeals is not supported by the language of the relevant statutes or by the General Assembly’s rationale in enacting those laws.

{¶ 28} The juvenile court did not have the power to designate a mandatory minimum confinement term of 90 days when ordering H.V.’s return to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“ODYS”) to continue serving under his 2010 disposition, and that portion of the juvenile court’s November 23, 2011 revocation disposition should be reversed as unlawful. And because the juvenile court did not have the…