Ronald's argument is twofold: first, he argues that the trial court lacked authority to proceed to disposition at the January 19, 2006 hearing because the trial court did not first make a neglect/dependency finding; and therefore, no dispositional hearing occurred on January 19. Second, Ronald argues that even assuming that the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing on January 19, the trial court erred by failing to bifurcate the hearing as required by Juv. R. 34(A) and In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 17 OBR 469, 479 N.E.2d 257. {¶ 15} MCCSB, on the other hand, argues that pursuant to R.C. 2151.35(B)(1), the trial court was permitted to hold the dispositional hearing immediately following the adjudicatory proceeding if, prior to the adjudicatory hearing, all parties were served with the necessary hearing documents.

Although we disagree with most of these charges, it should be pointed out that, in any event, the duty of a guardian to his ward is not the same as that of a lawyer to her client. In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232, 17 OBR 469, 470, 479 N.E.2d 257, 260. The role of a guardian ad litem is to investigate the ward's situation and then to ask the court to do what the guardian feels is in the ward's best interest.

"When R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) is read in pari materia with the related sections of 2151.412 and 2151.414, it becomes obvious that the state legislature envisioned circumstances under which the submission of a reunification plan by the children services board would not be necessary." See, also, In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 17 OBR 469, 479 N.E.2d 257, paragraph two of the syllabus, where it was held that "R.C. 2151.412 does not require a juvenile court to order a reunification plan when it makes a dispositional order pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(4)." Accord In re Moloney (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 22, 25-26, 24 OBR 18, 21-22, 492 N.E.2d 805, 808.

Nonetheless, "[T]he duty of a lawyer to his client and the duty of a guardian ad litem to his ward are not always identical and, in fact, may conflict." In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232, 17 OBR 469, 479 N.E.2d 257. The conflict typically arises when the guardian ad litem's determination of the child's best interest differs from the child's wishes.

{¶ 9} R.C. 2151.281(C) and Juv.R. 4(B)(3) require that the court appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of an incompetent adult in a juvenile proceeding where the parent appears to be mentally incompetent. In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232. R.C. 2151.281 provides in pertinent part:

The dispositional hearing shall not be held more than ninety days after the date on which the complaint in the case was filed. Further, in In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio instructed that [i]n proceedings where parental rights are subject to termination, both the Juvenile Rules and the Revised Code prescribe that such proceedings be bifurcated into separate adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. The Court explained the rationale behind the requirement:

"In proceedings where parental rights are subject to termination, both the Juvenile Rules and the Revised Code prescribe that such proceedings be bifurcated into separate adjudicatory and dispositional hearings." In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, syllabus. As the Supreme Court of Ohio noted in In re Riddle (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 259, 265:

The job of a guardian ad litem is to investigate the minor's situation, and ask the court to do what the guardian ad litem believes is in the minor's best interest. In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232, 17 OBR 469, 470-471, 479 N.E.2d 257, 260. A lawyer can take on both responsibilities, but as noted in Baxter, the duties of a lawyer and the duties of a guardian ad litem may conflict.

An adjudicatory hearing effectively upholds the integrity of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, for it is well settled that the Ohio Rules of Evidence must be strictly adhered to in adjudicatory proceedings. In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 233, 17 OBR 469, 471-472, 479 N.E.2d 257, 260-261; In re Sims (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 37, 13 OBR 40, 468 N.E.2d 111; Vickers, at 206, 14 OBR at 233-234, 470 N.E.2d at 444-445. Hearsay is not admissible in adjudicatory proceedings unless an exception is applicable.

Further, appellants argue that when Cottrell failed to petition the court to be dismissed, the court erred by failing to recognize his conflict and remove him as guardian ad litem sua sponte. As authority appellant cites R.C. 2151.281(H) and In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 17 OBR 469, 479 N.E.2d 257. Appellees respond that (1) appellants lack standing to raise the issue on appeal, (2) R.C. 2151.281(H) is inapplicable to this case, and (3) In re Baby Girl Baxter is distinguishable.