France v. Celebrezze, 2012 Ohio 5085

France, acting pro se, sought a writ of prohibition to stop a show cause hearing in a family/custody proceeding (DR-10-331762).
The relator alleged Judge Celebrezze lacked authority to conduct the hearing or jurisdiction over the children.
The appellate court sua sponte dismissed the prior prohibition filing in May 2012 as defective for lack of an attached sworn affidavit.
The court held that prohibition requires demonstration of a three-part test and an adequate remedy; here none was shown.
The court found Judge Celebrezze has general subject-matter and statutory jurisdiction over domestic relations, and France had an adequate remedy by appeal; thus the writ was not appropriate.
The complaint was dismissed with France taxed with costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the writ of prohibition complied with procedural rules	France claims procedural defects preclude dismissal	Court requires affidavit and proper procedure	Procedurally defective; dismissed
Whether France proves the three-part prohibition test	France asserts lack of jurisdiction	Judge has jurisdiction; no improper action shown	Three-part test not satisfied; prohibition denied
Whether Judge Celebrezze lacked jurisdiction over domestic relations matters	Celebrezze exceeded authority	Court has general jurisdiction under R.C. 3105.011 et seq.	Court possesses jurisdiction; prohibition not issued
Whether there was an adequate remedy at law besides prohibition	No adequate remedy aside from prohibition	Remedy via appeal exists and was adequate	France had an adequate remedy via appeal; prohibition not appropriate

State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. C.P., 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (2009-Ohio-4688) (affidavit requirement for prohibition action; procedure proper)
State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea, 218 N.E.2d 428 (1966) (limits on availability of prohibition relief)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 688 N.E.2d 267 (1997-Ohio-340) (jurisdictional infirmity prerequisite; general jurisdiction can be challenged by appeal)
State ex rel. Enyart v. O’Neil, 646 N.E.2d 1110 (1995-Ohio-145) (court may determine its own jurisdiction absent patent lack)
State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 905 N.E.2d 1220 (2009-Ohio-1703) (prohibition and appellate remedies interplay in jurisdiction questions)
State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 828 N.E.2d 107 (2005-Ohio-2591) (adequacy of remedies and prohibition scope)
State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 304 N.E.2d 382 (1973-Ohio) (discretion in issuing writs of prohibition)
State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 540 N.E.2d 239 (1989-Ohio-?) (judicial authority thresholds for prohibition)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 688 N.E.2d 267 (1997-Ohio-340) (see above noted)
State ex rel. Portage Cty. Court v. Rootstown Local Sch. Dist., 678 N.E.2d 1363 (1997-Ohio-) (adequate remedy via appeal; jurisdictional review on appeal)