In re Adoption of C.P.F., 2014 Ohio 4479

Children C.P.F. and L.C.F. were placed with maternal aunt and uncle (the Cs) in 2009 by parental handwritten agreement, then passed to relatives C.F. and P.F. (the Fs) as successor guardians on April 15, 2011.
The biological parents relapsed intermittently; they learned in May 2011 that the children were living with the Fs and later filed and withdrew motions to terminate the guardianship; they refiled on October 13, 2011.
On October 13, 2011 the Fs filed adoption petitions; a magistrate later found the Fs failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parents had failed, without justifiable cause, to communicate with or support the children during the year before that filing, largely because the Cs and Fs had misled or withheld information from the parents.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, the Fs timely appealed, and while that appeal was pending the Fs filed second adoption petitions in June 2013 (assigned same case numbers).
The probate court dismissed the second petitions in December 2013, reasoning it could not proceed while the first-petition judgment was on appeal; the Fs appealed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probate court erred by dismissing second adoption petitions as barred while an appeal of decision on first petitions was pending	Fs: second petitions are separate because look-back period for R.C. 3107.07 differs (12 months before June 7, 2013) so res judicata/closure shouldn’t prevent consideration	Biological parents: probate court lacked jurisdiction to hear second petitions while appeal of first-petition judgment was pending; dismissal was proper	Court: probate court lacked jurisdiction to proceed while appeal pending and thus could not hear second petitions, but erred by dismissing them rather than staying them pending resolution of the appeal (affirm in part, reverse in part, remand to enter stay)
Whether res judicata or failure to file timely objections prevented consideration of second petitions	Fs: second petitions are independent causes of action and not precluded	Biological parents: procedural objections and overlapping issue (necessity of parental consent) justify dismissal	Court: dismissal was not based on res judicata; timely objections argument irrelevant because lack of jurisdiction controlled; second assignment overruled

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (defines res judicata principles)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court loses jurisdiction after appeal except to act in aid of appeal)
Howard v. Catholic Social Servs. of Cuyahoga Cty., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (trial court retains only collateral jurisdiction while appeal pending)
In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11 (2005) (juvenile judge lacks authority to determine merit or validity of appeal)
State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (2011) (once a court begins deciding long-term fate of a child, other courts must refrain; jurisdictional priority and waiting to file subsequent petitions)
In re Adoption of Asente, 90 Ohio St.3d 91 (2000) (the first court to assume jurisdiction over a child’s long-term fate excludes other courts)