In re J.D., 2019 Ohio 285

Relator C.D., pro se, filed an original action seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus against the Belmont County Juvenile Court after being held in contempt for refusing court-ordered visitation for the child’s father (G.W.).
The juvenile court had earlier adjudicated G.W. as the father and entered a parental-rights/visitation order (“Option 1” visitation); this court affirmed that judgment on direct appeal (In re J.D., 7th Dist.).
After the appellate affirmance, C.D. refused to comply with visitation, producing contempt proceedings in the juvenile court.
C.D. argued the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to hold her in contempt because she was not properly served with contempt process, and she sought to present new evidence (child’s life‑threatening allergies and autism) contending visitation was not in the child’s best interest.
The court treated C.D.’s petition as raising two main claims: (1) jurisdictional defect in contempt proceedings; and (2) attempts to relitigate or introduce new evidence about the visitation/best-interest determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether writ of prohibition is warranted to stop contempt proceedings	C.D.: juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because she was not properly served with contempt process	Respondent: juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction over parentage and contempt; appeal is the adequate remedy	Denied — prohibition inappropriate where court has jurisdiction and appeal is adequate remedy
Whether mandamus can compel relief from visitation order due to new evidence about child’s health/conditions	C.D.: newly discovered evidence (allergies, autism) makes visitation harmful; mandamus required	Respondent: relator has adequate remedies (appeal was taken; Civ.R. 60(B); motion to modify) and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal	Denied — mandamus unavailable; relator must use Civ.R. 60(B) or motion to modify; juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction
Whether relator’s failure to timely appeal deprives her of remedy	C.D.: implies need for extraordinary relief because direct remedies are ineffective or time-barred	Respondent: appeal/delayed appeal/postconviction relief/60(B) remain adequate; failure to appeal does not make appeal inadequate	Denied — courts will not permit mandamus/prohibition merely because relator failed to pursue appeal
Procedural: whether stay should issue pending original action	C.D.: sought emergency stay of juvenile proceedings	Respondent: moved to dismiss petition	Denied/Moot — petition dismissed; stay motion rendered moot

Burtzlaff v. Vickery, 121 Ohio St. 49 (Ohio 1929) (definition and purpose of writ of prohibition)
State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (prohibition restrains tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 1997) (elements for prohibition)
State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 2006) (unless jurisdiction is patently lacking, appeal is adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (elements for mandamus)
Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency v. Guthrie, 84 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 1999) (juvenile/parentage court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify orders)
Justis v. Justis, 81 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 1998) (juvenile court may hold custodial parent in contempt)
State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2007) (appeal is adequate remedy for prohibition/mandamus purposes)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Bd. of Edn. of North Olmsted City School Dist., 65 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 1992) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)
State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas, 98 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio 2003) (mandamus precluded where adequate legal remedies exist)