2021 Ohio 1637
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Minor child born July 2019; lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan with parents until June 11, 2020, when mother and child went to Ohio to stay with maternal grandmother Rebecca Hershberger. Father stayed separately nearby.
- After an argument, mother left grandmother’s home June 16, 2020; the child remained with grandmother. Hershberger filed for temporary custody in Tuscarawas County (Ohio) the next day and obtained ex parte temporary custody on June 24, 2020.
- The Kallets (parents) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; magistrate denied the motion and the juvenile court continued temporary custody with Hershberger.
- On October 5, 2020 the Kallets filed a custody complaint in Jackson County, Michigan (the child’s alleged home state) seeking transfer under the UCCJEA; communication between the Ohio and Michigan courts was incomplete.
- The Kallets filed an original action for writ of prohibition in the Ohio appellate court to prohibit further juvenile-court proceedings; the appellate court granted the writ, holding Michigan was the child’s home state under the UCCJEA and Ohio lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The appellate court ordered the juvenile court to (1) specify a reasonable period for the Ohio temporary order to remain in effect under R.C. 3127.18(C), and (2) immediately communicate with the Michigan court under R.C. 3127.18(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kallet) | Defendant's Argument (Judge/Magistrate / Hershberger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Michigan is the child’s home state; Ohio lacks jurisdiction | Juvenile court has jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23/Juv.R.10 and other provisions | Held for Kallets: Michigan is the home state; Ohio lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether emergency/temporary jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.18 applied | No: child was not abandoned or shown abused; parents had contact | Hershberger argued temporary emergency jurisdiction (abandonment or abuse) applied | Held: R.C. 3127.18 did not apply (no 90‑day abandonment; no evidence of abuse); even if it had initially, it terminated once Michigan action commenced |
| Whether R.C. 2151.23 / Juv.R.10 supplied jurisdiction despite UCCJEA | Kallets: UCCJEA controls subject-matter jurisdiction and can divest otherwise broad juvenile jurisdiction | Respondents: statutory juvenile-court jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23 supports action | Held: R.C. 2151.23/Juv.R.10 do not override the UCCJEA; subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by R.C. Chapter 3127 (UCCJEA) |
| Whether writ of prohibition was appropriate or an appeal suffices | Writ necessary because parents’ fundamental rights and child’s time are at stake; appeal would be inadequate and cause irreparable delay | Respondents relied on ordinary appellate remedies | Held: Writ granted (appeal inadequate under V.K.B. and given parent vs. nonparent custody stakes and delay risk) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010) (standards for writ of prohibition when lower court lacks jurisdiction)
- Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241 (2008) (UCCJEA controls which state has custody jurisdiction; definition and priority of home state)
- State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 138 Ohio St.3d 84 (2013) (parents’ constitutional interest and inadequacy of appeal in parent vs. nonparent temporary-custody disputes)
- State ex rel. M.L. v. O’Malley, 144 Ohio St.3d 553 (2015) (juvenile courts must follow UCCJEA to determine jurisdiction between states)
- Stephens v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 331 Mont. 40 (2006) (construction of “home state” under UCCJEA principles)
- State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (2002) (prohibition issues when lower court acts without jurisdiction)