Lee v. Weir (Slip Opinion), 150 Ohio St. 3d 110

In December 2012 Hamilton County JFS filed a dependency complaint and sought emergency removal of R.L., an infant born March 14, 2012.
A magistrate held an emergency hearing, found Lee an "alleged father," described his prior violence, found the child at imminent risk, and granted temporary custody to Family Services.
In April 2014 the juvenile court (after proceedings) awarded permanent custody of R.L. to Hamilton County Job and Family Services.
In July 2015 Ricardo G. Lee filed a second habeas petition in the First District Court of Appeals seeking return of custody from the county director, alleging unlawful restraint under the juvenile-court order.
The county moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata, successive petition, and that Lee had adequate alternative remedies; the court of appeals granted the motion and denied relief.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding habeas was unavailable because Lee had adequate legal remedies to challenge the juvenile-court orders and had in fact used them (appeal of the permanent-custody order).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas corpus is available to contest juvenile-court award of permanent custody	Lee argued the county unlawfully restrains his child and sought habeas relief for custody	Weir argued habeas is improper because Lee had alternative remedies and the petition was successive	Court held habeas unavailable: Lee had adequate alternative remedies and had used them; dismissal affirmed
Whether the magistrate’s temporary-custody order could be attacked by habeas	Lee challenged the underlying orders and facts supporting removal	County argued challenges to magistrate orders must be raised under juvenile rules and on appeal, not by habeas	Court held such defects are for ordinary remedies (Juv.R. 40 and appeals), not habeas
Whether a successive habeas petition is barred	Lee filed a second habeas petition asserting the same custody claim	County argued res judicata/successive-petition doctrines and availability of other remedies bar relief	Court treated petition as barred by availability of ordinary legal remedies and affirmed dismissal
Whether failure to pursue or succeed in ordinary remedies permits habeas	Lee did not prevail in juvenile-court proceedings	County argued even unsuccessful or unpursued remedies preclude habeas	Court held availability of remedies, even if unused or unsuccessful, precludes habeas relief

Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 80 Ohio St.3d 128 (1997) (habeas in child-custody cases requires unlawful detention and superior legal right to custody; relief is exceptional)
In re G.T.B., 128 Ohio St.3d 502 (2011) (habeas unavailable when adequate remedy exists in ordinary course of law)
In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427 (2004) (same principle: habeas is not available if ordinary remedies exist)
Rammage v. Saros, 97 Ohio St.3d 430 (2002) (challenge to magistrate orders must be raised under juvenile rules or on appeal)
State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339 (2014) (availability of alternative legal remedies, even if unsuccessful or unused, precludes habeas)