State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Probate Div. (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 230
Ohio2016Background
- M.S., born July 2014, tested positive for cocaine; Allen County Children Services Board (Board) obtained emergency removal and the Juvenile Court adjudicated the child abused/dependent and placed her in the Board’s temporary custody.
- Foster parents Brian and Kelly Anderson cared for M.S.; mother later sought to have the Andersons adopt the child and personally executed a placement-for-adoption application in Mercer County Probate Court.
- Probate Court approved preadoption placement and ordered the Board to release M.S. to the Andersons’ counsel; the Juvenile Court, asserting exclusive and continuing jurisdiction, ordered the child not to be removed and denied the Andersons’ intervention.
- The Board sought a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court to prevent the Probate Court from proceeding while the Juvenile Court exercised continuing custody jurisdiction; the Court initially granted a peremptory writ but then granted reconsideration.
- Majority (O’Donnell, J.) rescinded the writ and held the Probate Court had jurisdiction to approve preadoption placement because (1) probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoptions and (2) a parent’s residual right to consent to adoption survives a juvenile-court temporary-custody disposition.
- Chief Justice O’Connor and Justice O’Neill dissented, arguing the Juvenile Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over custody/adjudication matters should bar concurrent Probate Court adoption proceedings until juvenile final disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (Probate Court / Andersons / Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a probate court proceed with a preadoption placement while a juvenile court exercises continuing jurisdiction after adjudicating the child abused/ dependent and ordering temporary custody to a children-services agency? | Juvenile Court has exclusive jurisdiction over custody; probate proceeding is unauthorized while juvenile temporary-custody order is in effect. | Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoptions; parent retains residual right to consent and may use R.C. 5103.16(D) to seek private placement approval. | Held: Probate Court may exercise jurisdiction to order preadoption placement; parental consent can allow Probate proceedings despite Juvenile Court’s continuing jurisdiction. |
| Does a juvenile-court dispositional order awarding temporary custody divest a parent of the right to consent to adoption? | Board: Once juvenile grants temporary custody, the juvenile process controls placement and can divest parental control over placement. | Probate/parents: Adoption statutes preserve parental consent rights even if child is in temporary custody; parent may arrange private placement with Probate Court approval. | Held: Legal custody to a temporary custodian does not eliminate parents’ residual right to consent to adoption; that right allows Probate jurisdiction. |
| Does R.C. 5103.16(D) permit parental-initiated private preadoption placement when a children-services agency has temporary custody? | Board: Statutory scheme and juvenile process favor agency/juvenile-court control; allowing private placement undermines juvenile proceedings. | Probate/Andersons: R.C. 5103.16(D) expressly allows parents to apply to Probate Court to approve private placements; Probate may place child pending adoption. | Held: R.C. 5103.16(D) permits parental-arranged private preadoption placement and gives Probate authority to approve such placement even if juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction. |
| Is a writ of prohibition appropriate to stop the Probate Court? | Board: Lack of juvenile-court-exclusive jurisdiction is patent; prohibiting Probate prevents irreversible placement/adoption that would deprive juvenile process. | Probate: Writ prevented mother from exercising constitutional/ statutory consent rights and improperly restrained Probate exclusive adoption jurisdiction. | Held: Court rescinded prior peremptory writ on reconsideration and denied writ; Probate jurisdiction to proceed was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (2006) (probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions; probate should defer when juvenile court must resolve parentage)
- In re G.T.B., 128 Ohio St.3d 502 (2011) (Pushcar clarified: probate must refrain when juvenile court adjudicates parentage issues)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (2006) (legal custody does not divest parents of residual parental rights such as consent to adoption)
- In re J.A.S., 126 Ohio St.3d 145 (2010) (biological parent may seek court approval of placement even if not physically custody)
- In re Adoption of Asente, 90 Ohio St.3d 91 (2000) (principle that when one competent court has begun deciding long-term fate of child, other courts should refrain)