2019 Ohio 2118
Ohio2019Background
- Relator C.V. gave birth to N.V. on Aug. 10, 2018; she had a history of heroin use and did not know she was pregnant until delivery.
- Within 24–76 hours of assessment by Adoption Link (a private adoption agency), C.V. signed a temporary-custody agreement and then a permanent-surrender agreement assigning permanent custody of the infant to Adoption Link.
- Adoption Link filed the surrender with the Greene County Juvenile Court under R.C. 5103.15; the juvenile judge signed an entry purporting to approve the surrender and terminated parental rights without a hearing or C.V.’s appearance.
- C.V. sought to revoke the surrender unsuccessfully in lower courts, then filed this original action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking writs of prohibition (against juvenile and probate judges) and habeas corpus to vacate the juvenile-court approval, halt probate adoption proceedings, and regain custody.
- The Court stayed adoption proceedings and: granted a writ of prohibition against the Greene County Juvenile Court judge (vacating his approval), denied prohibition against the Greene County Probate Court judge, and denied writ of habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had authority to approve the permanent-surrender agreement (R.C. 5103.15(B)(1) v. (B)(2)) | C.V.: Juvenile court lacked authority because this was a (B)(2) surrender (private agency, child <6 months, sole purpose adoption) requiring only notification/journalization, not approval | Adoption Link/Judge: Juvenile court may approve permanent-surrender agreements and had authority; filing invoked juvenile jurisdiction | Court: Juvenile-court approval of the (B)(2) surrender was unauthorized; writ of prohibition granted and the approval vacated (per curiam) |
| Whether habeas corpus should issue to return N.V. to C.V. | C.V.: Child is unlawfully detained; she has superior right to custody | Respondents: C.V. has an adequate remedy in probate adoption proceedings (intervention) | Court: Habeas corpus denied; C.V. has adequate remedy (intervene in probate) |
| Whether a writ of prohibition should bar the Greene County Probate Court from proceeding in adoption | C.V.: Probate court lacks authority while juvenile approval is void; seeks to stop probate proceedings | Probate judge: Probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions and must determine validity of consents | Court: Denied prohibition against probate judge; probate court must decide validity and grant C.V. leave to intervene |
| Whether the juvenile court’s error was jurisdictional (patent & unambiguous) | C.V.: Judge patently lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to approve a (B)(2) surrender — approval was a nullity | Concurring/dissenting view: Juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to journalize and to review; at most error was statutory/procedural and therefore voidable | Per curiam: treated as lack of authority to approve and vacated approval; separate opinions disagreed on whether defect was jurisdictional vs. voidable (but all agreed approval should not be given preclusive effect) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 40 N.E.3d 1138 (Ohio 2015) (elements for writ of prohibition)
- In re Z.R., 44 N.E.3d 239 (Ohio 2015) (juvenile courts possess only statutory authority)
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1995) (judgment by court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity)
- Barnebey v. Zschach, 646 N.E.2d 162 (Ohio 1995) (intervention in probate adoption proceedings provides adequate remedy barring habeas relief)
- Marich v. Knox Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 543 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 1989) (adequacy of appellate remedy; habeas may be appropriate when appeal is not speedy)
- State ex rel. Gains v. Maloney, 809 N.E.2d 24 (Ohio 2004) (exception allowing prohibition to correct prior actions when inferior court patently lacks jurisdiction)