State ex rel. Doe v. Capper
132 Ohio St. 3d 365
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Adoption finalized May 2010 of a child born November 2009 to an unmarried mother who surrendered rights; the child’s adoptive parents (relators) seek prohibition of a paternity action.
- Todd Roccaro filed a paternity suit Oct 6, 2010 in Clark County Juvenile Court naming only the biological mother, not the child, and seeking paternity, custody, and child-support relief.
- Judge Capper in 2011 determined juvenile court had limited jurisdiction to allow information for adoption records and ordered genetic testing, despite the child not being a party.
- In Jan 2012 relators filed a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent further proceedings and to void orders; the court stayed proceedings and ordered briefing on jurisdiction.
- Relators concede Capper admitted lack of in personam jurisdiction; the court ultimately grants prohibition and dismisses the case; the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is treated per Furnas exception and not decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Capper lacked personal jurisdiction over relators and the child | Relators contend child must be named; lack of party renders judgment void | Capper purportedly acted within jurisdiction by addressing paternity within the statutory scheme | Relators prevail; Capper lacks personal jurisdiction; writ granted |
| Whether the child must be made a party to a paternity action under R.C. 3111.07(A) | Child is an interested and necessary party; failure to join defeats jurisdiction | Not explicitly stated; proceedings proceeded under limited hearing | Relators prevail on lack of joinder; lack of joinder taints jurisdiction and supports prohibition |
| Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction to order genetic testing given the final adoption | Adoption finality limits capacity to entertain paternity actions | Furnas exception allows limited testing to aid adoption records | Not addressed on merits here due to ruling on personal jurisdiction; subject-matter issue left unresolved per purpose of decision |
| Whether Civ.R. 15(A) permits leave to amend the answer showing lack of jurisdiction | Amendment clarifies position and supports writ | Amendment should be permitted under liberal policy absent bad faith or prejudice | Amendment granted; liberal amendment policy applied |
| Whether the claim should be treated as advisory opinion; affect of personal jurisdiction suffices | Court should address jurisdiction to prevent advisory rulings | Court resolves based on lack of personal jurisdiction; subject-matter not reached as advisory |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481 (2004-Ohio-5586) (liberal amendment policy; Civ.R. 15(A) applied to original actions)
- Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984-Ohio) (liberal amendment standard for pleadings under Civ.R. 15(A))
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (1984) (personal jurisdiction fundamental requirement)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (2011-Ohio-4082) (patent lack of jurisdiction permits prohibition to correct past actions)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (2006-Ohio-954) (jurisdictional defect when party not properly joined)
- State ex rel. Keyes v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 123 Ohio St.3d 29 (2009-Ohio-4052) (jurisdictional/policy considerations in mandamus-style relief)
- State ex rel. Furnas v. Monnin, 120 Ohio St.3d 279 (2008-Ohio-5569) (limited Furnas exception allowing paternity testing for biological father to establish rights)
- State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110 (2002-Ohio-5334) (pleading amendments allowed absent bad faith or prejudice)
- In re Furnas v. Monnin (dissenting references), 120 Ohio St.3d 279 (2008-Ohio-5569) (discussion of Furnas limits; separate views)