State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson
129 Ohio St. 3d 453
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Three overlapping adoption proceedings involve Crooks seeking to adopt P.A.C. while Otten was adjudicated as P.A.C.’s biological father in Clermont Juvenile Court proceedings.
- Crooks filed a Hamilton County Probate Court adoption petition; Otten intervened to contest it.
- Crooks then filed a Clermont County Probate Court adoption petition while the Hamilton County case remained pending.
- The Clermont petition asserted Otten’s consent was not required; Otten challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
- The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately held the Clermont County Probate Court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction and granted prohibition to dismiss the Clermont petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clermont County Probate Court lacked jurisdiction under jurisdictional-priority rules. | Otten—Clermont case divested first-filed Hamilton case’s jurisdiction. | Clermont court followed separate-consent issues; priority not granted to stay. | Yes; Clermont lacked jurisdiction; writ granted. |
| Whether overlapping adoptions constitute the same cause of action triggering priority. | Otten’s rights as biological father required consistency; pending Hamilton case governs. | Both petitions involve adoption of same child by Crooks, involving same parties. | Yes; priority applies; Clermont case must await Hamilton case. |
| Whether denial of the writ would cause irreparable harm to Otten. | Immediate dismissal protects parental rights and prevents ongoing harm. | Proceeding in Clermont would undermine already pending proceedings. | Prohibition appropriate to prevent unauthorized proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (2010-Ohio-3351) (reaffirmed jurisdictional dismissal when parentage adjudication occurs in another county)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (2007-Ohio-5238) (parental-rights termination requires protection of fundamental liberty interests)
- In re Asente, 90 Ohio St.3d 91 (2000-Ohio-}) (once a court with jurisdiction begins decision, other courts must refrain from interference)
- State ex rel. Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan, 17 Ohio St.3d 54 (1985-Ohio-}) (jurisdictional-priority rule governs concurrent-jurisdiction proceedings)
- State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (2002-Ohio-6323) (prohibition available where a court patently lacks jurisdiction)
- Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008-Ohio-2637) (absence of adequate remedy not required when jurisdiction is patently lacking)
- G.V. (In re Adoption of G.V.), 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (2010-Ohio-3349) (adoption proceedings must refrain when parenting issues unresolved)