State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 138 Ohio St. 3d 84

Background

Mother (V.K.B.) was awarded sole custody of daughter J.B. by Sandusky County Juvenile Court in 2009 and notified the court of her 2010 relocation to Arizona.
Mother and child established Arizona as their home for about two years; during a 2012 visit to Ohio the mother returned to Arizona for a job interview and left J.B. temporarily with her own mother in Ohio.
Child’s paternal grandfather obtained an ex parte emergency temporary custody order in Sandusky County while the mother was in Arizona. The order granted immediate custody to the grandfather pending a hearing.
Mother filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition alleging the Ohio juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (R.C. Chapter 3127) because Arizona was the child’s home state and because the Ohio court failed to follow the statute’s communication and duration requirements.
The court of appeals dismissed the prohibition action, holding the juvenile court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Act and that an appeal was an adequate remedy; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, ordering the child returned to the mother and vacation of post‑August 2010 orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio juvenile court had temporary emergency jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.18	V.K.B.: No—Arizona is child’s home state; Ohio court failed to communicate with Arizona and did not set a duration for the temporary order as required by the Act	Respondents: Juvenile court properly exercised emergency temporary jurisdiction under the Uniform Act	Held: If complaint’s facts proven, Ohio court did not comply with R.C. 3127.18 and therefore lacked jurisdiction
Whether appeal is an adequate remedy precluding prohibition	V.K.B.: Appeal is not adequate because custody was given to a nonparent ex parte, the order has persisted over a year, and delay irreparably harms parent–child relationship (child is autistic)	Respondents: Any error can be corrected on appeal; appeal is the ordinary remedy	Held: Appeal is not adequate here—remedy must be complete, beneficial, and speedy; delays can cause irreparable loss of parental relationship
Whether a nonparent may be granted temporary custody over a parent in ex parte proceedings without statutory safeguards	V.K.B.: Granting a nonparent temporary custody over a parent implicates parent’s fundamental liberty interest and requires strict adherence to statute	Respondents: Emergency procedures were appropriate to protect child	Held: Parent’s fundamental rights outweigh nonparent’s interest; statutory procedures (communication with other state, specified duration) are required and were not followed
Relief appropriate by extraordinary writ	V.K.B.: Prohibition required to prevent continued exercise of unauthorized jurisdiction and to return child promptly	Respondents: Dismissal appropriate; appeal suffices	Held: Writ of prohibition granted; juvenile court ordered to vacate post‑August 2010 orders and return child to mother forthwith

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Kingsley v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 130 Ohio St.3d 333 (2011) (standard for adequacy of legal remedies)
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction removes need to show inadequacy of other remedies)
Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412 (2003) (appeal generally adequate remedy in custody disputes)
State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47 (2010) (parental custody disputes generally remediable by appeal)
In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (2002) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (constitutional protection of parental rights)
In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental custody as substantial right)
Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (2005) (distinguishing parents’ constitutional rights from nonparents)
In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (2007) (child‑custody proceedings are special proceedings)
In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (2011) (custody cases affect substantial rights)
In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (custody proceedings and substantial rights)