State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 32 N.E.3d 452

Relator V.K.B., Arizona resident with legal custody of minor J.B., challenged Sandusky County Juvenile Court actions regarding custody initiated by J.B.’s paternal grandfather.
In 2013 this court granted prohibition, holding Arizona had exclusive jurisdiction and vacated ex parte orders previously entered in grandfather’s favor.
Two days after that decision the grandfather refiled an identical custody complaint in Sandusky County; Judge Smith dismissed the first complaint per this court’s order but allowed the new one to proceed.
V.K.B. moved to dismiss the new case; Judge Smith later recused and retired judge David Basinski was assigned.
Judge Basinski dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but nonetheless ordered (1) V.K.B. to provide the grandfather a contact address for J.B. and (2) the child-support agency to reduce father’s arrearage by amounts paid to the grandfather.
V.K.B. sought a writ of prohibition; the Supreme Court granted the writ against the Sandusky County Juvenile Court (ordering rescission of both Basinski orders) but not against Judge Smith because he had recused.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sandusky Juvenile Court could order relator to provide child’s contact address despite lack of jurisdiction	V.K.B.: court lacked jurisdiction; any order requiring address is unauthorized	Respondents: court entered order; procedural remedies might exist elsewhere	Court: Order to provide address was issued without jurisdiction; writ granted and order must be rescinded
Whether court could order child-support-enforcement agency to reduce arrearage given jurisdictional defect	V.K.B.: absent jurisdiction, order altering support is unauthorized and review in Arizona is insufficient	Respondents: relator has adequate remedy at law (Arizona courts) to challenge support order	Court: Jurisdictional defect was patent and unambiguous; writ granted to rescind the child-support order
Whether writ should issue against Judge Smith personally	V.K.B.: named Smith among respondents	Smith: had voluntarily recused before relator filed this action	Court: Smith is not a proper party because he had recused; writ not issued against him
Whether relator must show lack of adequate remedy at law to obtain prohibition	V.K.B.: generally must show inadequacy of other remedies	Respondents: relied on general rule of adequate remedy by appeal in other forum	Court: When jurisdictional lack is patent and unambiguous, relator need not show inadequate remedy; prohibition appropriate

State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 3 N.E.3d 1184 (Ohio 2013) (prior decision holding Arizona had exclusive jurisdiction and vacating ex parte custody orders)
State ex rel. Rogers v. Brown, 686 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio 1997) (prohibition lies where lower court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle, 2 N.E.3d 243 (Ohio 2013) (general rule: relator must show lack of adequate remedy at law)
State ex rel. Harsh v. Oney, 5 N.E.3d 610 (Ohio 2014) (when jurisdiction is patently lacking, relator need not show inadequate remedy)
State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 889 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 2008) (same principle regarding patent lack of jurisdiction)