Vaughn v. Wyrembek
128 Ohio St. 3d 502
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Vaughns filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor G.T.B. from biological father Wy rem bek after Lucas County Juvenile Court ordered custody to Wyrem bek.
- The petition was filed in Franklin County as part of an adoption proceeding under R.C. 3107.04(A).
- The Franklin County Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to review juvenile-court custody orders.
- The Supreme Court held that Courts of Appeals have original habeas corpus jurisdiction over custody of a child, notwithstanding R.C. 2151.23(A)(3).
- The Court ultimately affirmed the dismissal on alternate grounds: adequate remedy by appeal, res judicata considerations, and pleading deficiencies under R.C. 2725.04 (failure to attach the order).
- Sanctions against Wyrem bek were denied because the Vaughns’ appeal was not frivolous in light of the appellate court’s incorrect rationale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of the court of appeals in a child-custody habeas case | Vaughn argues CA has original habeas jurisdiction despite R.C. 2151.23(A)(3). | Wyrem bek argues lack of CA jurisdiction under the jurisdictional-priority rule. | CA has jurisdiction; but other grounds support dismissal. |
| Adequacy of remedy in the ordinary course of law | Habeas relief warranted due to custody dispute. | Ordinary appellate remedy available. | Habeas relief was inappropriate because an ordinary appeal exists. |
| Effect of jurisdictional-priority rule when causes differ | Different causes of action (habeas vs. custody) should bar nothing. | Rule applies when causes are the same; here they are not. | Rule not controlling to bar habeas petition. |
| Pleading requirements of R.C. 2725.04 | Petition sufficiently challenged a Lucas County order. | Petition failed to attach the controlling order. | Dismissal appropriate for failure to attach the order. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Black, 36 Ohio St.2d 124 (Ohio 1973) (original jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals in habeas corpus actions)
- Hughes v. Scaffide, 53 Ohio St.2d 85 (Ohio 1978) (jurisdictional-priority principle within habeas corpus context)
- State ex rel. Brady v. Pianka, 106 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 2005) (jurisdictional-priority rule; relevance to custody proceedings)
- Rammage v. Saros, 97 Ohio St.3d 430 (Ohio 2002) (habeas corpus remedy vs. ordinary remedies; custody context)
- In re Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 2004) (adequacy of ordinary remedy principle in habeas context)