224 N.E.2d 358 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1967
On January 19, 1967, there was filed in this court an action in habeas corpus. Barbara James, the mother of James James, said that on or about November 9, 1966, her son, James, was forcibly removed from her custody by the Juvenile Court of Summit County, Ohio, on an order issued by that court.
An answer, and a reply to the answer, were filed. Thereafter, oral argument was presented to the court, followed by the filing of a stipulation of facts. The stipulations and admissions of counsel are that: Barbara James was granted a divorce, *300 and the custody of James James, her infant son, by the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, Ohio; the mother and son then moved to Summit County; on November 9, 1966, an affidavit charging that James James was a dependent and neglected child was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Juvenile Division; that court, without a hearing of the matter, ordered the child taken into custody, pursuant to the affidavit; and the child was then placed by that court in the custody of the Summit County Child Welfare Board, and is now in the temporary custody of that board.
After the child was taken into custody, the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Juvenile Division, ordered that the matter of custody be referred to the Juvenile Court of Wayne County, Ohio; that court determined it lacked jurisdiction of either the mother or the child, on the basis that they were legal residents of Summit County; and the matter was remanded to the Juvenile Court of Summit County.
No hearing was had on the affidavit, pending the outcome of the instant action.
It is the claim of the petitioner that only the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, Ohio, has presently the jurisdiction to determine the custody of James James, since, upon the granting of custody to the mother, Barbara James, in the divorce action, the law precludes any other court from making an order with respect to custody. This claim is based upon Section
Section
To adopt the view of the petitioner, we must find that Section
It is the conclusion of this court that the application for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
Writ denied.
DOYLE, P. J., and BRENNEMAN, J., concur. *302