In re G.T.B.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellants Jason and Christy Vaughn appeal the judgment against them from the Court of Appeals that dismissed their application for writ of habeas corpus to compel the biological father of their prospective adopted child to return custody of her. The appellate court dismissed Appellants' petition on the grounds that it "lacked jurisdiction over child custody decisions and proceedings" of the lower court. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals indeed had general subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellants' habeas corpus petition, but still affirms its holding. The Court disagreed with the appellate court over the rationale for dismissing Appellants' petition. The Court found that dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was appropriate because Appellants did not comply with the pleading requirements in accordance with state procedure.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re G.T.B., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1789.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-1789 IN RE G.T.B.; VAUGHN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. WYREMBEK, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re G.T.B., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1789.] Custody of children Habeas corpus Jurisdiction of courts of appeals Section 3(B)(1)(c), Article IV, Ohio Constitution R.C. 2151.23(A)(3) Jurisdictional-priority rule. (No. 2010-2266 Submitted April 6, 2011 Decided April 19, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-1057. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County dismissing the petition of appellants, Jason and Christy Vaughn, the prospective adoptive parents of G.T.B., a minor child, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel the child s biological father, appellee, Benjamin Wyrembek, to return physical custody of the child to the Vaughns. We affirm the dismissal, albeit for different reasons than the rationale stated by the court of appeals. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} The court of appeals dismissed the Vaughns petition on the rationale that it lacked jurisdiction over the child custody decisions and proceedings of the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, Juvenile Court Division. The court of appeals apparently credited Wyrembek s argument in support of his unopposed motion to dismiss that the court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition because under R.C. 2151.23(A)(3), the Lucas County Juvenile Court had exclusive original jurisdiction under the Revised Code * * * [t]o hear and determine any application for a writ of habeas corpus involving the custody of a child. Courts of appeals, however, have been given original jurisdiction in habeas corpus actions by Section 3(B)(1)(c), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. The General Assembly is without power to limit or alter the original jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals in habeas corpus actions. In re Black (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 124, 65 O.O.2d 308, 304 N.E.2d 394, paragraph two of the syllabus. Therefore, notwithstanding R.C. 2151.23(A)(3), [a] Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving the custody of a child. Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus; see also Hughes v. Scaffide (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 85, 86, 7 O.O.3d 175, 372 N.E.2d 598, fn. 2. {¶ 3} In addition, although R.C. 2725.03 limits the jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving inmates of state benevolent or correctional institutions to the courts or judges of the county in which the institution is located, see Knecht v. Tate (Dec. 10, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-207, 1991 WL 268340, there is no comparable statutory limitation on child-custody habeas corpus cases. {¶ 4} Furthermore, the Vaughns habeas corpus petition was based on their institution of an adoption proceeding in Franklin County pursuant to R.C. 3107.04(A) ( A petition for adoption shall be filed in the court in the county in which the person to be adopted was born * * * or in which the agency having the permanent custody of the person to be adopted is located ). 2 January Term, 2011 {¶ 5} Wyrembek argues on appeal that under the jurisdictional-priority rule, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the habeas corpus case because the juvenile court s jurisdiction was first invoked to decide the custody matter. But although the issues in the cases are similar, the cause of action in the court of appeals case habeas corpus is not the same as the cause of action in the juvenile court custody in the context of a parentage proceeding. See State ex rel. Brady v. Pianka, 106 Ohio St.3d 147, 2005-Ohio-4105, 832 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 426, 429, 751 N.E.2d 472 ( In general, the jurisdictional priority rule applies when the causes of action are the same in both cases, and if the first case does not involve the same cause of action or the same parties as the second case, the first case will not prevent the second ). {¶ 6} Therefore, the Court of Appeals for Franklin County had general subject-matter jurisdiction over the Vaughns habeas corpus petition, and the court erred in not so holding. {¶ 7} Nevertheless, we will not reverse a correct judgment simply because it was based in whole or in part on an incorrect rationale. State ex rel. Galloway v. Cook, 126 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-3780, 933 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 4. {¶ 8} First, the Vaughns have or had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal from the Lucas County Juvenile Court s orders granting custody of the child to Wyrembek. Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6. This principle applies equally to child custody motions, where habeas corpus relief is the exception rather than the general rule. Rammage v. Saros, 97 Ohio St.3d 430, 2002-Ohio-6669, 780 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 9. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 9} Second, insofar as the Vaughns raise a jurisdictional claim that they either raised or could have raised in their previous, unsuccessful extraordinary-writ actions, see State ex rel. Vaughn v. Cubbon, 122 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2009-Ohio-3830, 910 N.E.2d 1040; State ex rel. Vaughn v. Cubbon, 124 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2010-Ohio-354, 921 N.E.2d 243; and State ex rel. Vaughn1 v. Cubbon, 126 Ohio St.3d 1577, 2010-Ohio-4542, 934 N.E.2d 351, res judicata bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226. The previous action is conclusive for all claims that were or that could have been litigated in the first action. State ex rel. Schachter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, 905 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 27. {¶ 10} Third, as we held in the Vaughns appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Appeals affirming the Lucas County Probate Court s dismissal of their petition to adopt the child, [w]hen an issue concerning parenting2 of a minor is pending in the juvenile court, a probate court must refrain from proceeding with the adoption of that child. In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249, 2010-Ohio-3349, 933 N.E.2d 245, ¶ 8, certiorari denied, Vaughn v. Wyrembek (2011), 79 USLW 3512, __ S.Ct.__, __ L.Ed.2d ___, quoting In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332, 2006-Ohio-4572, 853 N.E.2d 647, syllabus. {¶ 11} Finally, dismissal of the Vaughns habeas corpus petition was appropriate because they did not comply with the pleading requirements of R.C. 2725.04. See In re Bailey, 98 Ohio St.3d 309, 2003-Ohio-859, 784 N.E.2d 109, ¶ 13; Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Servs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128, 1 The case name is incorrectly reported as Edward v. Cubbon. 2 The context manifestly indicates that the court intended parentage. 4 January Term, 2011 132, 684 N.E.2d 1217. Although the Vaughns petition challenges a Lucas County Juvenile Court order compelling them to transfer custody of the child to Wyrembek, they did not attach a copy of that order to their petition. {¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, dismissal of the Vaughns habeas corpus petition was appropriate, albeit for different reasons than those expressed by the court of appeals. Therefore, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition. We deny Wyrembek s motion for sanctions, however, because the Vaughns appeal was not frivolous insofar as the court of appeals rationale was incorrect. See S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(A) ( An appeal * * * shall be considered frivolous is it is not reasonably well-grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law ). Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. __________________ Voorhees & Levy, L.L.C., and Michael R. Voorhees, for appellants. The McQuades Co., L.P.A., and Alan J. Lehenbauer, for appellee. ______________________ 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
