State ex rel. Booth v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 06 March 1929
• Docket Number: Nos. 21266,21315.,s. 21266
• Citation: 120 Ohio St. 91,165 N.E. 574
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BOOTH v. ROBINSON, Probate Judge. BOOTH v. CLAPP et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

120 Ohio St. 91
165 N.E. 574

STATE ex rel. BOOTH
v.
ROBINSON, Probate Judge.
BOOTH
v.
CLAPP et al.

Nos. 21266, 21315.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 6, 1929.

Error to Court of Appeals, Portage County.

Prohibition by the State, on the relation of Lavonne Booth, against Henry J. Robinson, Probate Judge of Portage County. Writ denied.

Error proceeding by Lavaughn Booth, formerly Lavaughn Clapp, and another, against William Clapp, Jr., and others, to review judgment of the court of common pleas, consenting to adoption of Maxine Clapp by J. C. Carlin and another. Judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and Lavaughn Booth brings error. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff.]

The first-named action is an original action in this court, wherein the relatrix seeks a writ of prohibition. Issue was made by demurrer to the petition. The essential averments appearing in the petition may be concisely stated as follows: In December, 1926, in the court of common pleas of Portage county, William Clapp, Jr., was awarded a divorce from the relatrix, which court then awarded the custody, care, education and control of their child, Maxine Clapp, to said William Clapp, Jr., Subsequently the relatrix married Eugene Booth. Thereafter Mary R. Carlin, who is a sister of William Clapp, Jr., and her husband, J. C. Carlin, made joint application to the probate court of Portage county for the adoption of said Maxine Clapp. Written consent to said adoption was duly filed by said William Clapp, Jr., and upon application to the court of common pleas of Portage county, which court had theretofore granted said decree of divorce and awarded the custody of said child, that court made and entered an order stating that the consent of said court ‘be and is hereby given for such adoption.’ The relatrix was not made a party to the proceeding for adoption, nor to the proceeding wherein the consent thereto of the common pleas court was obtained, nor was she notified thereof.

The relatrix asserts that the probate court is ‘without jurisdiction to proceed with said adoption proceeding without giving her a chance to be heard, that the failure to make her a party or to make a party the next best friend is entirely unlawful, and that, if it should be found she may ultimately have error proceedings testing the right of said probate court to so proceed, said error proceedings will be entirely inadequate, because in the meantime, if said adoption goes forward, said child will be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of Ohio, and the court will not only be acting without jurisdiction, but that a remedy to correct such error will for the reason aforesaid be wholly inadequate.’ The relatrix prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining said probate court from going further with said adoption proceedings and from granting any further orders or rendering judgment therein.

The action numbered 21315 in this court is a proceeding in error from the Court of Appeals of Portage county. Lavaughn Booth, who is the same person as Lavonne Booth, attempted to prosecute error in the Court of Appeals from the action of the...