State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke

• Docket Number: 2023-0611
• Decision Date: 18 January 2024
• Citation: 2024 Ohio 135
• Parties: The State ex rel. Jones, Appellant, v. Paschke, Judge, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

1

2024-Ohio-135

The State ex rel. Jones, Appellant,
v.
Paschke, Judge, Appellee.

No. 2023-0611

Supreme Court of Ohio

January 18, 2024

Submitted December 12, 2023

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County, No. 22-G-0037, 2023-Ohio-1536.

Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A. Cruz, and Kelley R. Tauring, for appellant.

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Linda M. Applebaum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

2

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeremy J. Jones, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals against appellee, Judge Carolyn J. Paschke of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division. Jones argues that Judge Paschke lacks jurisdiction over a case filed by Jones's former mother-in-law for grandparent companionship and visitation rights with Jones's child. He also argues that Judge Paschke lacks jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem in the case. The Eleventh District granted Judge Paschke's motion for summary judgment and denied Jones's petition, and Jones has appealed. We affirm the Eleventh District's judgment denying the petition.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas consists of two divisions: (1) the General Division, which hears domestic-relations cases ("the general division"), and (2) a combined Probate and Juvenile Division ("the juvenile division"). See R.C. 2151.011(A)(1)(c) ("juvenile court" means the probate division of the court of common pleas unless another statutory provision applies); R.C. 2301.03 (no separate domestic-relations judge for Geauga County); Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C) ("Unless otherwise provided by law, there shall be a probate division and such other divisions of the courts of common pleas as may be provided by law").

{¶ 3} Jeremy Jones married Molly Jones in April 2015, and in December 2015, Molly gave birth to their son, B.J. In 2019, Molly filed for divorce in the general division. On July 2, 2022, while the divorce proceedings were pending, Molly passed away. The divorce case was dismissed on July 6.

{¶ 4} On July 12, 2022, B.J.'s maternal grandmother, Heidi O'Neill, filed a complaint against Jones in the general division for "grandparent companionship/visitation time" with B.J. Jones filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the general division lacks jurisdiction over the complaint; Judge Paschke

3

denied the motion. O'Neill filed a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, which Judge Paschke granted.

{¶ 5} In September 2022, Jones filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Eleventh District. Jones argued that the general division lacks jurisdiction over complaints for grandparent companionship and visitation rights and that O'Neill's complaint should have been filed in the juvenile division. He also argued that Judge Paschke lacks jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem. Judge Paschke filed a motion for summary judgment. The Eleventh District granted the motion and denied Jones's petition. Jones appeals as of right.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Legal standards

{¶ 6} We review de novo a court of appeals' order granting summary judgment in a prohibition action. State ex rel. Novak, L.L.P. v. Ambrose, 156 Ohio St.3d 425, 2019-Ohio-1329, 128 N.E.3d 209, ¶ 8. "Summary judgment is appropriate when 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and * * * the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" (Ellipsis sic.) Id., quoting Civ.R. 56(C).

{¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Jones must show that (1) Judge Paschke exercised or is going to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. Id. at ¶ 9. If Judge Paschke patently and unambiguously lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, Jones need not establish the lack of an adequate legal remedy. Schlegel v. Sweeney, 171 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-3841, 215 N.E.3d 451, ¶ 6. Here, the parties do not dispute that Judge Paschke is exercising judicial power in the companionship-and-visitation case.

4

B. The general division has jurisdiction over O'Neill's case

{¶ 8} Jones argues that Judge Paschke-a judge of the general division-lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over O'Neill's companionship-and-visitation case and that only the juvenile division has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. We disagree.

{¶ 9} R.C. 3105.011(A) provides that the "court of common pleas[,] including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters," and R.C. 3105.11(B)(2) defines "domestic relations matters" as including actions and proceedings under R.C. Chapter 3109. R.C. Chapter 3109-specifically, R.C. 3109.11-authorizes the filing of complaints for grandparent companionship and visitation if a parent of the child is deceased. The procedures authorized by R.C. 3109.11 therefore fall within the terms of R.C. 3105.011. The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas does not have a...