State ex rel. Spitler v. Seiber
| Decision Date | 31 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-608,68-608 |
| Citation | 16 Ohio St.2d 117,243 N.E.2d 65,45 O.O.2d 463 |
| Parties | , 45 O.O.2d 463 The STATE ex rel. SPITLER, Gdn., v. SEIBER, Probation Officer, Darke County, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Emanuel Nadlin, Dayton for relator.
Spidel, Staley, Hole & Hanes, Greenville, and John F. Marchal, Pros. Atty., for respondents.
Relator is the mother of a three-year-old child who is presently in the custody of respondent, the chief probation officer of the Juvenile Court of Darke County, pursuant to an order of that court, issued on October 11, 1968.
The primary proceedings originated in Darke County where a complaint, filed September 25, 1968, alleged that the child was a neglected and dependent child. Personal service was obtained on relator. Relator was represented by counsel.
A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in which it was claimed that the child was a resident of Montgomery and not Darke County.
On October 3, 1968, the Juvenile Court, after a hearing on the complaint, the relator not being present by her own choice, found that the child was a resident of Darke County; that the relator was a resident of Darke County; that relator was living in a meretricious relationship; that she actually did not have the child with her; and that she neglected the child. The relator's attorney was in the courthouse and knew of the proceeding but did not participate therein.
The court found the child to be a neglected and dependent child, made the child a ward of the court, and placed the physical custody of the child in the chief probation officer of Darke County.
Relator claims that the detention of the child is without lawful authority and that the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction in the Juvenile Court. This jurisdictional question was raised in the Juvenile Court and was decided against relator.
Relator contends that the motion to dismiss does not lie because the petition states a cause of action.
The petition does state a cause of action on its face, and therefore is not subject to dismissal.
However, the transcript of the court's docket and journal entries, attached to respondents' brief, shows that a complaint was filed; that service was obtained; that the jurisdictional question was raised and determined in the Juvenile Court; and that the court found as a matter of fact that both the relator and the child were residents of Darke County. It found further that the child was a neglected and dependent child.
Relator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ross
...St.3d 128, 684 N.E.2d 1217; In re Black (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 124, 65 O.O.2d 308, 304 N.E.2d 394; State ex rel. Spitler v. Seiber (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 117, 45 O.O.2d 463, 243 N.E.2d 65. It is intended to be a prompt and speedy method of gaining possession of a child who might be illegally ......
-
In re Ross
...80 Ohio St.3d 128, 1997-Ohio-131, 684 N.E.2d 1217; In re Black (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 124, 304 N.E.2d 394; State ex rel. Spitler v. Seiber (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 117, 243 N.E.2d 65. It is intended to be a prompt and speedy method of gaining possession of a child who might be illegally detaine......
-
Gaskins v. Shiplevy
...after allowance of the writ. Hammond v. Dallman (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 666, 590 N.E.2d 744; State ex rel. Spitler v. Seiber (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 117, 45 O.O.2d 463, 243 N.E.2d 65. In Hammond, we allowed the writ and after treating a motion to dismiss as a return, remanded the petitioner to ......
-
Brown v. Haviland, 2004 Ohio 2436 (OH 5/7/2004), Case No. 03CA2924.
...Sua sponte, we treat respondent's motion to dismiss as a return of the writ and proceed to judgment. See State ex rel. Spitler v. Seiber (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 117, 243 N.E.2d 65; Hammond v. Dallman (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 666, 590 N.E.2d 744; and Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380,......