Case ID: ohio-st-3d_81/html/1222-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Hitchcock et al.
    [Cite as In re Hitchcock (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1222.]
    (No. 96-2641
    Submitted December 10, 1997
    Decided February 11, 1998.)
    
      John H. Lawson, for appellants Abdul and Mary Abdullah.
    
      Joanne Canitia Brady, Guardian ad litem for Shampail and Hastings Hitchcock.
    
      Kenneth D. Myers and Avery S. Friedman, for appellees Tim and Cherie Burich.
    
      Celestine Sutiles, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services.
    
      
      Rufus Simms, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Aldlah Abdullah.
    
      Steven E. Wolkini, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Advisory Committee of the Juvenile Court Guardian Ad Litem Project.
   The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Douglas, Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.,

dissenting. I would not dismiss this appeal as having been improvidently allowed. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and adopt its opinion in its entirety. The juvenile court infringed on the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction when it effectively denied appellees’ adoption petition. The determination of the fitness of the parties to adopt is reserved for the probate court’s adjudication.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.