Case Title: Evans v. Klaeger

Citation: 1999-Ohio-55

Docket Number: 19991313

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
EVANS, APPELLANT, v. KLAEGER, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Evans v. Klaeger (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 260.] 
Habeas corpus petition challenging trial court’s judgment ordering the final 
allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in a divorce action — 
Dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 99-1313 — Submitted November 3, 1999 — Decided December 1, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-297. 
 
In 1996, in a divorce action filed by appellant, Charles R. Evans, against 
appellee, Christina Klaeger, f.k.a. Evans, the trial court granted Klaeger temporary 
custody of the parties’ minor child.  In 1998, the trial court entered judgment 
granting permanent custody of the parties’ child to Klaeger. 
 
In March 1999, Evans filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of 
habeas corpus against appellees, Klaeger and the state of Ohio, to provide 
“permanent injunctive relief for the unconstitutional deprivation of Petitioner’s 
protected liberty right to equal legal custody and companionship” of the child.  
Evans challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 3109.04 and Civ.R. 75(M), as well 
as the trial court’s judgment ordering the final allocation of parental rights and 
responsibilities.  Evans did not verify his petition.  After appellees filed motions to 
dismiss the petition, the court of appeals granted the motions. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Charles R. Evans, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Evans asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
habeas corpus action.  For the following reasons, Evans’s assertion is meritless. 
 
Habeas corpus relief is the exception rather than the general rule in child 
custody actions, and the writ will ordinarily be denied if there is an adequate 
 
2
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  Pegan v. Crawmer (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091, 1094.  Evans is not entitled to the writ because he 
has or had an adequate legal remedy by appealing the trial court’s permanent 
allocation of parental rights in his divorce action.  See, e.g., R.C. 3109.04(H), 
providing for an appeal from decisions granting or modifying a decree allocating 
parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children. 
 
In addition, Evans was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because the 
petition he filed in the court of appeals did not comply with the pleading 
requirements of R.C. 2725.04, i.e., his petition was not verified.  Holloway v. 
Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128, 132, 684 N.E.2d 
1217, 1220. 
 
Further, even assuming, as Evans contends, that Klaeger’s motion to dismiss 
was not timely filed, the court of appeals properly dismissed the matter based on 
the state’s motion.  The court would also have been entitled to dismiss Evans’s 
action sua sponte because it was obviously without merit.  See State ex rel. 
Thompson v. Spon (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 551, 553, 700 N.E.2d 1281, 1282. 
 
Finally, to the extent that Evans requested prohibitory injunctive relief, the 
court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to grant it.  See State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner 
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 71, 72, 711 N.E.2d 684, 685. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1 
 Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
We also deny Evans’s request for oral argument.  Evans has not established 
that oral argument is necessary for the resolution of his appeal.  State ex rel. 
 
3
McGinty v. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 283, 
286, 690 N.E.2d 1273, 1276.