Case Title: State ex rel. Garrett v. Costine

Citation: 2018-Ohio-1613

Docket Number: 2017-0801

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Garrett v. Costine, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-1613.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-1613 
THE STATE EX REL. GARRETT v. COSTINE, JUDGE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Garrett v. Costine, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-1613.] 
Prohibition—Writ sought to require Ohio probate-court judge to vacate adoption 
decree—Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. 1738A—West 
Virginia court had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over proceedings 
involving minor child when adoption petition was filed in Ohio—Ohio court 
lacked jurisdiction to issue adoption decree—Writ granted. 
(No. 2017-0801—Submitted November 21, 2017—Decided April 26, 2018.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
_______________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This original action involves an interstate adoption dispute between 
the grandmother and aunt of a minor child.  Relator, Tamalie Garrett, seeks a writ 
of prohibition against respondent, Belmont County Probate Judge J. Mark Costine, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
to require him to vacate an order granting the adoption petition filed by Tamalie’s 
daughter, Elizabeth Garrett.  Because Judge Costine patently and unambiguously 
lacked jurisdiction over the adoption petition, we grant the writ and order Judge 
Costine to vacate the adoption decree entered in Belmont County Probate Court 
case No. 16 AD 23. 
Background 
{¶ 2} Tamalie’s granddaughter, G.G., was born on June 29, 2011, in West 
Virginia to Amanda Garrett. 
The West Virginia litigation 
{¶ 3} In December 2011, the Family Court of Hancock County, West 
Virginia, entered an agreed order of guardianship.  The order designated Elizabeth 
Garrett, Amanda’s sister, as G.G.’s legal guardian, see W.Va.Code Ann. 44-10-1 
et seq., and awarded Tamalie visitation with G.G. on a weekly basis and annually 
on Christmas Day and the day after Christmas. 
{¶ 4} In the summer of 2012, Elizabeth and G.G. moved to Ohio.  There is 
no indication that Tamalie ever sought to register the visitation order in Ohio.  Four 
years later, on July 26, 2016, Tamalie filed a petition in the West Virginia family 
court to modify the 2011 visitation order.  The next month she filed a petition to 
hold Elizabeth in contempt for violating the 2011 visitation order.  Elizabeth and 
Tamalie entered mediation and, on October 21, 2016, they advised the West 
Virginia court that they had reached an agreement with regard to the parenting and 
visitation issues involved in the case. 
{¶ 5} In April 2017, based on the developments detailed below, the West 
Virginia court dismissed Tamalie’s petition for contempt without prejudice. 
The Ohio litigation 
{¶ 6} Unbeknownst to Tamalie, on October 19, 2016, while the petitions to 
modify visitation and for contempt were pending in West Virginia, Elizabeth filed 
a petition to adopt G.G. in Belmont County Probate Court.  The parties stipulate 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
that at some point before the filing of the adoption petition, Amanda, the biological 
mother, “executed a permanent surrender agreement regarding” G.G. and that the 
Belmont County Probate Court never notified Tamalie or the West Virginia court 
that the adoption petition had been filed. 
{¶ 7} On December 15, 2016, Judge Costine issued a final decree of 
adoption in case No. 16 AD 23, granting Elizabeth’s adoption petition.  The Ohio 
court sent a copy of the adoption decree to the West Virginia court, which then 
mailed it to Tamalie along with a notice indicating that unless she was successful 
in getting the adoption decree set aside or modified in some way, the West Virginia 
court would dismiss her petition for contempt.  Tamalie filed motions in case No. 
16 AD 23 for relief from judgment and to intervene.  Judge Costine scheduled a 
hearing on Tamalie’s motions, but before the hearing date, he entered an order 
staying the case pending resolution of this original action. 
{¶ 8} On June 13, 2017, Tamalie filed a complaint for writs of prohibition 
and mandamus in this court.  On July 12, 2017, we granted Judge Costine’s motion 
to dismiss the mandamus claim but granted an alternative writ of prohibition.  149 
Ohio St.3d 1470, 2017-Ohio-5799, 77 N.E.3d 993.  Tamalie submitted evidence, 
including a set of stipulations, and the case has been fully briefed. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 9} A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that is granted in 
limited circumstances “with great caution and restraint.”  State ex rel. Corn v. 
Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 554, 740 N.E.2d 265 (2001).  Tamalie is entitled to the 
writ only upon a showing that (1) Judge Costine is about to exercise or has exercised 
judicial power, (2) his 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.  State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 
89, 2015-Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13.  Tamalie need not establish the lack of 
an adequate remedy at law if Judge Costine’s lack of jurisdiction was “patent and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
unambiguous.”  State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle, 137 Ohio St.3d 568, 2013-Ohio-
5187, 2 N.E.3d 243, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 10} The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C. 
1738A, “mandate[s] that states afford full faith and credit to valid child custody 
orders of another state.”  Justis v. Justis, 81 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 691 N.E.2d 264 
(1998).  As such, the PKPA “addresses questions of jurisdiction in cases involving 
interstate custody and visitation disputes.”  In re R.M., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07 
MA 232, 2009-Ohio-3252, ¶ 46; see State ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr, 104 Ohio St.3d 
148, 2004-Ohio-6208, 818 N.E.2d 1162, ¶ 16.  “[T]he PKPA prevents a second 
state from modifying an initial state’s order except in carefully circumscribed 
situations.”  Meade v. Meade, 812 F.2d 1473, 1476 (4th Cir.1987). 
{¶ 11} In Ohio, probate courts are vested with “original and exclusive 
jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.”  In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 
332, 2006-Ohio-4572, 853 N.E.2d 647, ¶ 9.  However, we have held that “an Ohio 
court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a child-custody 
case commenced when a child-custody case is already pending in a court of another 
state and that court is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the [PKPA] and the 
state’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (‘UCCJA’).”  Morenz 
at ¶ 1; see generally State ex rel. Seaton v. Holmes, 100 Ohio St.3d 265, 2003-Ohio-
5897, 798 N.E.2d 375.  Most jurisdictions, including Ohio and West Virginia, have 
replaced their versions of the former UCCJA with versions of the Uniform Child 
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”).  See Rosen v. Celebrezze, 
117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853, 883 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 20-22. 
{¶ 12} The PKPA requires “every State [to] enforce according to its terms 
* * * any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with 
the provisions of this section by a court of another State.”  28 U.S.C. 1738A(a).  As 
used in the PKPA, “ ‘visitation determination’ means a judgment, decree, or other 
order of a court providing for the visitation of a child, and includes permanent and 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
temporary orders and initial orders and modifications.”  28 U.S.C. 1738A(b)(9).  
Therefore, the PKPA applies to the initial order granting visitation to Tamalie. 
{¶ 13} In addition, the West Virginia order establishing guardianship and 
granting Tamalie visitation was “made consistently” with the PKPA for purposes 
of 28 U.S.C. 1738A(a).  A court’s visitation determination is “consistent” with the 
PKPA if (1) the court had jurisdiction under its own state laws to make the 
determination and (2) the state “is the home State of the child on the date of the 
commencement of the proceeding * * * and a contestant continues to live in” the 
state.  28 U.S.C. 1738A(c)(1) and (2)(A).  The state law applicable to the West 
Virginia guardianship and visitation proceeding is the UCCJEA, W.Va.Code Ann. 
48-20-101 et seq.  The UCCJEA applies to all child-custody proceedings, which, 
as defined by the act, include proceedings “in which legal custody, physical 
custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue.”  W.Va.Code Ann. 48-20-
102(d).  In 2011, when the West Virginia guardianship and visitation proceeding 
commenced, both G.G. and Tamalie lived in West Virginia, and G.G. had lived 
there since birth.  See 28 U.S.C. 1738A(b)(4) (defining “home State” as “the State 
in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, 
a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, and in the 
case of a child less than six months old, the State in which the child lived from birth 
with any of such persons”). 
{¶ 14} Under 28 U.S.C. 1738A(d), the PKPA sets forth a federal standard 
for exclusive continuing jurisdiction over a prior custody or visitation order.  Under 
that provision, West Virginia’s jurisdiction would be exclusive and continuing at 
the time Elizabeth invoked the jurisdiction of the Ohio probate court, as long as (1) 
West Virginia still had jurisdiction as a matter of state law and (2) West Virginia 
“remain[ed] the residence of the child or of any contestant.”  (Emphasis added.)  As 
used in the PKPA, “ ‘contestant’ means a person, including a parent or grandparent, 
who claims a right to custody or visitation of a child.”  28 U.S.C. 1738A(b)(2). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 15} The second requirement for continuing jurisdiction under the PKPA 
is easily met, because Tamalie (a contestant) still resides in West Virginia.  To 
satisfy the first requirement of 28 U.S.C. 1738A(d), West Virginia must still have 
jurisdiction over that state’s proceedings regarding G.G. as a matter of state law, 
the UCCJEA.  Under West Virginia’s version of the UCCJEA, it retains exclusive 
and continuing jurisdiction until a West Virginia court “or a court of another state 
determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do 
not presently reside in this state.”  (Emphasis added.)  W.Va.Code Ann. 48-20-
202(a).  Unlike the broader definition in the PKPA, continuing jurisdiction under 
this statute takes into account only the residency of the child, the parents, and a 
person acting as a parent. 
{¶ 16} The dispositive consideration is thus whether either court made a 
determination that the relevant persons no longer resided in West Virginia.  Clearly, 
the West Virginia court made no such determination, as it was actively exercising 
continuing jurisdiction over the proceedings regarding G.G. when it was informed 
of the adoption decree.  Further, the record in this case contains no evidence to 
show that Judge Costine determined that G.G., her biological mother, Amanda 
(there is no evidence identifying a putative father), and Elizabeth did not “presently 
reside” in West Virginia for purposes of W.Va.Code Ann. 48-20-202(a).  Indeed, 
the record contains evidence showing that Amanda actually lived in West Virginia 
when Elizabeth invoked the jurisdiction of the Ohio court.  Therefore, there is no 
evidence that Judge Costine made the requisite findings to undermine West 
Virginia’s exclusive continuing jurisdiction. 
{¶ 17} Under the PKPA, an Ohio court could not modify the West Virginia 
visitation order unless the West Virginia court “no longer ha[d] jurisdiction to 
modify such [visitation] determination or [had] declined to exercise jurisdiction to 
modify such determination.”  28 U.S.C. 1738A(h).  Tamalie has established that 
West Virginia still had jurisdiction over the initial visitation determination and had 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
the requisite continuing jurisdiction to modify that order.  A “modification” within 
the meaning of the PKPA is “a custody or visitation determination which modifies, 
replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subsequent to, a prior custody or 
visitation determination concerning the same child, whether made by the same 
court or not.”  28 U.S.C. 1738A(b)(5).  Therefore, Judge Costine’s granting of 
Elizabeth’s petition for adoption was a “modification” of the West Virginia order 
in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1738A(h). 
{¶ 18} At the time Elizabeth commenced the Ohio adoption proceeding, 
Tamalie’s petition to modify the visitation order was already pending in West 
Virginia.  In fact, Elizabeth was actively involved in the West Virginia case when 
she filed for adoption in Ohio without informing the West Virginia court or Tamalie 
of the filing.  In enacting the PKPA, “Congress explicitly specified [that] one of the 
chief purposes of the PKPA is to ‘avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict 
between State courts.’ ”  Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 177, 108 S.Ct. 513, 
98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988), quoting Pub.L. No. 96-611, 94 Stat. 3569, section 7(c)(5), 
note following 28 U.S.C. 1738A (Dec. 28, 1980).  This goal is further suggested in 
28 U.S.C. 1738A(e), which requires that “[b]efore a child custody or visitation 
determination is made, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given 
to the contestants * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  But here no attempt was made to 
comply with this provision of the PKPA, further defeating the goals implicit in the 
act. 
{¶ 19} Tamalie has satisfied her burden of demonstrating that Judge Costine 
patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the adoption proceedings.  
West Virginia had exclusive continuing jurisdiction under its version of the 
UCCJEA and therefore was consistently exercising jurisdiction over Tamalie’s 
petitions to modify visitation and for contempt when Judge Costine improperly 
exercised jurisdiction over the adoption petition.  Judge Costine thus failed to give 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
full faith and credit to a valid visitation determination of another state in violation 
of the provisions of the PKPA. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 20} Judge Costine patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to 
grant Elizabeth’s petition to adopt G.G.  We therefore grant Tamalie’s request for 
a writ of prohibition and order Judge Costine to vacate the adoption decree and 
cease exercising jurisdiction over those proceedings. 
Writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
DEGENARO, J., not participating. 
________________ 
Erik L. Smith, for relator. 
Daniel P. Fry, Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David K. 
Liberati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
_________________