Title: State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-71.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-71 
THE STATE EX REL. CASKEY, APPELLANT, v. GANO, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-71.] 
Mandamus—Prohibition—Writs sought to prevent judge from proceeding in 
adoption case—Adequate remedy at law—Court of appeals’ denial of 
petition for writs affirmed. 
(No. 2012-1253—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided January 16, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, 
No. 11-CA-51, 2011-Ohio-6144. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment denying the request of appellant, Chantil 
Caskey, for writs of prohibition and mandamus.  Caskey sought the writs to 
prevent appellee, Judge G. Allen Gano, sitting by assignment in the Greene 
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, from proceeding in an 
adoption case or, in the alternative, to require Judge Gano to permit her to appear 
as a party in the case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} “Neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking 
extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  Dzina 
v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 12.  
Unless a relator establishes a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, 
extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus will not issue, because the 
relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.  See State ex rel. Skyway Invest. Corp. 
v. Ashtabula Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 220, 2011-Ohio-5452, 
957 N.E.2d 24, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 3} Judge Gano does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction 
over the underlying adoption case. 
{¶ 4} “Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption 
proceedings.”  State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-
4082, 953 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 5} In addition, Caskey’s claims are not cognizable in an 
extraordinary-writ case.  State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410, 2002-
Ohio-4907, 775 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 28 (“Prohibition will not issue as a substitute for 
appeal to review mere errors in judgment”); State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 
93 Ohio St.3d 576, 578, 757 N.E.2d 357 (2001) (appeal of an order denying 
intervention after a final judgment is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law that bars a writ of mandamus); State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 298, 2003-Ohio-861, 784 N.E.2d 99, ¶ 28 (motion to intervene and appeal 
from any adverse judgment constituted an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of law that precludes a writ of mandamus); McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 
504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2 (res judicata is not an appropriate 
basis for extraordinary relief, because it does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction 
to decide its applicability, and the denial of the defense of res judicata by the trial 
court can be adequately challenged by postjudgment appeal); In re Adoption of 
M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236, 963 N.E.2d 142 (appeal in the 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
ordinary course of law of a determination in an adoption proceeding that the 
natural father’s consent to the adoption was not required); In re Adoption of Baby 
Doe, 9th Dist. No. 19279, 1999 WL 241379 (Apr. 14, 1999) (appeal in the 
ordinary course of law from a judgment determining that R.C. 3101.011 had been 
violated and that a person had been excluded as a prospective adoptive parent). 
{¶ 6} Finally, the mere fact that Caskey’s attempts thus far to raise these 
issues on appeal have been unsuccessful, see In re J.T.F., 2d Dist. No. 12-CA-03, 
2012-Ohio-2105, appeal not accepted, 132 Ohio St.3d 1517, 2012-Ohio-4021, 
924 N.E.2d 114, does not thereby entitle her to the requested extraordinary relief.  
See State ex rel. Kingsley v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 130 Ohio St.3d 333, 2011-
Ohio-5519, 958 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 22. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied 
Caskey’s request for extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus.  
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Peterson & Peterson, L.L.C., and Robert K. Hendrix, for appellant. 
 
Stephen K. Haller, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth A. 
Ellis, Civil Division Chief, for appellee. 
______________________