Title: Adoption Link, Inc. v. Suver

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Adoption Link, Inc. v. Suver, 112 Ohio St.3d 166, 2006-Ohio-6528.] 
 
 
ADOPTION LINK, INC., APPELLANT, v. SUVER, DIR., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Adoption Link, Inc. v. Suver, 112 Ohio St.3d 166, 2006-Ohio-6528.] 
Habeas corpus — Child custody — A juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction to 
determine custody of any child not a ward of another court — Parents 
may permanently surrender a child under six months of age to a child-
placing agency if they have custody of the child — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1646 ─ Submitted November 29, 2006 ─ Decided  
December 27, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, 
No. 06-CA-81, 2006-Ohio-4438. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus filed by a private child-placing agency to obtain custody of a 
child.  Because the petition failed to state a viable habeas corpus claim, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Kathy Jo Teegarden and Roy John Jones Jr. are the biological 
parents of T.J., who was born on December 30, 2005.  Shortly after T.J.’s birth, 
the Clark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile 
Section placed the child in the temporary-shelter care of the Clark County 
Department of Job and Family Services.  T.J. was placed in a foster home in Clark 
County, where he remains.  The department successfully sought temporary 
custody of T.J. from the Clark County Juvenile Court.  The juvenile court found 
that T.J. was a dependent child and that it was in the child’s best interest to 
commit the child to the custody of the department.  The parents executed and filed 
in the Greene County Juvenile Court agreements permanently surrendering 
custody of T.J. to appellant, Adoption Link, Inc., a private child-placing agency 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
located in Greene County.  The Greene County Juvenile Court approved the 
permanent-surrender agreements and granted permanent custody of T.J. to 
Adoption Link. 
{¶ 3} The Clark County Department of Job and Family Services filed a 
motion to vacate the permanent-surrender order.  The Greene County Juvenile 
Court denied the department’s motion and ordered it to relinquish custody of T.J. 
to Adoption Link. 
{¶ 4} After the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services 
refused to relinquish custody of T.J., Adoption Link filed a petition in the Court 
of Appeals for Greene County.  In its amended petition, Adoption Link requested 
a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Robert Suver, the director of the 
department, to immediately transfer physical custody of T.J. from the department 
to Adoption Link.  Although Adoption Link acknowledged that the Clark County 
Juvenile Court had awarded temporary custody of T.J. to the department, it did 
not attach a copy of this entry to its petition.  Suver filed a brief in opposition, 
which the court of appeals treated as a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The court of appeals 
granted Suver’s motion and dismissed the amended petition. 
{¶ 5} In its appeal as of right, Adoption Link asserts that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing its habeas corpus petition. 
{¶ 6} “In order to prevail on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a 
child custody case, the petitioner must establish that (1) the child is being 
unlawfully detained, and (2) the petitioner has the superior legal right to custody 
of the child.”  State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Auglaize Cty. Court of Common Pleas 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 257, 719 N.E.2d 543; see, also, In re Bailey, 98 Ohio St.3d 
309, 2003-Ohio-859, 784 N.E.2d 109, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 7} As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Adoption Link is 
unable to establish either of these requirements for the following reasons. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} First, the Clark County Juvenile Court had exclusive original 
jurisdiction to “determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of 
this state” and to “hear and determine requests for the extension of temporary 
custody agreements, and requests for court approval of permanent custody 
agreements, that are filed pursuant to section 5103.15 of the Revised Code.”  R.C. 
2151.23(A)(2) and (9); see, also, In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-
7208, 781 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 15.  Because the Clark County Juvenile Court granted 
legal custody of T.J. to the department and retained jurisdiction, T.J. became a 
ward of that court, and the Greene County Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction to 
grant custody of T.J. to Adoption Link.  See, e.g., In re Frenz, Tuscarawas App. 
Nos. 2003AP040027 and 2003AP030025, 2003-Ohio-3653, ¶ 23-24 (juvenile 
court lacked jurisdiction to determine motion for permanent custody in matter 
involving child who was the ward of another juvenile court by prior custody 
determination); see, also, Juv.R. 2(QQ), defining “[w]ard of court” as “a child 
over whom the court assumes continuing jurisdiction.” 
{¶ 9} Second, R.C. 5103.15(B)(2) does not permit parents of a child less 
than six months old who do not have legal custody of the child to enter into an 
agreement with a private child-placing agency surrendering the child to the 
permanent custody of that agency.  To be sure, R.C. 5103.15(B)(2) provides, “The 
parents of a child less than six months of age may enter into an agreement with a 
private child placing agency surrendering the child into the permanent custody of 
the agency without juvenile court approval if the agreement is executed solely for 
the purpose of obtaining the adoption of the child.”  But that provision must be 
read in context and be construed in pari materia with the other provisions of R.C. 
5103.15, which manifestly condition any such permanent-surrender agreement on 
the parents or other specified persons having custody of the child.  See, e.g., R.C. 
5103.15(A)(1) (“The parents, guardian, or other persons having the custody of a 
child may enter into an agreement with any public children services agency or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
private child placing agency * * *” [emphasis added]); R.C. 5103.15(B)(1) 
(“Subject to, except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, juvenile court 
approval, the parents, guardian, or other persons having custody of a child may 
enter into an agreement with a public children services agency or private child 
placing agency surrendering the child into the permanent custody of the agency” 
[emphasis added]).  When the parents attempted to permanently surrender their 
rights to T.J. to Adoption Link, they lacked authority to do so because the 
department had legal custody of the child. 
{¶ 10} Finally, Adoption Link did not attach all of the pertinent entries 
concerning the custody of T.J. to its habeas corpus petition and therefore did not 
comply with the pleading requirements of R.C. 2725.04(D), which are applicable 
to child-custody habeas corpus actions.  See Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of 
Human Servs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128, 132, 684 N.E.2d 1217.  Adoption Link 
did not attach any of the Clark County Juvenile Court orders granting custody of 
T.J. to the department to either its petition or its amended petition. 
{¶ 11} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly determined 
that Adoption Link’s amended petition failed to state a claim upon which relief 
could be granted and that it should be dismissed.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Voorhees & Levy, L.L.C., and Michael R. Voorhees, for appellant. 
                                                 
1  We deny Adoption Link’s request for oral argument.  The parties’ briefs are sufficient to resolve 
this appeal.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-
Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 38, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
 
Stephen A. Schumaker, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Roger A. 
Ward, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________