Rosen v. Celebrezze

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that an Ohio domestic-relations judge patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to determine child custody in an interstate divorce proceeding. The court reversed dismissal of the prohibition complaint, rejected the argument that the complaint required a state-on-relation caption, and granted a writ preventing further custody proceedings in Ohio.

Holdings

1. A prohibition complaint is not subject to dismissal merely because its caption does not state that the action is brought in the name of the state on the relation of the applicant; the statutory caption requirement applicable to mandamus actions has no comparable application to prohibition cases.
2. The Ohio court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make the initial child-custody determination because West Virginia was the children's home state within six months before commencement of the custody proceeding.
3. A challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA cannot be waived.
4. The Supreme Court of Ohio could exercise plenary authority to grant the writ directly because the pertinent facts were uncontroverted and established the judge's patent and unambiguous lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a prohibition complaint was defective because its caption did not state that the action was brought in the name of the state on the relation of the applicant.
2. Whether the Ohio domestic-relations judge patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to make an initial custody determination.
3. Whether David Rosen waived his challenge to the Ohio court's UCCJEA jurisdiction.
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio could grant the writ directly under its plenary authority rather than remand the case for further proceedings.

Disposition

reversed