Opinion
No. 84-1700
Decided November 20, 1985.
Prohibition — Writ denied, when — Appeal from finding of contempt is adequate remedy.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County.
On May 5, 1975, relator-appellant, Maxine L. Manrow, and her husband, Alva J. Manrow, obtained a decree of dissolution from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Domestic Relations Division ("domestic relations court"). Pursuant to the terms of this decree, appellant received custody of the couple's two minor children, Jeffery and Michele, and Alva Manrow was ordered to pay fifteen dollars per week, per child, for child support.
On August 30, 1978, the domestic relations court granted Alva Manrow's motion for change of custody of Jeffery and terminated the previously imposed child support order for this child. On November 20, 1979, the court granted Alva Manrow's motion for change of custody of Michele and likewise terminated the previously imposed child support order as to her. Upon receiving custody of the two minor children, Alva Manrow left this jurisdiction and established residency in Shasta County, California.
In November 1982, pursuant to relator's motion to set child support, the domestic relations court promulgated an order requiring relator to pay one dollar per month, per child. This amount reflected a written agreement between the parties wherein no support for the children was stipulated. Relator has complied with this order.
While residing in California, Alva Manrow began receiving Aid to Dependent Children ("ADC") payments. As a result, on July 1, 1980, Shasta County, California filed a petition for support under what is now termed the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") in the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County ("Juvenile Court"). This petition named Maxine Manrow as respondent and sought to obtain reimbursement for the ADC payments made to Alva J. Manrow. Relator's subsequent attempts to dismiss this petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction were overruled.
On October 21, 1982, Assistant Lucas County Prosecutor, Robert L. Schiffer, filed a motion to compel relator to answer written interrogatories concerning relator's financial status. Relator responded by invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, claiming that a substantial threat of criminal prosecution existed in Shasta County, California for failure to comply with Section 270 of the California Penal Code. On October 28, 1982, assistant prosecutor Schiffer filed a motion to compel. Relator again invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege.
On February 7, 1984, Judge Andy Devine of the juvenile court entered a judgment ordering relator to answer the contested questions and granted her immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to R.C. 3115.19. However, relator refused to comply with this order on the grounds that the court's grant of immunity was insufficient to protect her from subsequent criminal prosecution in California. A referee reviewing this matter recommended that relator be held in contempt of court. Relator thereafter filed a complaint for writ of prohibition in the court of appeals. On October 19, 1984, Judge Devine granted a stay in the juvenile court's proceedings pending the disposition of the writ of prohibition.
On October 15, 1984, the court of appeals denied relator's writ of prohibition on the grounds that the trial court had proper jurisdiction in the action which relator sought to prohibit and that relator had available an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Goldstein Hetzer and Jeffrey I. Goldstein, for appellant.
Anthony G. Pizza, prosecuting attorney, and Robert L. Schiffer, for appellee.
In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, relator-appellant must establish that: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Corrigan, v. Griffin )1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 26, 27; Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 74, 76 [15 O.O.3d 117].
Clearly, the first condition of this tripartite test is present. The judge of the juvenile court has issued an order compelling relator to respond to the submitted interrogatories and a referee of the court has recommended that relator be held in contempt of court. In addition, the juvenile court has stayed the disposition of the matter pending the adjudication of the within writ of prohibition.
The existence of the latter two conditions is less apparent. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(B)(3), a juvenile court has original jurisdiction under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in R.C. Chapter 3115. Hence, there can be no question that the juvenile court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter pending before it.
Further, it appears that relator has failed to substantiate that there is no other adequate remedy available in which to address the alleged constitutional violation in the within cause. This court has consistently held that a writ of prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal. State, ex rel. Ruffin, v. Court of Common Pleas (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 58 [75 O.O.2d 142]; State, ex rel. Heimann, v. George (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 231 [74 O.O.2d 376]. In the case at bar, if the juvenile court were to uphold the referee's recommendation and find relator in contempt, then relator would have a right, pursuant to R.C. 2705.09, to appeal such a finding. Accordingly, relator has an available adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.