COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70574 State of Ohio, ex rel. : Jeffrey A. Angle : Relator : PETITION FOR WRIT OF : PROHIBITION AND : ALTERNATIVE WRIT -vs- : : Kenneth A. Rocco, Judge : : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : APRIL 30, 1996 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For relator: For respondent: Joseph G. Stafford, Esq. Stephanie Tubbs Jones James E. Powell, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Joseph G. Stafford & The Justice Center Associates Co., LPA 1200 Ontario Street 380 Lakeside Place Cleveland, Ohi 44113 323 West Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - Relator, Jeffrey Angle, commenced this prohibition action against the respondent, Judge Kenneth Rocco, to prevent the judge from exercising any authority in the two underlying cases, In the Matter of Rachel Varney and Miriah Varney, Cuyahoga County Common 1 Pleas Court, Juvenile Division Case Nos. 9312914 and 9312915. Mr. Angle also filed a petition for alternative writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Rocco from proceeding on a hearing scheduled in the underlying cases for Wednesday, May 1, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. For the following reasons this court denies the alternative writ and dismisses the application for a writ of prohibition. The gravamen of Mr. Angle's petition is that Judge Rocco is unauthorized to act on the underlying cases because visiting Judge Toner had been assigned to the cases and no proper order assigning Judge Rocco to them has been issued. Thus, Judge Rocco's order of April 25, 1996, relieving Judge Toner of his assignment to these cases, scheduling a hearing on May 1, 1996, and granting the mother immediate visitation rights, is null and void. Mr. Angle also asserts that Judge Rocco issued the April 25, 1996 order ex parte. The requisites for prohibition are well established: (1) the court against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 540 N.E.2d 239. The existence of 1 These cases are for allocation of parental rights. Mr. Angle and Samantha Varney cohabited for several years during which Rachel and Miriah were conceived and born. - 3 - an adequate remedy is immaterial to the issuance of a writ of prohibition, however, if a court is completely without jurisdiction to proceed. State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 174, 529 N.E.2d 1245. Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause which it is attempting to adjudicate or is about to exceed its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe (1941), 138 Ohio St. 417, 35 N.E.2d 571, paragraph three of the syllabus. "The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction." State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke County (1950), 153 Ohio St. 64, 65, 90 N.E.2d 598. It is not to be used to review the regularity of an act already performed. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 188, 389 N.E.2d 777. In the present case prohibition does not lie because appeal is an adequate remedy. The leading case concerning irregularities in judicial assignments is Berger v. Berger (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 125, 442 N.E.2d 1375, cert. denied (1982), 459 U.S. 834, 103 S.Ct. 7, in which "[w]e h[e]ld that where the record fails to show proper reassignments of the case to the judges making those rulings, they are voidable and must be vacated on a timely motion or appeal by a party that has not waived his objection to such irregularity." Furthermore, in Berger this court clarified that improper judicial assignments do not affect the jurisdiction of the court; thus, the - 4 - rule that an adequate remedy is immaterial if the court does not have jurisdiction is not applicable to the case sub judice. Rather, transfers which violate the governing rules are procedural irregularities, to which a party must immediately object or waive the error. Beatty v. Alston (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 126, 330 N.E.2d 921, cert. denied (1975), 423 U.S. 1000, 96 S.Ct. 432; State ex rel. Barner v. Marsh (1929), 121 Ohio St. 321, 168 N.E. 473; Bowman v. Alvis (1950), 88 Ohio App. 229, 96 N.E.2d 605; Brown v. Brown (1984) 15 Ohio App.3d 45, 472 N.E.2d 361. Therefore, assuming arguendo, that Judge Rocco is not properly assigned to the underlying cases, his orders are not void but merely voidable. Prohibition does not lie because appeal is an adequate remedy. Moreover, the other objections concerning the propriety of the April 26, 1996 order are similarly not well founded. The juvenile court has the jurisdiction to schedule hearings and order visitation. Irregularities, improper procedure and the failure to abide by local rules do not affect jurisdiction. Prohibition will not lie to review the regularity of an act already performed or to prevent an erroneous judgment. State ex rel. Moss v. Clair (1947), 148 Ohio St. 642, 76 N.E.2d 883; State ex rel. Scordato v. George (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 128, 419 N.E.2d 4; State ex rel. Pantona v. Fisher (Aug. 13, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 60147, unreported. - 5 - Accordingly, the alternative writ of prohibition is denied, and the writ of prohibition is dismissed. Relator to pay costs. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, J., and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR. JAMES D. SWEENEY PRESIDING JUDGE .