COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73414 LISA ANN ZAMMARRELLI : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF Relator : PROHIBITION : vs. : : Motion Nos. 89365 and 89366 HON. BETTY WILLIS RUBEN, : JUDGE OF THE COURT OF : COMMON PLEAS OF CUYAHOGA : COUNTY-JUVENILE DIVISION, : ET AL. : : Respondents : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : JANUARY 22, 1998 JUDGMENT : PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : ____________________________ APPEARANCES: For relator: Patrick P. Leneghan, Jr., Esq., Leneghan & Leneghan, 9500 Maywood Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44102-4800. For respondent Judge Betty Willis Ruben: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Jeffrey I. Sherwin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113. For respondent Steven Zammarrelli: Thomas A. Kondzer, Esq., 24500 Center Ridge Road, Suite 175, Westlake, Ohio, 44145. Relator, Lisa Ann Zammarrelli, seeks a writ of prohibition in order to prevent the respondent, Judge Betty Willis Ruben, from exercising any jurisdiction in the underlying case of In re -2- Brittani Zammarrelli, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Case No. 9591995, and to further vacate any and all orders as previously rendered by respondent-Judge Ruben in the case of In re Brittani Zammarrelli, id. In addition, the relator seeks a writ of habeas corpus in order to require the respondent, Steven R. Zammarrelli, to return Brittani Zammarrelli to the care, custody and control of the relator. The respondents have filed separate motions for summary judgment. The facts pertinent to this action, which are gleaned from the briefs as filed by the parties, are as follows: 1) In June of 1993, relator and respondent-Zammarrelli were divorced with custody of Brittani Zammarrelli being awarded to the relator; 2) On July 6, 1995, respondent-Zammarrelli filed a complaint, which alleged the dependency and neglect of Brittani Zammarrelli, in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court; 3) On July 17, 1995, respondent-Judge Ruben, granted emergency temporary custody of Brittani Zammarrelli to respondent- Zammarrelli; 4) On August 24, 1995, respondent Judge Ruben granted legal custody of Brittani Zammarrelli to respondent-Zammarrelli; 5) On September 10, 1996, the relator filed in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court a motion to vacate and/or motion to dismiss the entry for lack [of] jurisdiction with regard to the judgment which granted custody of Brittani Zammarrelli to respondent- Zammarrelli; -3- 6) On February 27, 1997, respondent-Judge Ruben denied the relator's motion to vacate/dismiss; 7) On March 25, 1997, the relator appealed to this court, in Cuyahoga App. Case No. 72248, the judgment of respondent-Judge Ruben which denied the motion to vacate/dismiss; 8) On October 8, 1997, this court dismissed the relator's appeal for lack of a final appealable order as based upon the fact that the judgment entry of November 9, 1995, was not properly signed by respondent-Judge Ruben; 9) On October 10, 1997, the relator filed, in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . The record before this court fails to disclose that respondent-Judge Ruben has rendered a ruling with regard to the motion of October 10, 1997; 10) On October 17, 1997, the relator filed, in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, a motion to vacate and/or motion to dismiss the judgment entry's [sic] for lack of jurisdiction and oral hearing requested immediately pursuant to Juvenile Rule 13". The record before this court fails to disclose that respondent-Judge Ruben has rendered a ruling with regard to the motion of October 17, 1997; 11) On October 27, 1997, the relator filed her complaint for prohibition and habeas corpus; The respondents have filed separate motions for summary -4- judgment which this court grants for the following reasons.1 The relator, through her complaint for a writ of prohibition, is attempting to prevent respondent-Judge Ruben from exercising any further jurisdiction in the underlying case of In re Brittani Zammarrelli, supra. The relator also seeks to have this court vacate all prior judgments as rendered by respondent-Judge Ruben in In re Brittani Zammarrelli, supra. In order for this court to issue a writ of prohibition, the relator must establish that: 1) the court or officer against whom the writ is sought is about to exercise judicial power; 2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and 3) the denial of the writ will cause injury to the relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 447. Herein, the relator has failed to establish the second and third prongs of the aforesaid three-part test. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject- matter jurisdiction over a claim can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the court's jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy at law through an appeal. State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A), a juvenile court possesses the jurisdiction to determine the custody of a child that is alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent. In re Poling (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 211. 1On December 12, 1997, this court converted the motion to dismiss, as filed by respondent-Judge Ruben, into a motion for summary judgment as permitted by Civ.R. 12(B). -5- Exhibit A, as attached to respondent-Zammarrelli's motion for summary judgment, contains a copy of the complaint which was filed on July 6, 1995, in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. The complaint clearly raises the allegation that Brittani Zammarrelli is DEPENDENT and NEGLECTED as defined in Section 2151.04 (C) and 2151.03 (A)(2) and (3) of the Ohio Revised Code thus conferring jurisdiction upon respondent-Judge Ruben to determine the issue of the custody of Brittani Zammarrelli. Additionally, a judgment which denies a motion to dismiss is not subject to judicial review through an action in prohibition or any other action which invokes the original jurisdiction of an appellate court. Wenzel v. Enright (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 623, paragraph one of the syllabus. The relator possesses an adequate remedy at law, which challenges the denial of her motions to dismiss, once she has obtained a final appealable order from respondent-Judge Ruben. State ex rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 335. It should also be noted that the prior dismissal of Cuyahoga App. No. 73414 was not based upon a lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent-Judge Ruben as indicated by the relator in her responsive brief. This court merely held that the judgment appealed was not a final appealable order as required by R.C. 2505.02 since the entry of November 9, 1995, was not properly signed by respondent-Judge Ruben.2 Therefore, we find 2In fact, this court, in the dismissal entry of October 8, 1997, specifically provided that the relator could seek the reinstatement of Cuyahoga App. No. 72248 upon obtaining a final appealable order. -6- that there exists no genuine issues of material fact for the trier of fact and further find that the respondents are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Thus, we decline to issue a writ of prohibition on behalf of the relator. Having found that the relator is not entitled to a writ of prohibition, we further find that the relator's request for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. State ex rel. Snider v. Stapleton (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 40; State ex rel. Richard v. Wells (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 76. Accordingly, we grant the respondents' motions for summary judgment. The prior order of this court, which stayed all proceedings in the underlying case of In re Brittani Zammarrelli, is vacated. Costs to relator. IT IS SO ORDERED. DIANE KARPINSKI, J., and LEO M. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. ___________________________________ .