On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, T.B. and A.B., a married couple, filed a verified complaint with the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking a preemptory writ of mandamus and a preemptory writ of prohibition. The legal action targets Judge James W. Brown of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, and Magistrate Zebony Barranada of the same court’s Juvenile Branch. Represented by attorney Marc Fagin, the relators aim to halt a scheduled juvenile court hearing and compel the judge to retract a recent ruling.
The case stems from a jurisdictional dispute between the Franklin County Probate Court and Juvenile Court over matters involving Z.B., a child born in September 2016. T.B., Z.B.’s great-great uncle, and A.B. have been key figures in the child’s life since shortly after his birth, becoming his co-legal custodians alongside T.B.’s mother in July 2018. Z.B.’s biological mother, K.T., filed a Motion for Alternative Disposition seeking visitation rights, which Judge Brown reinstated on March 3, 2025, scheduling a hearing before Magistrate Barranada for March 28, 2025.
Court documents reveal Z.B.’s complex history. Born testing positive for multiple drugs, he was deemed abused, neglected, and dependent by the juvenile court in March 2017 following a complaint by Franklin County Children’s Services. T.B. and A.B. pursued adoption in July 2019 through the probate court, but their petition was denied in May 2023. An appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned that decision on September 24, 2024, sending the case back to probate court for a new hearing set for April 29, 2025, to determine Z.B.’s best interests.
The relators argue that Judge Brown’s reinstatement of K.T.’s motion oversteps the juvenile court’s authority while the adoption case remains active in probate court. They cite a 2023 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy, which determined that probate courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over preadoption placement issues, including parenting time, trumping juvenile court authority in such scenarios. The complaint asserts that this precedent directly applies, rendering the respondents’ actions legally unauthorized.
In their filing, T.B. and A.B. request a writ of prohibition to prevent Magistrate Barranada from proceeding with the March 28 hearing, claiming it lacks jurisdiction. They also seek a writ of mandamus to force Judge Brown to vacate his March 3 Judgment Entry, arguing he has a clear duty to do so given the probate court’s overriding authority. The relators emphasize that no adequate alternative remedy exists, as an appeal would not be timely or effective due to the impending hearing date and uncertainty over whether the entry qualifies as a final order.
The complaint highlights the urgency of the situation, noting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under the Ohio Constitution. If preemptory writs are not granted, the relators request an expedited briefing schedule to address the time constraints posed by the scheduled hearing. The filing concludes that clear and convincing evidence supports their claims, urging immediate relief to resolve the conflicting court actions.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
