DocketNumber: No. 10-05-17.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 607
Judges: CUPP, J.
Filed Date: 2/13/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Kaeli's mother, Heather Dawn Jackson (hereinafter "Heather"), died in an auto accident on March 31, 2004. In addition to Kaeli, Heather was survived by her husband, Scott Jackson (hereinafter "Scott"); her three-year-old son, Skyy Jackson (hereinafter "Skyy"); her brother-in-law, Jeffrey Zweber (hereinafter "Jeffrey"); and her sister, Debra. Scott is Kaeli's step-father, and Skyy is Kaeli's half-brother.
{¶ 3} On April 8, 2004, Debra and Jeffrey filed a complaint in the juvenile court seeking permanent residential parent status over Kaeli. In opposition, Scott filed a motion in the juvenile court which requested the same.1 On October 4, 2004, the juvenile court issued a judgment entry granting Debra and Jeffrey permanent residential parent status. The judgment entry also granted Skyy the right to visit Kaeli on specific dates.
{¶ 4} On October 22, 2004, Skyy, by and through Scott, filed a contempt citation in the juvenile court. In the citation, Skyy alleged Debra and Jeffrey violated the terms of the visitation schedule when they refused to allow Kaeli to stay with Skyy during a designated weekend visit. Notably, Debra and Jeffrey did not allow Kaeli to visit Skyy on two other occasions.
{¶ 5} Although the juvenile court scheduled a contempt hearing for November 12, 2004, it later continued the hearing to January 7, 2005. Following the continuance, Debra and Jeffrey filed a petition to adopt Kaeli in the Green County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. The probate court granted the petition and entered a final decree of adoption on December 20, 2004.
{¶ 6} Shortly thereafter, Debra and Jeffrey filed in the Mercer County Juvenile Court a motion to dismiss the contempt proceeding contending that the adoption divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. The juvenile court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding despite the adoption.
{¶ 7} The juvenile court subsequently held a contempt hearing, and on July 26, 2005, the juvenile court found Debra and Jeffrey to be in contempt. In its judgment entry, the juvenile court provided that Debra and Jeffrey could purge themselves of contempt if they made up the missed visitation time.
{¶ 8} It is from this decision that Debra appeals and sets forth three assignments of error for our review.2 For purposes of clarity, we consider Debra's first and third assignments of error together.
{¶ 9} In her first assignment of error, Debra argues R.C.
{¶ 10} R.C.
(A) A final decree of adoption * * * shall have the followingeffects as to all matters within the jurisdiction or before acourt of this state * * *: (1) Except with respect to a spouse of the petitioner andrelatives of the spouse, to relieve the biological or other legalparents of the adopted person of all parental rights andresponsibilities, and to terminate all legal relationshipsbetween the adopted person and the adopted person's relatives,including the adopted person's biological or other legal parents,so that the adopted person thereafter is a stranger to theadopted person's former relatives for all purposes * * *; [and] (2) To create the relationship of parent and child betweenpetitioner and the adopted person, as if the adopted person werea legitimate blood descendant of the petitioner, for all purposes* * *.
{¶ 11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that R.C.
{¶ 12} In the case sub judice, the juvenile court issued the judgment entry granting Skyy the right to visit Kaeli months before the probate court entered its final decree of adoption. Moreover, Debra violated the terms of the visitation schedule, and Skyy initiated the contempt proceeding, well before the probate court granted the adoption. Since all the events leading to the contempt proceeding occurred before the adoption ever transpired, the fact that the juvenile court did not find Debra in contempt until after the adoption is inconsequential.
{¶ 13} Additionally, contempt proceedings serve to further a variety of interests, including securing the dignity of the courts and ensuring the courts' authority and proper functioning.Denovcheck v. Trumbull County Commrs. (1988),
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to say R.C.
{¶ 15} Having determined the juvenile court did not lack jurisdiction, we next consider Debra's argument that the juvenile court erred in requiring her to avoid a finding of contempt by making up the missed visitations. In particular, Debra argues the juvenile court may not order her to make up those visitations because she is Kaeli's adoptive parent under R.C.
{¶ 16} The juvenile court expressly noted in the July 26, 2005 judgment entry that Debra "may" purge herself of contempt. Notably, the juvenile court did not require that Debra do so. Rather, the juvenile court presented Debra with a choice: make up the missed visitations or face a sanction.
{¶ 17} Although Debra is Kaeli's adoptive parent under R.C.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Debra's first and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 19} In her second assignment of error, Debra argues the juvenile court erred when it granted Skyy the right to visit Kaeli. Specifically, Debra argues the juvenile court erred when it granted Skyy visitation rights under R.C.
{¶ 20} Debra's argument challenges the validity of the October 4, 2004 judgment entry and not the July 26, 2005 judgment entry from which she appealed. Furthermore, the record reflects Debra failed to raise the issue in the juvenile court. An appellant that fails to bring a claimed error to the attention of the trial court cannot attempt to address that error for the first time on appeal. Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988),
{¶ 21} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed. Rogers and Shaw, J.J., concur.