In Re Knipper

Ohio Court of Appeals

In Re Knipper

528 N.E.2d 1319, 39 Ohio App. 3d 35, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10675

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 1987

DocketC-860575

StatusPublished

This text of 528 N.E.2d 1319 (In Re Knipper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Knipper, 528 N.E.2d 1319, 39 Ohio App. 3d 35, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10675 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Hamilton County. We have sua sponte removed this case from the accelerated calendar.

The appellant, Susan Butterworth, has taken the instant appeal from the judgment of the court below granting temporary custody of the subject child, James Knipper, a.k.a. James Raymond Faulkner, to the appellees, James and Nelva Knipper. On appeal, the appellant advances a single assignment of error in which she assails the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the appellees’ complaint for custody. We find this remonstration to be well-taken but not for the reasons cited by the appellant.

The juvenile court granted temporary custody of the subject child to the appellees in 1977. In 1980, upon petition by the appellees, the probate court issued a final decree of adoption. In 1985, the decree was vacated for a defect in service, and on appeal of that judgment,, we affirmed. In re Adaption of Knipper (1986), 30 Ohio App. 3d 214, 30 OBR 371, 507 N.E. 2d 436. The appellees, for reasons not demonstrated on the record, subsequently filed a new petition for temporary custody. The court below granted the petition, and the instant appeal ensued.

The abrogation of the adoption decree in probate court did not adversely affect the 1977 determina *36 tion of dependency and resultant order of temporary custody. The 1977 order granting temporary custody of the subject child to the appellees remains in full force and effect. We, therefore, determine that the court below should have dismissed the 1985 action for temporary custody as unnecessarily duplicative of the 1977 proceedings. Temporary custody remains in the ap-pellees. Accordingly, we sustain the appellant’s sole assignment of error, reverse the judgment entered below, and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the 1985 complaint for custody.

Judgment accordingly.

Klusmeier, P.J., Black and Hildebrandt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Hamilton County. We have sua sponte removed this case from the accelerated calendar.

The appellant, Susan Butterworth, has taken the instant appeal from the judgment of the court below granting temporary custody of the subject child, James Knipper, a.k.a. James Raymond Faulkner, to the appellees, James and Nelva Knipper. On appeal, the appellant advances a single assignment of error in which she assails the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the appellees’ complaint for custody. We find this remonstration to be well-taken but not for the reasons cited by the appellant.

The juvenile court granted temporary custody of the subject child to the appellees in 1977. In 1980, upon petition by the appellees, the probate court issued a final decree of adoption. In 1985, the decree was vacated for a defect in service, and on appeal of that judgment,, we affirmed. In re Adaption of Knipper (1986), 30 Ohio App. 3d 214, 30 OBR 371, 507 N.E. 2d 436. The appellees, for reasons not demonstrated on the record, subsequently filed a new petition for temporary custody. The court below granted the petition, and the instant appeal ensued.

The abrogation of the adoption decree in probate court did not adversely affect the 1977 determina *36 tion of dependency and resultant order of temporary custody. The 1977 order granting temporary custody of the subject child to the appellees remains in full force and effect. We, therefore, determine that the court below should have dismissed the 1985 action for temporary custody as unnecessarily duplicative of the 1977 proceedings. Temporary custody remains in the ap-pellees. Accordingly, we sustain the appellant’s sole assignment of error, reverse the judgment entered below, and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the 1985 complaint for custody.

Judgment accordingly.

Klusmeier, P.J., Black and Hildebrandt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 N.E.2d 1319, 39 Ohio App. 3d 35, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-knipper-ohioctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack