The Ashtabula County Eleventh Appellate District Court has dismissed a mother’s attempt to use a writ of prohibition to overturn actions taken by a magistrate in her ongoing child custody case, concluding that she has adequate remedies available through standard legal procedures.
Katelyn Radic, the relator, sought the extraordinary writ from the appellate court to prevent Magistrate Mirela Turc Rudary from enforcing a decision that included changing custody and issuing an arrest warrant for Radic after she failed to appear in court with her child. However, the appellate court granted the magistrate’s motion to dismiss the petition, finding that Radic had not demonstrated a clear, unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, nor had she shown that she lacked other ways to challenge the magistrate’s actions.
The Custody Showdown and the Magistrate’s Order
The core of the dispute arose from an emergency hearing scheduled in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, concerning Radic’s minor child. According to Radic’s filings, she appeared at the courthouse on July 30, 2025, but without the child.
The magistrate reportedly ordered Radic’s attorney to instruct her client to retrieve the child and return immediately. When Radic left the courthouse and allegedly failed to confirm via a phone call with her attorney that she was complying and returning with the child, the magistrate took swift action. Radic alleges that the magistrate found her in “direct contempt,” issued a decision changing custody, and ordered an arrest warrant for her.
Radic immediately turned to the appellate court, filing an emergency motion—which the court construed as a petition for a writ of prohibition—arguing the magistrate was exceeding her lawful jurisdiction and causing irreparable harm to her family.
Writ of Prohibition: An Extraordinary Remedy
A writ of prohibition is a powerful legal tool designed to stop lower courts or tribunals from acting outside the scope of their legal authority. To succeed in obtaining one, a relator generally must prove three things: (1) the lower court is about to exercise unauthorized authority, (2) the exercise of that authority isn’t permitted by law, and (3) the relator has no other adequate remedy available through the normal legal process.
However, the court noted a critical exception: if a court’s lack of jurisdiction is “patent and unambiguous”—meaning it’s obvious and clear—the relator doesn’t necessarily have to prove the lack of an adequate remedy.
In this case, the respondent magistrate argued for dismissal under Civil Rule 12(B)(6) because the juvenile court, which handles custody matters, clearly has general subject matter jurisdiction over this type of case. Therefore, any alleged errors were procedural and correctable through established channels.
Jurisdiction vs. Procedure
The appellate court agreed with the magistrate. It pointed out that Radic’s petition did not challenge the juvenile court’s fundamental right to hear custody cases; rather, it challenged the specific *actions* taken during the case.
“The logic behind the foregoing proposition is that if a trial court possesses general jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, it should be allowed to determine its own jurisdiction,” the opinion stated, quoting prior case law. If the court makes a legally incorrect determination about its jurisdiction, the remedy is an appeal after a final judgment, not a writ of prohibition.
Radic argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to *immediately* issue a custody modification and an arrest warrant based on direct contempt without following proper procedures for a magistrate’s decision, which requires judicial approval.
The court dismissed this argument by referencing a recent Supreme Court of Ohio case, *State ex rel. Goldschmidt v. Triggs*. That ruling established that the improper issuance of a magistrate’s order instead of a magistrate’s decision is merely a “procedural irregularity,” not a jurisdictional defect that warrants extraordinary relief.
Adequate Remedies Exist
Since the jurisdictional defect was not patent and unambiguous, Radic had to show she lacked other adequate remedies. The court found she failed this test as well, pointing to two clear avenues:
1. Juvenile Rule 40 (Juv.R. 40): This rule governs magistrate proceedings and allows parties to file a motion to set aside a magistrate’s order and request a stay. Furthermore, a magistrate’s *decision* is not effective until the judge adopts it, providing a built-in check. Radic had not referenced or utilized these remedies.
2. Direct Appeal: Once the trial court issues a final, appealable order, Radic can appeal the ruling. The court noted that Radic had already attempted an appeal directly from the magistrate’s order, which was dismissed precisely because it was not a final judgment. The court reassured her that relief through a standard appeal would be available once the final judgment was entered.
Because Radic failed to demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction that was obvious on its face and possessed adequate alternative remedies, the appellate court granted the motion to dismiss. Radic’s petition for the writ of prohibition was dismissed, and costs were assessed against her.